LatineEnglish
Utrum Beata Virgo Maria fuerit ab originali labe immunis.
453. Libenter in hoc Dei Genetricis privilegio fusius et penitius pertractando immoraremur, nisi impositum absolvendi tractatum, quem prae manibus habemus, munus, ad alia properare nos cogeret. Exponemus itaque naturam hujus privilegii - ejus existentiam vindicabimus - attingemus denique breviter quaestionem de debito in B. V. Maria originalem maculam contrahendi.
453. We would gladly linger in treating more fully and more deeply this privilege of the Mother of God, if the duty imposed on us of completing the treatise which we have before our hands did not compel us to hasten to other matters. Therefore we shall explain the nature of this privilege; we shall vindicate its existence; finally, we shall briefly touch upon the question concerning the debt in the Blessed Virgin Mary of contracting original stain.
Sectio I.
Vera notio Immaculatae Conceptionis Beatae Mariae Virginis.
Vera notio Immaculatae Conceptionis Beatae Mariae Virginis.
SECTION I.
The True Notion of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The True Notion of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
454. S. P. Pius IX. in Constit. Ineffabilis Deus, VI Idus Decemb. anno 1854, ait: "Definimus, doctrinam, quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae Conceptionis fuisse singulari omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam."
454. Supreme Pontiff Pius IX, in the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, on December 8, 1854, says: "We define that the doctrine which holds that the most blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her Conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus, Savior of the human race, was preserved immune from every stain of original fault, has been revealed by God, and therefore is to be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful."
455. Agitur 1. de privilegio B. V. Mariae collato in primo instanti suae Conceptionis. Duplicem distinguebant veteres conceptionem, activam et passivam. Prima est ipsa actio, qua per seminis commixtionem parentes prolem efformant. Unde Bened. XIV. (de Festis, l. 2. c. 15. n. 1.) loquens de conceptione activa B. V., dicit eam esse, in qua sancti ejus parentes "opere maritali invicem convenientes praestiterunt ea, quae maxime spectabant ad ipsius corporis formationem, organizationem, et dispositionem ad recipiendam animam rationalem a Deo infundendam." Altera vero est effectus generationis activae, seu ipsa prolis efformatio.
455. The matter concerns, 1. the privilege conferred on the Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of her Conception. The ancients distinguished a twofold conception, active and passive. The first is the very action by which parents form offspring through the mingling of seed. Hence Benedict XIV (On Feasts, book 2, c. 15, n. 1), speaking of the active conception of the Blessed Virgin, says that it is that in which her holy parents, "coming together with one another in the marital act, furnished those things which chiefly looked to the formation, organization, and disposition of her body for receiving the rational soul to be infused by God." But the other is the effect of active generation, or the very formation of the offspring.
456. Conceptio passiva bifariam dispescitur; alia est enim inchoata, alia perfecta et adaequata. Prima est efformatio corporis ejusque organizationis usque ad infusionem animae: altera habetur cum corpori jam debite disposito infunditur anima, quae a Deo creatur. Scilicet docebant communiter veteres Doctores animam humanam non ab initio formationis foetus eidem uniri, sed quando est ita dispositum, ut exigat ab illa forma informari. (Vid. Rit. Rom. de Baptismo.) Conceptio passiva adaequata vocari etiam solet animatio. "Ipsa animae infusio," inquit Bened. XIV. (l. c.), "et unio cum corpore debite organizato vulgo nominatur conceptio passiva, quae scilicet fit illo ipso instanti, quo rationalis anima corpori omnibus membris ac suis organis constanti unitur."
456. Passive conception is divided in two ways; for one is begun, the other perfect and adequate. The first is the formation of the body and of its organization up to the infusion of the soul; the other is had when the soul, which is created by God, is infused into the body already duly disposed. That is, the older Doctors commonly taught that the human soul is not united to the fetus from the beginning of its formation, but when it is so disposed as to require being informed by that form. (See the Roman Ritual on Baptism.) Adequate passive conception is also usually called animation. "The very infusion of the soul," says Benedict XIV (l. c.), "and its union with a duly organized body is commonly named passive conception, which namely takes place at that very instant at which the rational soul is united to a body consisting of all its members and organs."
457. In animatione potest duplex instans, non tempore sed natura distinctum, considerari: unum, in quo anima primo a Deo creatur et corpori infunditur; aliud, in quo gratia sanctificante caeterisque donis ornatur. Quamvis enim, uti diximus, Adam statim ac conditus fuit, gratiam acceperit (quod et in posteris ejus factum esset, si in accepta justitia perseverasset); natura tamen prius est esse, quam gratia ornari.
457. In animation a twofold instant can be considered, distinct not in time but in nature: one in which the soul is first created by God and infused into the body; another in which it is adorned with sanctifying grace and the other gifts. For although, as we said, Adam, as soon as he was created, received grace (which would also have happened in his descendants if he had persevered in the justice received), nevertheless by nature it is prior to be than to be adorned with grace.
458. Quibus positis, colligimus 1. quod hic non agitur de conceptione activa - nec de passiva inchoata - sed de passiva adaequata. In hac dicitur B. V. Maria sanctificata et immunis a labe originali - et quidem in primo instanti hujus conceptionis, quatenus nec ante unionem animae cum corpore (animationem) nec ante nativitatem et aliquando post conceptionem gratiam accepit; sed quatenus nullum fuit temporis instans, in quo anima B. V. M. fuerit corpori unita, seu in quo B. V. M. extiterit, quin immaculata extiterit. Ita ex Dec. Alex. VII. 1662.
Colligimus 2. quomodo pleraque Patrum et veterum Scholasticorum dicta, quae dogmati de Immaculata Conceptione videntur contradicere, possint, ex eorum doctrina, catholico sensu explicari. Nam a) negant conceptionem B. V. M. fuisse immaculatam, sed loquuntur de conceptione activa, quae cum facta non sit absque concupiscentiae motu, quamvis omnino sancta, potest vocari peccatum eodem sensu ac ipsa concupiscentia.
b) Vel loquuntur de conceptione passiva inchoata, in qua cum nondum sit anima, nondum potest esse sanctitas. "Quoniam," ait S. Anselmus (de conc. virg. et pecc. orig. c. 3.), "injustitia non potest esse nisi ubi justitia debet esse; originale peccatum quod est injustitia, non est nisi in natura rationali. Rationalis autem natura non est nisi Deus, et Angelus, et anima hominis, per quam homo dicitur rationalis, et sine qua non est homo."
c) Vel carnem B. V. Mariae vocant carnem peccati, quatenus communi generationis via sumpta erat a carne Adami, quae erat caro peccati - quatenus fuisset peccato et concupiscentiae subjecta, nisi in instanti animationis praeventa fuisset speciali privilegio, etc.
Colligimus 2. quomodo pleraque Patrum et veterum Scholasticorum dicta, quae dogmati de Immaculata Conceptione videntur contradicere, possint, ex eorum doctrina, catholico sensu explicari. Nam a) negant conceptionem B. V. M. fuisse immaculatam, sed loquuntur de conceptione activa, quae cum facta non sit absque concupiscentiae motu, quamvis omnino sancta, potest vocari peccatum eodem sensu ac ipsa concupiscentia.
b) Vel loquuntur de conceptione passiva inchoata, in qua cum nondum sit anima, nondum potest esse sanctitas. "Quoniam," ait S. Anselmus (de conc. virg. et pecc. orig. c. 3.), "injustitia non potest esse nisi ubi justitia debet esse; originale peccatum quod est injustitia, non est nisi in natura rationali. Rationalis autem natura non est nisi Deus, et Angelus, et anima hominis, per quam homo dicitur rationalis, et sine qua non est homo."
c) Vel carnem B. V. Mariae vocant carnem peccati, quatenus communi generationis via sumpta erat a carne Adami, quae erat caro peccati - quatenus fuisset peccato et concupiscentiae subjecta, nisi in instanti animationis praeventa fuisset speciali privilegio, etc.
458. With these things posited, we gather, 1. that here the question is not of active conception, nor of begun passive conception, but of adequate passive conception. In this conception the Blessed Virgin Mary is said to have been sanctified and immune from original stain, and indeed in the first instant of this conception, insofar as she received grace neither before the union of the soul with the body (animation), nor before nativity and at some time after conception, but insofar as there was no instant of time in which the soul of the Blessed Virgin Mary was united to the body, or in which the Blessed Virgin Mary existed, without existing immaculate. Thus from the decree of Alexander VII, 1662.
We gather, 2. how very many sayings of the Fathers and of the older Scholastics, which seem to contradict the dogma concerning the Immaculate Conception, can, from their doctrine, be explained in a Catholic sense. For a) they deny that the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was immaculate, but they are speaking of active conception, which, since it was not done without a movement of concupiscence, although altogether holy, can be called sin in the same sense as concupiscence itself.
b) Or they are speaking of begun passive conception, in which, since there is not yet a soul, there cannot yet be sanctity. "Since," says St. Anselm (On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin, c. 3), "injustice cannot be except where justice ought to be; original sin, which is injustice, is not except in rational nature. But rational nature is none other than God, and an Angel, and the soul of man, through which man is called rational, and without which he is not man."
c) Or they call the flesh of the Blessed Virgin Mary flesh of sin, insofar as by the common way of generation it was taken from the flesh of Adam, which was flesh of sin; insofar as it would have been subject to sin and concupiscence unless, in the instant of animation, it had been anticipated by a special privilege, etc.
We gather, 2. how very many sayings of the Fathers and of the older Scholastics, which seem to contradict the dogma concerning the Immaculate Conception, can, from their doctrine, be explained in a Catholic sense. For a) they deny that the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was immaculate, but they are speaking of active conception, which, since it was not done without a movement of concupiscence, although altogether holy, can be called sin in the same sense as concupiscence itself.
b) Or they are speaking of begun passive conception, in which, since there is not yet a soul, there cannot yet be sanctity. "Since," says St. Anselm (On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin, c. 3), "injustice cannot be except where justice ought to be; original sin, which is injustice, is not except in rational nature. But rational nature is none other than God, and an Angel, and the soul of man, through which man is called rational, and without which he is not man."
c) Or they call the flesh of the Blessed Virgin Mary flesh of sin, insofar as by the common way of generation it was taken from the flesh of Adam, which was flesh of sin; insofar as it would have been subject to sin and concupiscence unless, in the instant of animation, it had been anticipated by a special privilege, etc.
459. II. Dicitur in cit. Const. Ineffabilis B. V. M. fuisse ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem. Jamvero originalis culpa, uti inferius dicemus, formaliter consistit in privatione gratiae sanctificantis: cum ergo B. V. Maria dicitur immunis a culpa originis, dicitur a primo suae conceptionis instanti ornata gratia sanctificante.
459. II. It is said in the cited Constitution Ineffabilis that the Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved immune from every stain of original fault. Now original fault, as we shall say below, formally consists in the privation of sanctifying grace; therefore, when the Blessed Virgin Mary is said to be immune from fault of origin, she is said to have been adorned with sanctifying grace from the first instant of her conception.
460. Ex quo colligimus quomodo cum veritate hujus dogmatis componi possint alia veterum quorumdam doctorum dicta, quae in speciem contraria videntur. Illi enim non semper clare et distincte eamdem originalis culpae, quam innuimus ideam, tradiderunt; ac proinde illis non idem erat concipi sanctum, et concipi sine labe originali. Revera "tenent a) peccatum originale magis pertinere ad naturam, quam ad personam, magis ad carnem, quam ad animam; et primo inficere carnem, postea animam per ipsam unionem cum infecta carne seminaliter concepta. b) Docent peccato originali corpus infici ex eo quod in semine certae ad justitiam originalem in prolem transfundendam requisitae dispositiones desint, quae statui innocenti inerant; animam vero ex eo, quia fit infecti corporis forma. c) Loquuntur de peccato originali, quatenus per se et principaliter inficit naturam, quod per ordinariam generationem una cum natura transfundatur; sitque ab ordinaria generatione, non per Christi gratiam, sed per solam vulneris naturae in parentibus curationem separabile; per accidens vero et consequenter de eodem loquuntur ut derivato in animam et personam, per solam gratiae infusionem curabili. d) Negant peccato originali de quo disserunt, opponi directe gratiam. e) Loquuntur de peccato originali, a quo immunitas potuerit haberi, non per gratiam, sed aliis omnino modis quos ipsi recensent. f) Verba faciunt de peccato originali, cujus contagium per gratiam quae nunc datur, totaliter auferri non potest, nisi per extraordinariam gratiam defectus contagionis naturae tollatur a parentibus. g) Agunt demum de peccato originali, a quo nec ipsum Verbum incarnatum, si ordinario modo conceptum fuisset, potuisset esse liberum. Contra vero qui sententiam piam propugnant nihil horum admittunt, nec tali sensu eam adstruunt." Vid. Perrone (de Immaculato B. V. Mariae conceptu - Romae 1847. pag. 15. et 169.)
460. From this we gather how other sayings of certain older doctors, which appear contrary on the surface, can be composed with the truth of this dogma. For they did not always hand down clearly and distinctly the same idea of original fault which we have indicated; and therefore for them to be conceived holy and to be conceived without original stain were not the same. In reality "they hold a) that original sin pertains more to nature than to person, more to flesh than to soul; and that first it infects the flesh, afterward the soul through the very union with infected flesh seminally conceived. b) They teach that the body is infected by original sin from the fact that in the seed certain dispositions required for transfusing original injustice into the offspring are lacking, which dispositions were present in the innocent state; but that the soul is infected from this, that it becomes the form of an infected body. c) They speak of original sin insofar as of itself and principally it infects nature, which is transfused together with nature through ordinary generation; and is separable from ordinary generation not through the grace of Christ, but through the healing alone of the wound of nature in the parents; but accidentally and consequently they speak of the same as derived into the soul and person, curable by the infusion of grace alone. d) They deny that grace is directly opposed to the original sin about which they are disputing. e) They speak of original sin from which immunity could have been had not through grace, but in entirely other ways which they themselves enumerate. f) They speak of original sin whose contagion cannot be totally removed through the grace which is now given, unless by extraordinary grace the defect of the contagion of nature is removed from the parents. g) Finally, they treat of original sin from which not even the incarnate Word himself, if he had been conceived in the ordinary way, could have been free. But on the contrary, those who defend the pious opinion admit none of these things, nor do they establish it in such a sense." See Perrone (On the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Rome, 1847, pp. 15 and 169).
461. III. Dicitur in praefata Const. B. V. M. fuisse praeservatam immunem a labe originis intuitu meritorum Christi. Quod, ut intelligatur, duplex distinguenda est redemptio in Christo et per Christum: una reparativa, qua quis liberatur a malo, in quod inciderat; alia, qua quis praeservatur a malo, in quod incideret, nisi per Christi merita praeventus fuisset.
461. III. It is said in the aforesaid Constitution that the Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved immune from the stain of origin in view of the merits of Christ. In order that this may be understood, a twofold redemption in Christ and through Christ must be distinguished: one reparative, by which someone is freed from an evil into which he had fallen; the other, by which someone is preserved from an evil into which he would have fallen unless he had been anticipated through the merits of Christ.
462. Idea redemptionis praeservativae traditur a Scriptura et a Patribus. Nam Ps. 85. dicit Propheta: "Eruisti animam meam de inferno inferiori." - et Ps. 143.: "Redemisti servum tuum de gladio maligno." Nec tamen in infernum inferiorem Propheta ceciderat, aut a gladio maligno caesus fuerat; sed quia periculum erat ne id fieret, et gratia Dei periculum illud evaserat, ideo gratias agit, dicens: "Eruisti, etc."
In quem locum S. Augustinus ait: "Quemadmodum si medicus videat tibi imminentem aegritudinem forte ex aliquo labore, et dicat, parce tibi, sic te tracta, requiesce, his cibis utere, nam si non feceris, aegrotabis: tu autem si feceris, et salvus eris, recte dicis medico, liberasti me ab aegritudine, non in qua jam eras, sed in qua futurus eras. Nescio quis habens causam molestam, mittendus erat in carcerem, venit alius, defendit eum, gratias agens, quid dicit? eruisti animam meam de carcere. Suspendendus erat debitor, solutum est pro eo, liberatus dicitur de suspendio. In his omnibus non erant, sed quia talibus meritis agebantur, ut nisi subventum esset, ibi essent, inde se recte dicunt liberari, quo per liberatores suos non sunt permissi perduci."
In quem locum S. Augustinus ait: "Quemadmodum si medicus videat tibi imminentem aegritudinem forte ex aliquo labore, et dicat, parce tibi, sic te tracta, requiesce, his cibis utere, nam si non feceris, aegrotabis: tu autem si feceris, et salvus eris, recte dicis medico, liberasti me ab aegritudine, non in qua jam eras, sed in qua futurus eras. Nescio quis habens causam molestam, mittendus erat in carcerem, venit alius, defendit eum, gratias agens, quid dicit? eruisti animam meam de carcere. Suspendendus erat debitor, solutum est pro eo, liberatus dicitur de suspendio. In his omnibus non erant, sed quia talibus meritis agebantur, ut nisi subventum esset, ibi essent, inde se recte dicunt liberari, quo per liberatores suos non sunt permissi perduci."
462. The idea of preservative redemption is handed down by Scripture and by the Fathers. For in Psalm 85 the Prophet says: "You have rescued my soul from the lower hell." - And in Psalm 143: "You have redeemed your servant from the evil sword." Yet the Prophet had not fallen into the lower hell, nor had he been struck by the evil sword; but because there was danger that this would happen, and by the grace of God he had escaped that danger, therefore he gives thanks, saying: "You have rescued, etc."
On this passage St. Augustine says: "Just as if a physician should see a sickness threatening you perhaps from some labor, and should say, spare yourself, treat yourself so, rest, use these foods, for if you do not do it, you will become sick; but if you do it, and you will be healthy, you rightly say to the physician, you freed me from sickness, not one in which you already were, but one in which you were going to be. Someone having a troublesome case was going to be sent into prison; another came and defended him. Giving thanks, what does he say? You rescued my soul from prison. A debtor was going to be hanged; payment was made for him, and he is said to have been freed from hanging. In all these cases they were not in those things; but because, by such merits, they were being brought to the point that unless aid had been given, they would be there, they rightly say that they are freed from that to which they were not permitted to be brought by their liberators."
On this passage St. Augustine says: "Just as if a physician should see a sickness threatening you perhaps from some labor, and should say, spare yourself, treat yourself so, rest, use these foods, for if you do not do it, you will become sick; but if you do it, and you will be healthy, you rightly say to the physician, you freed me from sickness, not one in which you already were, but one in which you were going to be. Someone having a troublesome case was going to be sent into prison; another came and defended him. Giving thanks, what does he say? You rescued my soul from prison. A debtor was going to be hanged; payment was made for him, and he is said to have been freed from hanging. In all these cases they were not in those things; but because, by such merits, they were being brought to the point that unless aid had been given, they would be there, they rightly say that they are freed from that to which they were not permitted to be brought by their liberators."
463. Jamvero, cum B. V. M. fuerit immunis a culpa originis, non indiguit redemptione reparativa; sed, cum habuerit debitum saltem remotum, ut dicemus, illam contrahendi, indiguit redemptione praeservativa; ac propterea merito dicitur immunis a culpa originis intuitu meritorum Christi.
463. Now, since the Blessed Virgin Mary was immune from fault of origin, she did not need reparative redemption; but, since she had at least a remote debt, as we shall say, of contracting it, she needed preservative redemption; and for this reason she is deservedly said to be immune from fault of origin in view of the merits of Christ.
464. Ex quo colligimus iterum a) quomodo nihil faciant contra hoc dogma dicta illa Patrum "excepta carne Christi omnem reliquam humanam carnem esse carnem peccati." - "Solum Christum fuisse absque peccato" - vel "vi suae conceptionis a peccato immunem, etc." Haec et similia significant solum Christum virtute sua fuisse semper sanctum, et caruisse ipso debito contrahendi peccatum: quod non impedit quominus B. V. Maria etsi habuerit debitum contrahendi peccatum, illud tamen per Christi merita numquam contraxerit.
b) Quomodo stet veritas ab Apostolo praedicata "in quo omnes peccaverunt" - "in omnes homines, etc." - "omnes mortui sunt, etc." Si haec et similia testimonia intelliguntur, vel de debito vel de actu habent omnimodam universalitatem quoad omnes, qui ab Adamo descendunt via ordinariae generationis. Sin vero de actu intelligantur habent universalitatem sub conditione nisi de aliqua exceptione constet. Unde Conc. Trid. sess. 5. postquam docuerit Adamum suum peccatum "in omne genus humanum transfudisse" - "peccatum Adae propagatione transfusum omnibus," etc.; haud censuit huic universalitati obstare exceptionem in B. V. Maria, declarans "non esse suae intentionis comprehendere in hoc decreto, ubi de peccato agitur B. et immaculatam V. Mariam."
b) Quomodo stet veritas ab Apostolo praedicata "in quo omnes peccaverunt" - "in omnes homines, etc." - "omnes mortui sunt, etc." Si haec et similia testimonia intelliguntur, vel de debito vel de actu habent omnimodam universalitatem quoad omnes, qui ab Adamo descendunt via ordinariae generationis. Sin vero de actu intelligantur habent universalitatem sub conditione nisi de aliqua exceptione constet. Unde Conc. Trid. sess. 5. postquam docuerit Adamum suum peccatum "in omne genus humanum transfudisse" - "peccatum Adae propagatione transfusum omnibus," etc.; haud censuit huic universalitati obstare exceptionem in B. V. Maria, declarans "non esse suae intentionis comprehendere in hoc decreto, ubi de peccato agitur B. et immaculatam V. Mariam."
464. From this we gather again, a) how those sayings of the Fathers do nothing against this dogma: "excepting the flesh of Christ, all the remaining human flesh is flesh of sin"; "Christ alone was without sin"; or "immune from sin by the force of his conception," etc. These and similar sayings signify that Christ alone by his own power was always holy and lacked the very debt of contracting sin. This does not prevent the Blessed Virgin Mary, although she had the debt of contracting sin, from nevertheless never having contracted it through the merits of Christ.
b) We gather how the truth preached by the Apostle stands: "in whom all sinned"; "unto all men," etc.; "all died," etc. If these and similar testimonies are understood either of debt or of act, they have complete universality with respect to all who descend from Adam by the way of ordinary generation. But if they are understood of act, they have universality under the condition unless some exception is established. Hence the Council of Trent, session 5, after teaching that Adam transfused his sin "into the whole human race," and that "the sin of Adam transfused by propagation is in all," etc., did not judge the exception in the Blessed Virgin Mary to stand in the way of this universality, declaring that "it was not its intention to include in this decree, where sin is being treated, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary."
This chunk distinguishes active conception, begun passive conception, adequate passive conception, and animation. The translation keeps those technical distinctions literal, since the argument about the first instant of Mary's conception depends on them.
b) We gather how the truth preached by the Apostle stands: "in whom all sinned"; "unto all men," etc.; "all died," etc. If these and similar testimonies are understood either of debt or of act, they have complete universality with respect to all who descend from Adam by the way of ordinary generation. But if they are understood of act, they have universality under the condition unless some exception is established. Hence the Council of Trent, session 5, after teaching that Adam transfused his sin "into the whole human race," and that "the sin of Adam transfused by propagation is in all," etc., did not judge the exception in the Blessed Virgin Mary to stand in the way of this universality, declaring that "it was not its intention to include in this decree, where sin is being treated, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary."
This chunk distinguishes active conception, begun passive conception, adequate passive conception, and animation. The translation keeps those technical distinctions literal, since the argument about the first instant of Mary's conception depends on them.
465. His itaque praestitutis, quae in hoc articulo proposita est
PROP. XXXVIII. Beatissima Virgo Maria ex primo suae Conceptionis instanti, intuitu meritorum Christi, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservata fuit immunis.
Prob. I. Gen. 3. 15. post protoparentum lapsum, serpentem seu diabolum sub ejus forma factum visibilem ita alloquitur Deus: "Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius: ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus."
Antequam ex hoc testimonio ad rem nostram arguamus, nonnulla ad ejus intelligentiam praemittenda sunt. 1. Ac imprimis, dubitat nemo cit. testimonium continere primam promissionem futuri hominum Salvatoris Jesu Christi: unde merito a majoribus proteuangelion dictum est. Duplici autem, ut legenti patet, constat pericope: prima "inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, semen tuum et semen illius" - altera "ipsa conteret, etc."
2. Scopus prophetiae, quae in citatis verbis continetur, est opponere opus reparationis operi destructionis. Scilicet serpens amicitiam cum muliere, Eva, jungens semen ejus in ruinam traxit; inimicitia praedicitur alterius mulieris, Mariae, et seminis ejus contra serpentem: haec inimicitia incipiet reparationis opus.
3. Relatio consideranda est B. V. Mariae tum ad Filium suum, tum ad humani generis hostem. In toto enim reparationis opere ostenditur mulier semper divisa a serpente ejusque semine; semper e contra cum Christo conjuncta, eademque ardens inimicitia contra serpentem ejusque progeniem.
Haec non modo evidentia sunt ex ipsis verbis citati textus, sed insuper confirmantur ex sensu traditionali. S. Jo. Chrys. (Hom. 18. in Gen. n. 7.), inducit Deum ita serpentem alloquentem: "Neque hoc contentus ero, quod super terram reptes, sed et inimicam foederisque nesciam faciam tibi mulierem, neque eam solam, sed et semen ejus semini tuo hostem perpetuum faciam." - Proclus, discipulus ac successor S. Jo. Chrysostomi, daemones in B. Virginem conjurantes describit (Orat. 7. in Dei Gen. 17.): "Quid igitur? Desistemusne ab insidiis, quia ipsa digna facta est custodia magna? Recedendumne a naturali inimicitia, quia superno ipso tegitur auxilio?" Qui deinceps paulo post comparata B. Virgine cum Eva, ita rursum daemones inter se colloquentes inducit: "Enimvero iterumne cum secunda Eva nobis instat certamen? Instruendane acies adversus impollutam mulierem?" - Vetus Auctor homiliae in Annunciationem Deiparae (inter opera S. Jo. Chrys.): "Ave nunc igitur, et exulta. Ave et conculca serpentis caput. Ave O gratia plena, cessavit enim maledictio, expulsa est corruptio; tristia emarcuerunt, laeta florent, adest bonum a prophetis olim praedictum." - Vetus Auctor epistolae De viro perfecto Hieronymo adscriptae (in append. opp. S. Hieron.): "Mater itaque Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in illa jam tunc muliere promissa est. Haec inimicitiis opposita est serpentis: Ponam, inquit, inimicitias inter te et mulierem: non certe pono dicit, ne ad Evam hoc pertinere videretur. Verbum promissionis est, quod transmittitur in futuro. Ponam, inquit, inimicitias inter te et mulierem. Illam utique mulierem, quae Salvatorem parturiat, non quae generet fratricidam. Ponam, inquit, inimicitias inter te et mulierem, id est, suscitabo mulierem, quae repudiata facilitate credendi, non solum te non audiat, etc."
Quoad 2um autem incisum, notandum est 1. magnam esse controversiam de subjecto orationis; non enim satis constat utrum legendum sit Ipsa (mulier) vel Ipse (Christus), aut Ipsum (semen). P. Patrizi (de Immaculata Mariae origine a Deo praedicta disquisitio, part. 1. § 1.) accurate recenset textus omnes, editiones, versiones mss., quae habent aut ipsum et ipse, aut ipsa.
2. Quidquid sit de hac controversia, certum est, quod lectio latina "Ipsa conteret caput tuum" haberi debet tamquam lectio Ecclesiastica; per plura enim saecula tum privatim, tum publice admissa fuit in Ecclesia: propterea sensus, quem prae se fert, verus est, et retinendus.
3. Imo eadem lectio "Ipsa" haberi etiam debet uti lectio aequivalenter biblica. Etenim secundum incisum refert exitum illarum inimicitiarum, quas Deus statuit inter mulierem ejusque semen, et serpentem ejusque semen: exitus autem est victoria relata in serpentem. Ergo quemadmodum mulier semper est cum suo semine conjuncta in inimicitia contra serpentem, a quo est consequenter divisa; ita etiam in ipsa victoria. - Revera parallelismus inter ordinem ruinae et salutis perfectus - Patrum testimonia - usus liturgicus postulant ut mulier cum suo semine conjuncta in inimicitia contra serpentem, a suo semine non separetur in victoria.
Quare perinde est ad rem nostram, sive legatur Ipsa sive legatur Ipse vel Ipsum: si enim legitur Ipsa cum vulgata latina, sensus est quod mulier virtute seminis sui, nempe Christi, plenum referet triumphum de humani generis hoste; si autem legitur Ipsum aut Ipse, uti textus hebraicus ac samaritanus nec non versio alexandrina prae se ferunt, sensus est, quod Christus cum muliere plene de daemone triumphabit.
Unde merito Cornelius a Lapide in h. l. scribit: "cum Deus hic opponat, quasi antagonistas, mulierem cum suo semine, serpenti cum suo semine, consequenter vult dicere, mulierem cum suo semine contrituram caput serpentis: sicut e contrario serpens tam mulieris quam seminis ejus calcaneo insidiatur."
Quibus positis, multiplex ex citatis verbis desumi potest argumentum. Nam a) Praenunciatur identitas inimicitiarum inter semen mulieris et daemonem, et inimicitiarum inter daemonem et mulierem ipsam. Atqui inimicitiae inter semen mulieris, Christum, et daemonem absolutae sunt et perpetuae, quaeque nullam praecedentem amicitiam admittunt. Ergo. Sed tales non fuissent hae inimicitiae, si vel uno instanti B. V. Maria fuisset in peccato; per peccatum enim anima fit inimica Dei et amica daemonis, uti patet. Ergo.
b) Deus praenuntians inimicitias inter mulierem et serpentem non determinat tempus neque modum, sed dicit simpliciter inimicitias, inimicitias antonomastice. Quo loquendi modo significat hujusmodi inimicitias semper vigere, pugnam esse sine intermissione, ita ut sensus revera sit: mulier haec est et semper erit inimica tua, et ipsa conteret caput tuum. Atqui haec minime vera essent, si mulier vel uno instanti infecta fuisset peccato. Ergo.
c) Fit certe in citato testimonio congredientium distributio, qua ex una parte ponitur mulier cum suo semine, ex alia serpens cum suo semine. Atqui haec distributio non esset accurata, nec undequaque vera, si B. V. Maria vel uno instanti fuisset in peccato; eo enim instanti non fuisset cum Christo, sed cum serpente. Ergo.
d) Hinc patet, quod ea, quae de muliere praenunciantur non possunt intelligi solum de quadam mirabili sanctitate illius. Nam textus loquitur de duplici ordine, restitutionis et destructionis: mulier autem cum suo semine erit in ordine restitutionis; serpens e contra cum suo semine erit in ordine destructionis; ubicumque est semen mulieris, ibi erit mulier contra serpentem; ubicumque erit serpens contra semen mulieris, ibi erit et contra mulierem. Ergo quemadmodum Christus, semen mulieris, semper est extra ordinem ruinae, ita et mulier. Atqui si ageretur solum de mirabili quadam B. V. Mariae sanctitate absque exemptione a culpa originali, ipsa aliquando fuisset in ordine destructionis et ruinae. Ergo.
e) Triumphus de serpente ejusque semine communis et identicus est Christo et Mariae; sed Christi triumphus fuit perfectus, semper enim contrivit caput serpentis ejus calcaneo insidiantis; ergo et Mariae triumphus perfectus fuit, ac proinde numquam daemonis imperio subjacuit. Solum discrimen inter Matrem et Filium est in eo, quod Christus virtute sua, Maria virtute Filii triumphum de serpente retulit.
PROP. XXXVIII. Beatissima Virgo Maria ex primo suae Conceptionis instanti, intuitu meritorum Christi, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservata fuit immunis.
Prob. I. Gen. 3. 15. post protoparentum lapsum, serpentem seu diabolum sub ejus forma factum visibilem ita alloquitur Deus: "Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius: ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus."
Antequam ex hoc testimonio ad rem nostram arguamus, nonnulla ad ejus intelligentiam praemittenda sunt. 1. Ac imprimis, dubitat nemo cit. testimonium continere primam promissionem futuri hominum Salvatoris Jesu Christi: unde merito a majoribus proteuangelion dictum est. Duplici autem, ut legenti patet, constat pericope: prima "inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, semen tuum et semen illius" - altera "ipsa conteret, etc."
2. Scopus prophetiae, quae in citatis verbis continetur, est opponere opus reparationis operi destructionis. Scilicet serpens amicitiam cum muliere, Eva, jungens semen ejus in ruinam traxit; inimicitia praedicitur alterius mulieris, Mariae, et seminis ejus contra serpentem: haec inimicitia incipiet reparationis opus.
3. Relatio consideranda est B. V. Mariae tum ad Filium suum, tum ad humani generis hostem. In toto enim reparationis opere ostenditur mulier semper divisa a serpente ejusque semine; semper e contra cum Christo conjuncta, eademque ardens inimicitia contra serpentem ejusque progeniem.
Haec non modo evidentia sunt ex ipsis verbis citati textus, sed insuper confirmantur ex sensu traditionali. S. Jo. Chrys. (Hom. 18. in Gen. n. 7.), inducit Deum ita serpentem alloquentem: "Neque hoc contentus ero, quod super terram reptes, sed et inimicam foederisque nesciam faciam tibi mulierem, neque eam solam, sed et semen ejus semini tuo hostem perpetuum faciam." - Proclus, discipulus ac successor S. Jo. Chrysostomi, daemones in B. Virginem conjurantes describit (Orat. 7. in Dei Gen. 17.): "Quid igitur? Desistemusne ab insidiis, quia ipsa digna facta est custodia magna? Recedendumne a naturali inimicitia, quia superno ipso tegitur auxilio?" Qui deinceps paulo post comparata B. Virgine cum Eva, ita rursum daemones inter se colloquentes inducit: "Enimvero iterumne cum secunda Eva nobis instat certamen? Instruendane acies adversus impollutam mulierem?" - Vetus Auctor homiliae in Annunciationem Deiparae (inter opera S. Jo. Chrys.): "Ave nunc igitur, et exulta. Ave et conculca serpentis caput. Ave O gratia plena, cessavit enim maledictio, expulsa est corruptio; tristia emarcuerunt, laeta florent, adest bonum a prophetis olim praedictum." - Vetus Auctor epistolae De viro perfecto Hieronymo adscriptae (in append. opp. S. Hieron.): "Mater itaque Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in illa jam tunc muliere promissa est. Haec inimicitiis opposita est serpentis: Ponam, inquit, inimicitias inter te et mulierem: non certe pono dicit, ne ad Evam hoc pertinere videretur. Verbum promissionis est, quod transmittitur in futuro. Ponam, inquit, inimicitias inter te et mulierem. Illam utique mulierem, quae Salvatorem parturiat, non quae generet fratricidam. Ponam, inquit, inimicitias inter te et mulierem, id est, suscitabo mulierem, quae repudiata facilitate credendi, non solum te non audiat, etc."
Quoad 2um autem incisum, notandum est 1. magnam esse controversiam de subjecto orationis; non enim satis constat utrum legendum sit Ipsa (mulier) vel Ipse (Christus), aut Ipsum (semen). P. Patrizi (de Immaculata Mariae origine a Deo praedicta disquisitio, part. 1. § 1.) accurate recenset textus omnes, editiones, versiones mss., quae habent aut ipsum et ipse, aut ipsa.
2. Quidquid sit de hac controversia, certum est, quod lectio latina "Ipsa conteret caput tuum" haberi debet tamquam lectio Ecclesiastica; per plura enim saecula tum privatim, tum publice admissa fuit in Ecclesia: propterea sensus, quem prae se fert, verus est, et retinendus.
3. Imo eadem lectio "Ipsa" haberi etiam debet uti lectio aequivalenter biblica. Etenim secundum incisum refert exitum illarum inimicitiarum, quas Deus statuit inter mulierem ejusque semen, et serpentem ejusque semen: exitus autem est victoria relata in serpentem. Ergo quemadmodum mulier semper est cum suo semine conjuncta in inimicitia contra serpentem, a quo est consequenter divisa; ita etiam in ipsa victoria. - Revera parallelismus inter ordinem ruinae et salutis perfectus - Patrum testimonia - usus liturgicus postulant ut mulier cum suo semine conjuncta in inimicitia contra serpentem, a suo semine non separetur in victoria.
Quare perinde est ad rem nostram, sive legatur Ipsa sive legatur Ipse vel Ipsum: si enim legitur Ipsa cum vulgata latina, sensus est quod mulier virtute seminis sui, nempe Christi, plenum referet triumphum de humani generis hoste; si autem legitur Ipsum aut Ipse, uti textus hebraicus ac samaritanus nec non versio alexandrina prae se ferunt, sensus est, quod Christus cum muliere plene de daemone triumphabit.
Unde merito Cornelius a Lapide in h. l. scribit: "cum Deus hic opponat, quasi antagonistas, mulierem cum suo semine, serpenti cum suo semine, consequenter vult dicere, mulierem cum suo semine contrituram caput serpentis: sicut e contrario serpens tam mulieris quam seminis ejus calcaneo insidiatur."
Quibus positis, multiplex ex citatis verbis desumi potest argumentum. Nam a) Praenunciatur identitas inimicitiarum inter semen mulieris et daemonem, et inimicitiarum inter daemonem et mulierem ipsam. Atqui inimicitiae inter semen mulieris, Christum, et daemonem absolutae sunt et perpetuae, quaeque nullam praecedentem amicitiam admittunt. Ergo. Sed tales non fuissent hae inimicitiae, si vel uno instanti B. V. Maria fuisset in peccato; per peccatum enim anima fit inimica Dei et amica daemonis, uti patet. Ergo.
b) Deus praenuntians inimicitias inter mulierem et serpentem non determinat tempus neque modum, sed dicit simpliciter inimicitias, inimicitias antonomastice. Quo loquendi modo significat hujusmodi inimicitias semper vigere, pugnam esse sine intermissione, ita ut sensus revera sit: mulier haec est et semper erit inimica tua, et ipsa conteret caput tuum. Atqui haec minime vera essent, si mulier vel uno instanti infecta fuisset peccato. Ergo.
c) Fit certe in citato testimonio congredientium distributio, qua ex una parte ponitur mulier cum suo semine, ex alia serpens cum suo semine. Atqui haec distributio non esset accurata, nec undequaque vera, si B. V. Maria vel uno instanti fuisset in peccato; eo enim instanti non fuisset cum Christo, sed cum serpente. Ergo.
d) Hinc patet, quod ea, quae de muliere praenunciantur non possunt intelligi solum de quadam mirabili sanctitate illius. Nam textus loquitur de duplici ordine, restitutionis et destructionis: mulier autem cum suo semine erit in ordine restitutionis; serpens e contra cum suo semine erit in ordine destructionis; ubicumque est semen mulieris, ibi erit mulier contra serpentem; ubicumque erit serpens contra semen mulieris, ibi erit et contra mulierem. Ergo quemadmodum Christus, semen mulieris, semper est extra ordinem ruinae, ita et mulier. Atqui si ageretur solum de mirabili quadam B. V. Mariae sanctitate absque exemptione a culpa originali, ipsa aliquando fuisset in ordine destructionis et ruinae. Ergo.
e) Triumphus de serpente ejusque semine communis et identicus est Christo et Mariae; sed Christi triumphus fuit perfectus, semper enim contrivit caput serpentis ejus calcaneo insidiantis; ergo et Mariae triumphus perfectus fuit, ac proinde numquam daemonis imperio subjacuit. Solum discrimen inter Matrem et Filium est in eo, quod Christus virtute sua, Maria virtute Filii triumphum de serpente retulit.
465. Therefore, with these things set forth, the question which was proposed in this article is
PROPOSITION XXXVIII. The most Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first instant of her Conception, in view of the merits of Christ, was preserved immune from every stain of original fault.
Proof I. Genesis 3:15, after the fall of the first parents, has God address the serpent, or the devil made visible under its form, in this way: "I will put enmities between you and the woman, and your seed and her seed: she shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for her heel."
Before we argue from this testimony to our matter, some points must be placed first for understanding it. 1. And first of all, no one doubts that the cited testimony contains the first promise of the future Savior of human beings, Jesus Christ; hence it is deservedly called by our elders the proteuangelion, the first gospel. But, as is clear to the reader, it consists of a twofold passage: the first, "I will put enmities between you and the woman, your seed and her seed"; the other, "she shall crush," etc.
2. The purpose of the prophecy contained in the cited words is to oppose the work of reparation to the work of destruction. That is, the serpent, joining friendship with the woman, Eve, drew her seed into ruin; the enmity of another woman, Mary, and of her seed against the serpent is foretold. This enmity will begin the work of reparation.
3. The relation of the Blessed Virgin Mary must be considered both to her Son and to the enemy of the human race. For in the whole work of reparation the woman is shown as always divided from the serpent and its seed; always, on the contrary, joined with Christ, and burning with the same enmity against the serpent and its progeny.
These things are not only evident from the very words of the cited text, but are further confirmed from the traditional sense. St. John Chrysostom (Homily 18 on Genesis, n. 7) introduces God addressing the serpent thus: "Nor will I be content with this, that you crawl upon the earth, but I will also make the woman an enemy to you and ignorant of your covenant; and not her alone, but also her seed I will make a perpetual enemy to your seed." - Proclus, disciple and successor of St. John Chrysostom, describes the demons conspiring against the Blessed Virgin (Oration 7 on the Mother of God, 17): "What then? Shall we desist from plots because she has been made worthy of a great guard? Must we withdraw from natural enmity because she is covered by heavenly help itself?" Then a little afterward, having compared the Blessed Virgin with Eve, he again introduces the demons conversing among themselves in this way: "Indeed, then, does battle again press upon us with the second Eve? Must a battle line be drawn up against the unstained woman?" - An old author of a homily on the Annunciation of the Mother of God (among the works of St. John Chrysostom): "Hail now therefore, and exult. Hail, and trample the head of the serpent. Hail, O full of grace, for the curse has ceased, corruption has been expelled; sad things have withered, joyful things bloom, the good long ago foretold by the prophets is present." - An old author of the epistle On the Perfect Man ascribed to Jerome (in the appendix to the works of St. Jerome): "Therefore the Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ was promised already then in that woman. She is opposed to the enmities of the serpent: I will put, he says, enmities between you and the woman. He certainly does not say, I put, lest this should seem to pertain to Eve. It is a word of promise, which is transmitted into the future. I will put, he says, enmities between you and the woman. Surely that woman who would bring forth the Savior, not the one who would beget the fratricide. I will put, he says, enmities between you and the woman, that is, I shall raise up a woman who, having rejected facility in believing, not only does not listen to you, etc."
But with regard to the second clause, it must be noted, 1. that there is a great controversy concerning the subject of the sentence; for it is not sufficiently clear whether one should read Ipsa (the woman), or Ipse (Christ), or Ipsum (the seed). Fr. Patrizi (Inquiry Concerning the Immaculate Origin of Mary Foretold by God, part 1, § 1) accurately reviews all the texts, editions, and manuscript versions which have either ipsum and ipse, or ipsa.
2. Whatever may be the case concerning this controversy, it is certain that the Latin reading "She shall crush your head" must be held as an ecclesiastical reading; for through many centuries it was admitted in the Church both privately and publicly. Therefore the sense which it presents is true and must be retained.
3. Indeed, the same reading Ipsa, "she," must also be held as an equivalently biblical reading. For the second clause reports the outcome of those enmities which God established between the woman and her seed, and the serpent and its seed; but the outcome is victory won over the serpent. Therefore, just as the woman is always joined with her seed in enmity against the serpent, from whom she is consequently divided, so also she is joined in the victory itself. - In reality, the perfect parallelism between the order of ruin and the order of salvation, the testimonies of the Fathers, and liturgical use demand that the woman joined with her seed in enmity against the serpent not be separated from her seed in victory.
Wherefore it is the same for our matter whether Ipsa, Ipse, or Ipsum is read. For if Ipsa is read with the Latin Vulgate, the sense is that the woman, by the power of her seed, namely Christ, will bear away full triumph over the enemy of the human race. But if Ipsum or Ipse is read, as the Hebrew and Samaritan text as well as the Alexandrian version present, the sense is that Christ together with the woman will triumph fully over the devil.
Hence Cornelius a Lapide deservedly writes on this place: "Since God here opposes, as antagonists, the woman with her seed to the serpent with its seed, he consequently means to say that the woman with her seed will crush the head of the serpent; just as, conversely, the serpent lies in wait for the heel both of the woman and of her seed."
With these things posited, a manifold argument can be drawn from the cited words. For a) the identity is foretold of the enmities between the seed of the woman and the devil, and of the enmities between the devil and the woman herself. But the enmities between the seed of the woman, Christ, and the devil are absolute and perpetual, and admit no preceding friendship. Therefore. But these enmities would not have been such if even for one instant the Blessed Virgin Mary had been in sin; for through sin the soul becomes an enemy of God and a friend of the devil, as is clear. Therefore.
b) God, foretelling enmities between the woman and the serpent, determines neither time nor mode, but says simply enmities, enmities antonomastically. By this mode of speaking he signifies that enmities of this sort always flourish, that the struggle is without interruption, so that the sense truly is: this woman is and always will be your enemy, and she shall crush your head. But these things would by no means be true if the woman had been infected by sin even for one instant. Therefore.
c) Certainly in the cited testimony there is made a distribution of the combatants, by which on one side the woman is placed with her seed, and on the other the serpent with its seed. But this distribution would not be accurate, nor true from every angle, if the Blessed Virgin Mary had been in sin even for one instant; for in that instant she would not have been with Christ, but with the serpent. Therefore.
d) Hence it is clear that the things foretold concerning the woman cannot be understood only of a certain marvelous sanctity of hers. For the text speaks of a twofold order, of restoration and of destruction: the woman with her seed will be in the order of restoration; the serpent, on the contrary, with its seed will be in the order of destruction; wherever the seed of the woman is, there the woman will be against the serpent; wherever the serpent will be against the seed of the woman, there it will also be against the woman. Therefore, just as Christ, the seed of the woman, is always outside the order of ruin, so also is the woman. But if the matter concerned only a certain marvelous sanctity of the Blessed Virgin Mary without exemption from original fault, she at some time would have been in the order of destruction and ruin. Therefore.
e) The triumph over the serpent and its seed is common and identical to Christ and Mary; but the triumph of Christ was perfect, for he always crushed the head of the serpent lying in wait for his heel. Therefore Mary's triumph also was perfect, and consequently she was never subject to the dominion of the devil. The only difference between Mother and Son is in this: that Christ by his own power, Mary by the power of her Son, bore away triumph over the serpent.
The Latin treats the Genesis 3:15 reading Ipsa/Ipse/Ipsum as a textual controversy, but argues that the Marian sense stands either way because of the woman's inseparability from her seed in enmity and victory. I have preserved the Latin pronouns in transliteration where the argument turns on their form.
PROPOSITION XXXVIII. The most Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first instant of her Conception, in view of the merits of Christ, was preserved immune from every stain of original fault.
Proof I. Genesis 3:15, after the fall of the first parents, has God address the serpent, or the devil made visible under its form, in this way: "I will put enmities between you and the woman, and your seed and her seed: she shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for her heel."
Before we argue from this testimony to our matter, some points must be placed first for understanding it. 1. And first of all, no one doubts that the cited testimony contains the first promise of the future Savior of human beings, Jesus Christ; hence it is deservedly called by our elders the proteuangelion, the first gospel. But, as is clear to the reader, it consists of a twofold passage: the first, "I will put enmities between you and the woman, your seed and her seed"; the other, "she shall crush," etc.
2. The purpose of the prophecy contained in the cited words is to oppose the work of reparation to the work of destruction. That is, the serpent, joining friendship with the woman, Eve, drew her seed into ruin; the enmity of another woman, Mary, and of her seed against the serpent is foretold. This enmity will begin the work of reparation.
3. The relation of the Blessed Virgin Mary must be considered both to her Son and to the enemy of the human race. For in the whole work of reparation the woman is shown as always divided from the serpent and its seed; always, on the contrary, joined with Christ, and burning with the same enmity against the serpent and its progeny.
These things are not only evident from the very words of the cited text, but are further confirmed from the traditional sense. St. John Chrysostom (Homily 18 on Genesis, n. 7) introduces God addressing the serpent thus: "Nor will I be content with this, that you crawl upon the earth, but I will also make the woman an enemy to you and ignorant of your covenant; and not her alone, but also her seed I will make a perpetual enemy to your seed." - Proclus, disciple and successor of St. John Chrysostom, describes the demons conspiring against the Blessed Virgin (Oration 7 on the Mother of God, 17): "What then? Shall we desist from plots because she has been made worthy of a great guard? Must we withdraw from natural enmity because she is covered by heavenly help itself?" Then a little afterward, having compared the Blessed Virgin with Eve, he again introduces the demons conversing among themselves in this way: "Indeed, then, does battle again press upon us with the second Eve? Must a battle line be drawn up against the unstained woman?" - An old author of a homily on the Annunciation of the Mother of God (among the works of St. John Chrysostom): "Hail now therefore, and exult. Hail, and trample the head of the serpent. Hail, O full of grace, for the curse has ceased, corruption has been expelled; sad things have withered, joyful things bloom, the good long ago foretold by the prophets is present." - An old author of the epistle On the Perfect Man ascribed to Jerome (in the appendix to the works of St. Jerome): "Therefore the Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ was promised already then in that woman. She is opposed to the enmities of the serpent: I will put, he says, enmities between you and the woman. He certainly does not say, I put, lest this should seem to pertain to Eve. It is a word of promise, which is transmitted into the future. I will put, he says, enmities between you and the woman. Surely that woman who would bring forth the Savior, not the one who would beget the fratricide. I will put, he says, enmities between you and the woman, that is, I shall raise up a woman who, having rejected facility in believing, not only does not listen to you, etc."
But with regard to the second clause, it must be noted, 1. that there is a great controversy concerning the subject of the sentence; for it is not sufficiently clear whether one should read Ipsa (the woman), or Ipse (Christ), or Ipsum (the seed). Fr. Patrizi (Inquiry Concerning the Immaculate Origin of Mary Foretold by God, part 1, § 1) accurately reviews all the texts, editions, and manuscript versions which have either ipsum and ipse, or ipsa.
2. Whatever may be the case concerning this controversy, it is certain that the Latin reading "She shall crush your head" must be held as an ecclesiastical reading; for through many centuries it was admitted in the Church both privately and publicly. Therefore the sense which it presents is true and must be retained.
3. Indeed, the same reading Ipsa, "she," must also be held as an equivalently biblical reading. For the second clause reports the outcome of those enmities which God established between the woman and her seed, and the serpent and its seed; but the outcome is victory won over the serpent. Therefore, just as the woman is always joined with her seed in enmity against the serpent, from whom she is consequently divided, so also she is joined in the victory itself. - In reality, the perfect parallelism between the order of ruin and the order of salvation, the testimonies of the Fathers, and liturgical use demand that the woman joined with her seed in enmity against the serpent not be separated from her seed in victory.
Wherefore it is the same for our matter whether Ipsa, Ipse, or Ipsum is read. For if Ipsa is read with the Latin Vulgate, the sense is that the woman, by the power of her seed, namely Christ, will bear away full triumph over the enemy of the human race. But if Ipsum or Ipse is read, as the Hebrew and Samaritan text as well as the Alexandrian version present, the sense is that Christ together with the woman will triumph fully over the devil.
Hence Cornelius a Lapide deservedly writes on this place: "Since God here opposes, as antagonists, the woman with her seed to the serpent with its seed, he consequently means to say that the woman with her seed will crush the head of the serpent; just as, conversely, the serpent lies in wait for the heel both of the woman and of her seed."
With these things posited, a manifold argument can be drawn from the cited words. For a) the identity is foretold of the enmities between the seed of the woman and the devil, and of the enmities between the devil and the woman herself. But the enmities between the seed of the woman, Christ, and the devil are absolute and perpetual, and admit no preceding friendship. Therefore. But these enmities would not have been such if even for one instant the Blessed Virgin Mary had been in sin; for through sin the soul becomes an enemy of God and a friend of the devil, as is clear. Therefore.
b) God, foretelling enmities between the woman and the serpent, determines neither time nor mode, but says simply enmities, enmities antonomastically. By this mode of speaking he signifies that enmities of this sort always flourish, that the struggle is without interruption, so that the sense truly is: this woman is and always will be your enemy, and she shall crush your head. But these things would by no means be true if the woman had been infected by sin even for one instant. Therefore.
c) Certainly in the cited testimony there is made a distribution of the combatants, by which on one side the woman is placed with her seed, and on the other the serpent with its seed. But this distribution would not be accurate, nor true from every angle, if the Blessed Virgin Mary had been in sin even for one instant; for in that instant she would not have been with Christ, but with the serpent. Therefore.
d) Hence it is clear that the things foretold concerning the woman cannot be understood only of a certain marvelous sanctity of hers. For the text speaks of a twofold order, of restoration and of destruction: the woman with her seed will be in the order of restoration; the serpent, on the contrary, with its seed will be in the order of destruction; wherever the seed of the woman is, there the woman will be against the serpent; wherever the serpent will be against the seed of the woman, there it will also be against the woman. Therefore, just as Christ, the seed of the woman, is always outside the order of ruin, so also is the woman. But if the matter concerned only a certain marvelous sanctity of the Blessed Virgin Mary without exemption from original fault, she at some time would have been in the order of destruction and ruin. Therefore.
e) The triumph over the serpent and its seed is common and identical to Christ and Mary; but the triumph of Christ was perfect, for he always crushed the head of the serpent lying in wait for his heel. Therefore Mary's triumph also was perfect, and consequently she was never subject to the dominion of the devil. The only difference between Mother and Son is in this: that Christ by his own power, Mary by the power of her Son, bore away triumph over the serpent.
The Latin treats the Genesis 3:15 reading Ipsa/Ipse/Ipsum as a textual controversy, but argues that the Marian sense stands either way because of the woman's inseparability from her seed in enmity and victory. I have preserved the Latin pronouns in transliteration where the argument turns on their form.
De mente S. Bernardi et D. Thoma.
On the Mind of St. Bernard and St. Thomas.
466. Non abs re erit pauca dicere de S. Bernardo, qui Patrum agmen claudit, et de Doctore Angelico, qui citari solent ut oppugnatores Immaculatae Conceptionis B. V. Mariae.
466. It will not be beside the matter to say a few things about St. Bernard, who closes the line of the Fathers, and about the Angelic Doctor, who are usually cited as opponents of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
467. Primus in ep. 174. ad Canonicos Lugdunenses, improbat imprimis festum de immaculata Conceptione in ea Ecclesia tunc institutum, eo praesertim, quod sine Apostolicae Sedis auctoritate id factum esset. Deinde vero animadvertens cultus objectum debere esse sanctum, quaerit utrum sancta fuerit B. V. Mariae conceptio; et videtur illud negare.
Resp. tamen 1. aliquos negare illam epistolam esse S. Bernardi, quam sententiam hoc tempore propugnavit P. Ballerini (Syllog. monum. tom. 2. p. 739. seqq.)
Resp. 2. Admissa illius epistolae auctoritate, negatur S. Bernardum dogmati de Immaculata Conceptione adversari; siquidem negat conceptionem activam et passivam inchoatam fuisse sanctam, minime vero passivam adaequatam, de qua solum est quaestio. Quod probatur a) ex ipsis rationibus, quas S. Doctor adducit: "Quid adhuc," inquit, "addendum putamus his honoribus? Ut honoretur, inquiunt, conceptus, qui honorandum praeivit partum: quoniam si ille non praecessisset, nec iste esset, qui honoretur ... Quid consequentiae habet, ut quoniam sanctum praecessit natalem conceptus, propterea reputetur et ipse sanctus? Unde ergo conceptionis sanctitas? An dicitur sanctificatione praeventa, quatenus jam sancta conciperetur, ac per hoc sanctus fuerit et conceptus, quemadmodum sanctificata jam in utero dicitur, ut sanctus consequeretur et ortus? Sed non valuit ante sancta esse, quam esse, siquidem non erat antequam conciperetur. An forte inter amplexus maritales sanctitas se ipsi conceptioni immiscuit, ut simul et sanctificata fuerit et concepta? Nec hoc quidem admittit ratio. Quomodo namque aut sanctitas absque Spiritu sanctificante, aut sancto Spiritui societas cum peccato fuit? aut certe peccatum quomodo non fuit, ubi libido non defuit? Nisi forte quis dicat de Spiritu sancto eam, et non de viro conceptam fuisse; sed id hactenus inauditum. Si igitur ante conceptum sui sanctificari minime potuit, quoniam non erat, sed nec in ipso quidem conceptu propter peccatum quod inerat, restat ut post conceptum in utero jam existens sanctificationem accepisse credatur, quae excluso peccato sanctam fecerit nativitatem, non tamen et conceptionem."
b) Ita mentem S. Bernardi exposuerunt Alex. Halensis, Albertus M., D. Thomas, S. Bonaventura. Sufficit hujus testimonium proferre. "Non huic obviant," inquit (in 3. sent. dist. 3. q. 1. ad 4.), dicta S. Bernardi. Potius enim intendit excludere errorem, ne quis credat Virginem sanctificatam in Conceptione (activa scilicet, praecedente animae infusionem, de qua loquitur), quam erga Virginem nostram devotionem minuere." Ac, objecto sibi hoc Bernardi contextu: "nec in ipso conceptu (sanctificari poterat) propter peccatum, quod inerat," ita difficultatem solvit: "Constat, quod illud non est dictum propter peccatum quod esset in parentibus, quia potuissent ipsam concipere sine peccato: ergo dicit propter causam peccati, quae erat in carne. Ergo videtur, quod sanctificatio Virginis non fuerit ante infusionem animae."
Resp. 3. Etiamsi illa epistola et esset Bernardi et adversaretur dogmati de Immaculata Conceptione; nullum ex ea desumi posset argumentum. Ita enim concludit S. Bernardus: "Quae autem dixi, absque praejudicio sane dicta sint sanius sapientis. Romanae praesertim Ecclesiae auctoritati atque examini totum hoc sicut et cetera, quae ejusmodi sunt, universa reservo: ipsius si quid aliter sapio paratus judicio emendare."
Resp. tamen 1. aliquos negare illam epistolam esse S. Bernardi, quam sententiam hoc tempore propugnavit P. Ballerini (Syllog. monum. tom. 2. p. 739. seqq.)
Resp. 2. Admissa illius epistolae auctoritate, negatur S. Bernardum dogmati de Immaculata Conceptione adversari; siquidem negat conceptionem activam et passivam inchoatam fuisse sanctam, minime vero passivam adaequatam, de qua solum est quaestio. Quod probatur a) ex ipsis rationibus, quas S. Doctor adducit: "Quid adhuc," inquit, "addendum putamus his honoribus? Ut honoretur, inquiunt, conceptus, qui honorandum praeivit partum: quoniam si ille non praecessisset, nec iste esset, qui honoretur ... Quid consequentiae habet, ut quoniam sanctum praecessit natalem conceptus, propterea reputetur et ipse sanctus? Unde ergo conceptionis sanctitas? An dicitur sanctificatione praeventa, quatenus jam sancta conciperetur, ac per hoc sanctus fuerit et conceptus, quemadmodum sanctificata jam in utero dicitur, ut sanctus consequeretur et ortus? Sed non valuit ante sancta esse, quam esse, siquidem non erat antequam conciperetur. An forte inter amplexus maritales sanctitas se ipsi conceptioni immiscuit, ut simul et sanctificata fuerit et concepta? Nec hoc quidem admittit ratio. Quomodo namque aut sanctitas absque Spiritu sanctificante, aut sancto Spiritui societas cum peccato fuit? aut certe peccatum quomodo non fuit, ubi libido non defuit? Nisi forte quis dicat de Spiritu sancto eam, et non de viro conceptam fuisse; sed id hactenus inauditum. Si igitur ante conceptum sui sanctificari minime potuit, quoniam non erat, sed nec in ipso quidem conceptu propter peccatum quod inerat, restat ut post conceptum in utero jam existens sanctificationem accepisse credatur, quae excluso peccato sanctam fecerit nativitatem, non tamen et conceptionem."
b) Ita mentem S. Bernardi exposuerunt Alex. Halensis, Albertus M., D. Thomas, S. Bonaventura. Sufficit hujus testimonium proferre. "Non huic obviant," inquit (in 3. sent. dist. 3. q. 1. ad 4.), dicta S. Bernardi. Potius enim intendit excludere errorem, ne quis credat Virginem sanctificatam in Conceptione (activa scilicet, praecedente animae infusionem, de qua loquitur), quam erga Virginem nostram devotionem minuere." Ac, objecto sibi hoc Bernardi contextu: "nec in ipso conceptu (sanctificari poterat) propter peccatum, quod inerat," ita difficultatem solvit: "Constat, quod illud non est dictum propter peccatum quod esset in parentibus, quia potuissent ipsam concipere sine peccato: ergo dicit propter causam peccati, quae erat in carne. Ergo videtur, quod sanctificatio Virginis non fuerit ante infusionem animae."
Resp. 3. Etiamsi illa epistola et esset Bernardi et adversaretur dogmati de Immaculata Conceptione; nullum ex ea desumi posset argumentum. Ita enim concludit S. Bernardus: "Quae autem dixi, absque praejudicio sane dicta sint sanius sapientis. Romanae praesertim Ecclesiae auctoritati atque examini totum hoc sicut et cetera, quae ejusmodi sunt, universa reservo: ipsius si quid aliter sapio paratus judicio emendare."
467. The former, in Epistle 174 to the Canons of Lyons, first disapproves the feast of the immaculate Conception then instituted in that Church, especially because this had been done without the authority of the Apostolic See. Then, observing that the object of worship ought to be holy, he asks whether the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was holy; and he seems to deny it.
Resp. 1, however. Some deny that that letter is St. Bernard's, an opinion which in this time Fr. Ballerini has defended (Sylloge monumentorum, vol. 2, p. 739ff.).
Resp. 2. If the authority of that letter is admitted, it is denied that St. Bernard opposes the dogma concerning the Immaculate Conception, since he denies that active conception and begun passive conception were holy, but by no means adequate passive conception, about which alone the question is. This is proved a) from the very reasons which the holy Doctor adduces: "What still," he says, "do we think must be added to these honors? That the conception be honored, they say, which preceded the birth to be honored; because if the former had not preceded, neither would the latter, which is honored, exist ... What consequence does it have, that because conception preceded a holy birth, therefore it too should be reckoned holy? Whence then the holiness of conception? Is it said that she was anticipated by sanctification, insofar as she was already conceived holy, and by this the conception too was holy, just as she is said, already sanctified in the womb, so that the birth too would follow holy? But she could not be holy before being, since she did not exist before she was conceived. Or perhaps among marital embraces did holiness mingle itself with the conception, so that she was simultaneously sanctified and conceived? Nor indeed does reason admit this. For how was there either holiness without the sanctifying Spirit, or association of the Holy Spirit with sin? Or certainly how was there not sin where libido was not lacking? Unless perhaps someone should say that she was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and not of a man; but this has been unheard of up to now. Therefore, if before her conception she could in no way be sanctified, because she did not exist, but not indeed in the conception itself because of the sin which was present, it remains that after conception, already existing in the womb, she is believed to have received sanctification, which, sin having been excluded, made her birth holy, but not also her conception."
b) Alexander of Hales, Albert the Great, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure explained the mind of St. Bernard in this way. It is enough to bring forward the testimony of the latter. "The words of St. Bernard do not stand in the way of this," he says (III Sent., dist. 3, q. 1, ad 4). "For he rather intends to exclude the error that someone should believe the Virgin sanctified in Conception (active, namely, preceding the infusion of the soul, concerning which he is speaking), than to diminish devotion toward our Virgin." And when this context of Bernard was objected to him, "not in the conception itself (could she be sanctified) because of the sin which was present," he solves the difficulty thus: "It is agreed that this was not said because of sin which was in the parents, because they could have conceived her without sin; therefore he says it because of the cause of sin which was in the flesh. Therefore it seems that the sanctification of the Virgin was not before the infusion of the soul."
Resp. 3. Even if that letter both were Bernard's and opposed the dogma concerning the Immaculate Conception, no argument could be drawn from it. For St. Bernard concludes thus: "But the things I have said have indeed been said without prejudice to one who thinks more soundly. To the authority and examination especially of the Roman Church I reserve this whole matter, as also all other things which are of this sort; if I think anything otherwise, I am prepared to amend it according to her judgment."
Resp. 1, however. Some deny that that letter is St. Bernard's, an opinion which in this time Fr. Ballerini has defended (Sylloge monumentorum, vol. 2, p. 739ff.).
Resp. 2. If the authority of that letter is admitted, it is denied that St. Bernard opposes the dogma concerning the Immaculate Conception, since he denies that active conception and begun passive conception were holy, but by no means adequate passive conception, about which alone the question is. This is proved a) from the very reasons which the holy Doctor adduces: "What still," he says, "do we think must be added to these honors? That the conception be honored, they say, which preceded the birth to be honored; because if the former had not preceded, neither would the latter, which is honored, exist ... What consequence does it have, that because conception preceded a holy birth, therefore it too should be reckoned holy? Whence then the holiness of conception? Is it said that she was anticipated by sanctification, insofar as she was already conceived holy, and by this the conception too was holy, just as she is said, already sanctified in the womb, so that the birth too would follow holy? But she could not be holy before being, since she did not exist before she was conceived. Or perhaps among marital embraces did holiness mingle itself with the conception, so that she was simultaneously sanctified and conceived? Nor indeed does reason admit this. For how was there either holiness without the sanctifying Spirit, or association of the Holy Spirit with sin? Or certainly how was there not sin where libido was not lacking? Unless perhaps someone should say that she was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and not of a man; but this has been unheard of up to now. Therefore, if before her conception she could in no way be sanctified, because she did not exist, but not indeed in the conception itself because of the sin which was present, it remains that after conception, already existing in the womb, she is believed to have received sanctification, which, sin having been excluded, made her birth holy, but not also her conception."
b) Alexander of Hales, Albert the Great, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure explained the mind of St. Bernard in this way. It is enough to bring forward the testimony of the latter. "The words of St. Bernard do not stand in the way of this," he says (III Sent., dist. 3, q. 1, ad 4). "For he rather intends to exclude the error that someone should believe the Virgin sanctified in Conception (active, namely, preceding the infusion of the soul, concerning which he is speaking), than to diminish devotion toward our Virgin." And when this context of Bernard was objected to him, "not in the conception itself (could she be sanctified) because of the sin which was present," he solves the difficulty thus: "It is agreed that this was not said because of sin which was in the parents, because they could have conceived her without sin; therefore he says it because of the cause of sin which was in the flesh. Therefore it seems that the sanctification of the Virgin was not before the infusion of the soul."
Resp. 3. Even if that letter both were Bernard's and opposed the dogma concerning the Immaculate Conception, no argument could be drawn from it. For St. Bernard concludes thus: "But the things I have said have indeed been said without prejudice to one who thinks more soundly. To the authority and examination especially of the Roman Church I reserve this whole matter, as also all other things which are of this sort; if I think anything otherwise, I am prepared to amend it according to her judgment."
468. Quoad D. Thomam, peremptoria sunt ejus verba, aiunt, in 3. sent. dist. 3. q. 1. a. 1. ad 2.: "Sanctificatio B. Virginis non potuit esse decenter ante infusionem animae, quia gratiae capax nondum erat, sed nec etiam in ipso instanti infusionis, ut scilicet per gratiam tunc sibi infusam conservaretur, ne culpam originalem incurreret. Christus enim hoc singulariter in humano genere habet, ut redemptione non egeat, quia caput nostrum est, sed omnibus convenit redimi per ipsum; hoc autem esse non posset, si alia anima inveniretur, quae nunquam originali macula fuisset infecta, et ideo nec Beatae Virgini, nec alicui praeter Christum hoc concessum est." - Et in Summa Theol. 3. p. q. 27. a. 2.: "Relinquitur, quod sanctificatio B. Virginis fuerit post ejus animationem."
Resp. tamen 1. Non minus peremptoria sunt quae S. Doctor scripsit in favorem Immaculatae Conceptionis. Nam in 1. sent. dist. 44. q. 1. a. 3. ait: "Puritas intenditur per recessum a contrario, et ideo potest aliquid creatum inveniri, quo nihil purius esse potest in rebus creatis, si nulla contagione peccati inquinatum sit; et talis fuit puritas B. Virginis, quae a peccato originali et actuali immunis fuit." - Et Comment. in Ps. 18. 5., scribit: "Christus corpus suum posuit in sole, id est, in B. Virgine, quae nullam habuit obscuritatem peccati juxta Cant. 4. 7." In cap. 3. Ep. ad Galat. dicit: "Mulierem ex omnibus non inveni, quae omnino a peccatis immunis esset ad minus originali, vel veniali. Excipitur purissima et omni laude dignissima Virgo Maria, quae omnino a peccato immunis fuit, originali et veniali."
2. Quomodo ergo haec inter se cohaerere possunt? Non pauci existimant textus oppositos Immaculatae Conceptioni non esse genuinos, sed supposititios. Quod probant a) quia textus illi in prioribus editionibus operum D. Thomae desiderantur; et ex collatione veterum cum recentioribus editionibus manifestum fit, plerasque istarum mutilas et interpolatas esse praesertim in locis, ubi sermo est de Conceptione B. Mariae Virginis.
b) Quia evidenter pugnant cum aliis sententiis certe authenticis, et non cohaerent cum principiis D. Thomae.
c) Quia ipse cit. articulus ex 3. p. q. 27. videtur interpolationis et corruptionis signa prae se ferre. Etenim quaeritur ibi solum "utrum B. Virgo fuerit sanctificata ante animationem:" responsio vero negat sanctificationem in ipsa infusione animae: scilicet plus pateret responsio, quam quaesitum. Prima etiam et secunda objectio eo tendunt, ut probent B. V. Mariam fuisse sanctificatam ante animationem: in responsione vero praesertim ad secundam, D. Thomas negaret sanctificationem in ipsa conceptione, seu animatione. Et quidem ratio, quae affertur "hoc derogaret dignitati Christi" digna haud videtur S. Doctore, eidemque ipse respondet distinguendo inter debitum contrahendi peccatum et ipsum peccatum contractum. In 4. sent. dist. 53. q. 1. a. 4. ad 3., ait: "Oportet autem ponere, quod quilibet personaliter redemptione indigeat, non solum ratione naturae: liberari autem a malo, vel a debito absolvi non potest, nisi qui debitum incurrit, vel in malum dejectus fuit." Ac paulo post: "Unde dimissio debitorum et liberatio a malo non potest intelligi quod aliquis sine debito vel immunis a malo nascatur." - Imo ipsa ratio quae affertur in corpore articuli objecti non videtur S. Doctore digna. Reducitur enim ad hoc: non fuit B. V. Maria sanctificata ante animationem; ergo sanctificata fuit post animationem. Sed facile quisque videt dari medium, in ipso instanti animationis.
3. Alii denique admittentes authenticitatem textuum objectorum conantur illos explicare ita, ut Immaculatae Conceptioni non adversentur. Si enim, aiunt, D. Thomas asserit a) B. V. M. sanctificatam fuisse post animationem, illud post importat posterioritatem non temporis, sed naturae. Ita Spada in suis Animadversionibus, Animadv. 5. - et Capponi a Porrecta in c. a. 3. p. - Vel, ut vult Joannes a S. Thoma (Cursu Theol. Tract. de approbatione et auctoritate doctrinae angelicae D. Thomae, disp. 2. art. 2.): "Ponderandum est D. Thomam negare illam gratiam praeservativam, quae fieret parentibus tantum, vel naturae, non ipsi personae; eo quod reputat ut magnum inconveniens, quod aliqua persona in se personaliter non egeat redemptione, sed gratia quae illi fit, sit in suis parentibus, vel ipsi naturae, aut principiis naturae, puta animae, vel carni ante constitutam personam, et ante animationem."
Si b) D. Thomas asserit B. V. M. indiguisse redemptione: "pondera," inquit idem Auctor l. c. "quod ad liberationem per Christum disjunctive postulat D. Thomas vel debitum, vel culpam in eo qui redimendus est; ergo si sufficienter salvat D. Thomas redemptionem per Christum in aliquo qui solum nasceretur cum debito, non amplius requirit quando loquitur de Virgine, et infert pro inconvenienti, quia alias non indigeret redemptione per Christum; intelligit enim quod non indigeret si conciperetur sine debito, aut sine peccato, non tamen si conciperetur sine peccato, dummodo conciperetur cum debito in persona. Et quoties D. Thomas infert quod non indigeret redemptione, ly non indigeret est quia includitur etiam debitum: hoc enim si datur sufficit ad indigentiam liberationis, ut ex isto loco colligitur. Et ita locus hic maxime praelucet menti D. Thomae introspiciendae in aliis locis."
c) Spada, Animadver. 3., subdit: "Licet veram rationem peccati S. Thomas non agnoscat in infectione carnis, illam tamen peccatum appellat aliquando, Apostolum Paulum secutus. Posito itaque in Maria debito et necessitate ad peccatum originale, quid mirum, si Angelicus dixerit, B. Virginem conceptam fuisse in peccato originali, ... contraxisse peccatum originale, subjectam fuisse peccato originali, vel similia? Cum enim S. Thomas expresse docuerit, B. Virginem immunem fuisse a peccato originali, cum multoties dixerit, in Maria nullum omnino fuisse peccatum, et summam attigisse eam puritatem, cum principia universae ejus doctrinae ad asserendam immunitatem a peccato originali inducant, superiores dictiones ex lege hermeneutices necessario intelligendae sunt de debito ad peccatum originale, non de culpa."
Resp. tamen 1. Non minus peremptoria sunt quae S. Doctor scripsit in favorem Immaculatae Conceptionis. Nam in 1. sent. dist. 44. q. 1. a. 3. ait: "Puritas intenditur per recessum a contrario, et ideo potest aliquid creatum inveniri, quo nihil purius esse potest in rebus creatis, si nulla contagione peccati inquinatum sit; et talis fuit puritas B. Virginis, quae a peccato originali et actuali immunis fuit." - Et Comment. in Ps. 18. 5., scribit: "Christus corpus suum posuit in sole, id est, in B. Virgine, quae nullam habuit obscuritatem peccati juxta Cant. 4. 7." In cap. 3. Ep. ad Galat. dicit: "Mulierem ex omnibus non inveni, quae omnino a peccatis immunis esset ad minus originali, vel veniali. Excipitur purissima et omni laude dignissima Virgo Maria, quae omnino a peccato immunis fuit, originali et veniali."
2. Quomodo ergo haec inter se cohaerere possunt? Non pauci existimant textus oppositos Immaculatae Conceptioni non esse genuinos, sed supposititios. Quod probant a) quia textus illi in prioribus editionibus operum D. Thomae desiderantur; et ex collatione veterum cum recentioribus editionibus manifestum fit, plerasque istarum mutilas et interpolatas esse praesertim in locis, ubi sermo est de Conceptione B. Mariae Virginis.
b) Quia evidenter pugnant cum aliis sententiis certe authenticis, et non cohaerent cum principiis D. Thomae.
c) Quia ipse cit. articulus ex 3. p. q. 27. videtur interpolationis et corruptionis signa prae se ferre. Etenim quaeritur ibi solum "utrum B. Virgo fuerit sanctificata ante animationem:" responsio vero negat sanctificationem in ipsa infusione animae: scilicet plus pateret responsio, quam quaesitum. Prima etiam et secunda objectio eo tendunt, ut probent B. V. Mariam fuisse sanctificatam ante animationem: in responsione vero praesertim ad secundam, D. Thomas negaret sanctificationem in ipsa conceptione, seu animatione. Et quidem ratio, quae affertur "hoc derogaret dignitati Christi" digna haud videtur S. Doctore, eidemque ipse respondet distinguendo inter debitum contrahendi peccatum et ipsum peccatum contractum. In 4. sent. dist. 53. q. 1. a. 4. ad 3., ait: "Oportet autem ponere, quod quilibet personaliter redemptione indigeat, non solum ratione naturae: liberari autem a malo, vel a debito absolvi non potest, nisi qui debitum incurrit, vel in malum dejectus fuit." Ac paulo post: "Unde dimissio debitorum et liberatio a malo non potest intelligi quod aliquis sine debito vel immunis a malo nascatur." - Imo ipsa ratio quae affertur in corpore articuli objecti non videtur S. Doctore digna. Reducitur enim ad hoc: non fuit B. V. Maria sanctificata ante animationem; ergo sanctificata fuit post animationem. Sed facile quisque videt dari medium, in ipso instanti animationis.
3. Alii denique admittentes authenticitatem textuum objectorum conantur illos explicare ita, ut Immaculatae Conceptioni non adversentur. Si enim, aiunt, D. Thomas asserit a) B. V. M. sanctificatam fuisse post animationem, illud post importat posterioritatem non temporis, sed naturae. Ita Spada in suis Animadversionibus, Animadv. 5. - et Capponi a Porrecta in c. a. 3. p. - Vel, ut vult Joannes a S. Thoma (Cursu Theol. Tract. de approbatione et auctoritate doctrinae angelicae D. Thomae, disp. 2. art. 2.): "Ponderandum est D. Thomam negare illam gratiam praeservativam, quae fieret parentibus tantum, vel naturae, non ipsi personae; eo quod reputat ut magnum inconveniens, quod aliqua persona in se personaliter non egeat redemptione, sed gratia quae illi fit, sit in suis parentibus, vel ipsi naturae, aut principiis naturae, puta animae, vel carni ante constitutam personam, et ante animationem."
Si b) D. Thomas asserit B. V. M. indiguisse redemptione: "pondera," inquit idem Auctor l. c. "quod ad liberationem per Christum disjunctive postulat D. Thomas vel debitum, vel culpam in eo qui redimendus est; ergo si sufficienter salvat D. Thomas redemptionem per Christum in aliquo qui solum nasceretur cum debito, non amplius requirit quando loquitur de Virgine, et infert pro inconvenienti, quia alias non indigeret redemptione per Christum; intelligit enim quod non indigeret si conciperetur sine debito, aut sine peccato, non tamen si conciperetur sine peccato, dummodo conciperetur cum debito in persona. Et quoties D. Thomas infert quod non indigeret redemptione, ly non indigeret est quia includitur etiam debitum: hoc enim si datur sufficit ad indigentiam liberationis, ut ex isto loco colligitur. Et ita locus hic maxime praelucet menti D. Thomae introspiciendae in aliis locis."
c) Spada, Animadver. 3., subdit: "Licet veram rationem peccati S. Thomas non agnoscat in infectione carnis, illam tamen peccatum appellat aliquando, Apostolum Paulum secutus. Posito itaque in Maria debito et necessitate ad peccatum originale, quid mirum, si Angelicus dixerit, B. Virginem conceptam fuisse in peccato originali, ... contraxisse peccatum originale, subjectam fuisse peccato originali, vel similia? Cum enim S. Thomas expresse docuerit, B. Virginem immunem fuisse a peccato originali, cum multoties dixerit, in Maria nullum omnino fuisse peccatum, et summam attigisse eam puritatem, cum principia universae ejus doctrinae ad asserendam immunitatem a peccato originali inducant, superiores dictiones ex lege hermeneutices necessario intelligendae sunt de debito ad peccatum originale, non de culpa."
468. With regard to St. Thomas, his words are peremptory, they say, in III Sent., dist. 3, q. 1, a. 1, ad 2: "The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin could not fittingly be before the infusion of the soul, because she was not yet capable of grace; nor even in the very instant of infusion, namely so that through grace then infused into her she would be preserved from incurring original fault. For Christ has this uniquely in the human race, that he does not need redemption, because he is our head; but it is fitting for all to be redeemed through him. But this could not be, if another soul were found which had never been infected by original stain, and therefore this was conceded neither to the Blessed Virgin nor to anyone besides Christ." - And in the Summa Theologiae III, q. 27, a. 2: "It remains that the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin was after her animation."
Resp. 1, however. No less peremptory are the things which the holy Doctor wrote in favor of the Immaculate Conception. For in I Sent., dist. 44, q. 1, a. 3, he says: "Purity is intensified by withdrawal from the contrary, and therefore some created thing can be found than which nothing can be purer among created things, if it has been stained by no contagion of sin; and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin." - And in the Commentary on Psalm 18:5, he writes: "Christ placed his body in the sun, that is, in the Blessed Virgin, who had no darkness of sin, according to Song of Songs 4:7." On chapter 3 of the Epistle to the Galatians he says: "Among all I have not found a woman who was altogether immune from sins, at least original or venial. Excepted is the most pure Virgin Mary, most worthy of all praise, who was altogether immune from sin, original and venial."
2. How, then, can these things cohere with one another? Not a few think that the texts opposed to the Immaculate Conception are not genuine, but spurious. They prove this a) because those texts are lacking in the earlier editions of the works of St. Thomas; and from comparison of the old editions with the more recent ones it becomes manifest that very many of the latter are mutilated and interpolated, especially in places where the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is discussed.
b) Because they plainly conflict with other certainly authentic opinions, and do not cohere with the principles of St. Thomas.
c) Because the cited article itself from III, q. 27, seems to display signs of interpolation and corruption. For there the question asked is only "whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation"; but the response denies sanctification in the very infusion of the soul, that is, the response would extend farther than the question. The first and second objection also tend toward proving that the Blessed Virgin Mary was sanctified before animation; but in the response, especially to the second, St. Thomas would deny sanctification in the very conception, or animation. And indeed the reason which is brought forward, "this would derogate from the dignity of Christ," hardly seems worthy of the holy Doctor, and he himself responds to the same thing by distinguishing between the debt of contracting sin and the sin actually contracted. In IV Sent., dist. 53, q. 1, a. 4, ad 3, he says: "But one must posit that each person personally needs redemption, not only by reason of nature; but one cannot be freed from evil, or absolved from debt, unless he has incurred debt, or has been cast into evil." And a little afterward: "Hence forgiveness of debts and liberation from evil cannot be understood in such a way that someone is born without debt or immune from evil." - Indeed the very reason which is brought forward in the body of the objected article does not seem worthy of the holy Doctor. For it is reduced to this: the Blessed Virgin Mary was not sanctified before animation; therefore she was sanctified after animation. But anyone easily sees that there is a middle: in the very instant of animation.
3. Finally, others, admitting the authenticity of the objected texts, try to explain them in such a way that they do not oppose the Immaculate Conception. For if, they say, St. Thomas asserts a) that the Blessed Virgin Mary was sanctified after animation, that after imports posteriority not of time, but of nature. Thus Spada in his Animadversions, Animadversion 5, and Capponi a Porrecta on this article in the Third Part. - Or, as John of St. Thomas wants (Theological Course, tract on the approval and authority of the angelic doctrine of St. Thomas, disp. 2, art. 2): "One must weigh that St. Thomas denies that preservative grace which would be done only to the parents, or to nature, not to the person herself; because he reckons it as a great inconvenience that some person in herself personally should not need redemption, but that the grace which is done to her should be in her parents, or in nature itself, or in the principles of nature, namely in soul or flesh before the person has been constituted, and before animation."
If b) St. Thomas asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary needed redemption: "weigh," says the same Author in the cited place, "that for liberation through Christ, St. Thomas disjunctively requires either debt or fault in the one who is to be redeemed. Therefore if St. Thomas sufficiently preserves redemption through Christ in someone who would be born with debt alone, he does not require more when he speaks of the Virgin and infers as an inconvenience that otherwise she would not need redemption through Christ; for he understands that she would not need it if she were conceived without debt or without sin, but not if she were conceived without sin, provided that she were conceived with debt in the person. And whenever St. Thomas infers that she would not need redemption, the phrase would not need it is because debt also is included. For if this is given, it suffices for the need of liberation, as is gathered from this place. And thus this place shines very brightly for looking into the mind of St. Thomas in other places."
c) Spada, Animadversion 3, adds: "Although St. Thomas does not acknowledge the true ratio of sin in the infection of the flesh, nevertheless he sometimes calls it sin, following the Apostle Paul. Therefore, once a debt and necessity toward original sin have been posited in Mary, what wonder is it if the Angelic Doctor said that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, ... contracted original sin, was subject to original sin, or similar things? For since St. Thomas expressly taught that the Blessed Virgin was immune from original sin, since he said many times that there was no sin at all in Mary and that she attained the highest purity, since the principles of his whole doctrine lead to asserting immunity from original sin, the preceding expressions, by the law of hermeneutics, must necessarily be understood of the debt toward original sin, not of fault."
Resp. 1, however. No less peremptory are the things which the holy Doctor wrote in favor of the Immaculate Conception. For in I Sent., dist. 44, q. 1, a. 3, he says: "Purity is intensified by withdrawal from the contrary, and therefore some created thing can be found than which nothing can be purer among created things, if it has been stained by no contagion of sin; and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin." - And in the Commentary on Psalm 18:5, he writes: "Christ placed his body in the sun, that is, in the Blessed Virgin, who had no darkness of sin, according to Song of Songs 4:7." On chapter 3 of the Epistle to the Galatians he says: "Among all I have not found a woman who was altogether immune from sins, at least original or venial. Excepted is the most pure Virgin Mary, most worthy of all praise, who was altogether immune from sin, original and venial."
2. How, then, can these things cohere with one another? Not a few think that the texts opposed to the Immaculate Conception are not genuine, but spurious. They prove this a) because those texts are lacking in the earlier editions of the works of St. Thomas; and from comparison of the old editions with the more recent ones it becomes manifest that very many of the latter are mutilated and interpolated, especially in places where the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is discussed.
b) Because they plainly conflict with other certainly authentic opinions, and do not cohere with the principles of St. Thomas.
c) Because the cited article itself from III, q. 27, seems to display signs of interpolation and corruption. For there the question asked is only "whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation"; but the response denies sanctification in the very infusion of the soul, that is, the response would extend farther than the question. The first and second objection also tend toward proving that the Blessed Virgin Mary was sanctified before animation; but in the response, especially to the second, St. Thomas would deny sanctification in the very conception, or animation. And indeed the reason which is brought forward, "this would derogate from the dignity of Christ," hardly seems worthy of the holy Doctor, and he himself responds to the same thing by distinguishing between the debt of contracting sin and the sin actually contracted. In IV Sent., dist. 53, q. 1, a. 4, ad 3, he says: "But one must posit that each person personally needs redemption, not only by reason of nature; but one cannot be freed from evil, or absolved from debt, unless he has incurred debt, or has been cast into evil." And a little afterward: "Hence forgiveness of debts and liberation from evil cannot be understood in such a way that someone is born without debt or immune from evil." - Indeed the very reason which is brought forward in the body of the objected article does not seem worthy of the holy Doctor. For it is reduced to this: the Blessed Virgin Mary was not sanctified before animation; therefore she was sanctified after animation. But anyone easily sees that there is a middle: in the very instant of animation.
3. Finally, others, admitting the authenticity of the objected texts, try to explain them in such a way that they do not oppose the Immaculate Conception. For if, they say, St. Thomas asserts a) that the Blessed Virgin Mary was sanctified after animation, that after imports posteriority not of time, but of nature. Thus Spada in his Animadversions, Animadversion 5, and Capponi a Porrecta on this article in the Third Part. - Or, as John of St. Thomas wants (Theological Course, tract on the approval and authority of the angelic doctrine of St. Thomas, disp. 2, art. 2): "One must weigh that St. Thomas denies that preservative grace which would be done only to the parents, or to nature, not to the person herself; because he reckons it as a great inconvenience that some person in herself personally should not need redemption, but that the grace which is done to her should be in her parents, or in nature itself, or in the principles of nature, namely in soul or flesh before the person has been constituted, and before animation."
If b) St. Thomas asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary needed redemption: "weigh," says the same Author in the cited place, "that for liberation through Christ, St. Thomas disjunctively requires either debt or fault in the one who is to be redeemed. Therefore if St. Thomas sufficiently preserves redemption through Christ in someone who would be born with debt alone, he does not require more when he speaks of the Virgin and infers as an inconvenience that otherwise she would not need redemption through Christ; for he understands that she would not need it if she were conceived without debt or without sin, but not if she were conceived without sin, provided that she were conceived with debt in the person. And whenever St. Thomas infers that she would not need redemption, the phrase would not need it is because debt also is included. For if this is given, it suffices for the need of liberation, as is gathered from this place. And thus this place shines very brightly for looking into the mind of St. Thomas in other places."
c) Spada, Animadversion 3, adds: "Although St. Thomas does not acknowledge the true ratio of sin in the infection of the flesh, nevertheless he sometimes calls it sin, following the Apostle Paul. Therefore, once a debt and necessity toward original sin have been posited in Mary, what wonder is it if the Angelic Doctor said that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, ... contracted original sin, was subject to original sin, or similar things? For since St. Thomas expressly taught that the Blessed Virgin was immune from original sin, since he said many times that there was no sin at all in Mary and that she attained the highest purity, since the principles of his whole doctrine lead to asserting immunity from original sin, the preceding expressions, by the law of hermeneutics, must necessarily be understood of the debt toward original sin, not of fault."
469. Caeterum D. Thomas eadem 3. p. q. 27. art. 1. agens de Nativitate B. V. Mariae, ait: "Ecclesia celebrat Nativitatem B. Virginis; non autem celebratur festum in Ecclesia nisi pro aliquo sancto. Ergo B. Virgo in ipsa sua nativitate fuit sancta. Fuit ergo in utero sanctificata." Quid ergo dicturus nunc esset de Immaculata conceptione? Vid. Perrone (de Immac. B. V. Mariae conceptu, edit. cit. pag. 162. seqq.)
469. Moreover, St. Thomas, in the same III, q. 27, a. 1, treating of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, says: "The Church celebrates the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin; but a feast is not celebrated in the Church except for someone holy. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was holy in her very nativity. Therefore she was sanctified in the womb." What, then, would he now say concerning the Immaculate Conception? See Perrone (On the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, cited edition, p. 162ff.).
470. NOTA. Objectiones fere omnes praeoccupatae sunt dum verum hujus mysterii conceptum exposuimus: caeterum legi possunt apud Perrone (Thesis Dogmatica etc.) Tria tantummodo hic breviter adnotabimus. 1. Baptismi effectus non est solum delere peccatum, sed etiam conferre characterem servorum Christi et fidelium Ecclesiae, tribuere capacitatem ad reliqua novae legis sacramenta. Baptismus non delet peccatum, nisi infundendo gratiam sanctificantem: quandoque tamen gratiam sanctificantem conferens, potest per accidens non delere peccatum, uti fit in adulto perfecte contrito antequam hoc sacramentum suscipiat. Hinc patet quomodo B. V. Maria non contraxerit maculam originalem, et nihilominus susceperit baptismum Christi, uti fert communis sententia. Caeterum ex baptismo Christi a B. V. M. suscepto non magis probatur hujus maculata origo, quam ex baptismo Joannis seu poenitentiae a Christo suscepto probetur eum quidquam poenitentia delendum habuisse.
2. Incommoda et aerumnae hujus vitae, mors ipsa non ita sunt, ut vidimus in praecedente disputatione, effectus peccati originalis, ut in alio providentiae ordine non potuerit illis homo subjici ex sola suae limitatae naturae conditione. - Nec immunitas ab illis malis ita pendebat a gratia sanctificante, in qua formalis justitia originalis consistit, ut non potuerit Deus gratiam sanctificantem restituere, peccatum delere aut ab illo praeservare, quin tamen simul ab iisdem miseriis exemptionem concederet: per baptismum in nobis deletur peccatum; manemus tamen doloribus, infirmitatibus, morti obnoxii. Hinc patet quomodo haec omnia mala nullo pacto obstent dogmati de Immaculata Conceptione B. V. Mariae; et cur merito damnata fuerit in Baio prop. 73.: "Nemo, praeter Christum, est absque peccato originali: hinc Beata Virgo mortua est propter peccatum ex Adam contractum, omnesque ejus afflictiones in hac vita sicut aliorum justorum, fuerunt ultiones peccati actualis, vel originalis." Vid. Perrone (de Immac., etc. pag. 110. seq.)
3. Etsi, ut diximus, post S. Bernardi epistolam non pauci intra fines Ecclesiae, negaverint hoc privilegium Matris Dei per aliquod temporis intervallum; id tamen ejusdem dogmaticae definitioni non obstat. Recolantur quae in tractatu de fide diximus de vero progressu in fide, et quorum meminimus disp. 2. hujus tractatus n. 181.
2. Incommoda et aerumnae hujus vitae, mors ipsa non ita sunt, ut vidimus in praecedente disputatione, effectus peccati originalis, ut in alio providentiae ordine non potuerit illis homo subjici ex sola suae limitatae naturae conditione. - Nec immunitas ab illis malis ita pendebat a gratia sanctificante, in qua formalis justitia originalis consistit, ut non potuerit Deus gratiam sanctificantem restituere, peccatum delere aut ab illo praeservare, quin tamen simul ab iisdem miseriis exemptionem concederet: per baptismum in nobis deletur peccatum; manemus tamen doloribus, infirmitatibus, morti obnoxii. Hinc patet quomodo haec omnia mala nullo pacto obstent dogmati de Immaculata Conceptione B. V. Mariae; et cur merito damnata fuerit in Baio prop. 73.: "Nemo, praeter Christum, est absque peccato originali: hinc Beata Virgo mortua est propter peccatum ex Adam contractum, omnesque ejus afflictiones in hac vita sicut aliorum justorum, fuerunt ultiones peccati actualis, vel originalis." Vid. Perrone (de Immac., etc. pag. 110. seq.)
3. Etsi, ut diximus, post S. Bernardi epistolam non pauci intra fines Ecclesiae, negaverint hoc privilegium Matris Dei per aliquod temporis intervallum; id tamen ejusdem dogmaticae definitioni non obstat. Recolantur quae in tractatu de fide diximus de vero progressu in fide, et quorum meminimus disp. 2. hujus tractatus n. 181.
470. NOTE. Nearly all objections were anticipated when we explained the true concept of this mystery; for the rest, they can be read in Perrone (Dogmatic Thesis, etc.). We shall only briefly note three things here. 1. The effect of baptism is not only to destroy sin, but also to confer the character of servants of Christ and faithful of the Church, and to bestow capacity for the remaining sacraments of the new law. Baptism does not destroy sin except by infusing sanctifying grace; sometimes, however, while conferring sanctifying grace, it can accidentally not destroy sin, as happens in an adult perfectly contrite before he receives this sacrament. Hence it is clear how the Blessed Virgin Mary did not contract original stain, and nevertheless received the baptism of Christ, as the common opinion holds. Moreover, from the baptism of Christ received by the Blessed Virgin Mary, her stained origin is no more proved than from the baptism of John, or of penance, received by Christ, it is proved that he had anything to be destroyed by penance.
2. The inconveniences and hardships of this life, and death itself, as we saw in the preceding disputation, are not effects of original sin in such a way that in another order of providence man could not have been subjected to them from the sole condition of his limited nature. - Nor did immunity from those evils so depend on sanctifying grace, in which formal original justice consists, that God could not restore sanctifying grace, destroy sin, or preserve from it, without nevertheless at the same time granting exemption from those same miseries. Through baptism sin is destroyed in us; nevertheless we remain liable to pains, weaknesses, and death. Hence it is clear how all these evils in no way stand in the way of the dogma concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and why Baius's proposition 73 was deservedly condemned: "No one, except Christ, is without original sin; hence the Blessed Virgin died because of sin contracted from Adam, and all her afflictions in this life, like those of other just persons, were punishments of actual or original sin." See Perrone (On the Immaculate, etc., p. 110ff.).
3. Although, as we said, after the letter of St. Bernard not a few within the boundaries of the Church denied this privilege of the Mother of God for some interval of time, this nevertheless does not stand in the way of its dogmatic definition. Let those things be recalled which we said in the treatise on faith concerning true progress in faith, and those things which we mentioned in disputation 2 of this treatise, n. 181.
2. The inconveniences and hardships of this life, and death itself, as we saw in the preceding disputation, are not effects of original sin in such a way that in another order of providence man could not have been subjected to them from the sole condition of his limited nature. - Nor did immunity from those evils so depend on sanctifying grace, in which formal original justice consists, that God could not restore sanctifying grace, destroy sin, or preserve from it, without nevertheless at the same time granting exemption from those same miseries. Through baptism sin is destroyed in us; nevertheless we remain liable to pains, weaknesses, and death. Hence it is clear how all these evils in no way stand in the way of the dogma concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and why Baius's proposition 73 was deservedly condemned: "No one, except Christ, is without original sin; hence the Blessed Virgin died because of sin contracted from Adam, and all her afflictions in this life, like those of other just persons, were punishments of actual or original sin." See Perrone (On the Immaculate, etc., p. 110ff.).
3. Although, as we said, after the letter of St. Bernard not a few within the boundaries of the Church denied this privilege of the Mother of God for some interval of time, this nevertheless does not stand in the way of its dogmatic definition. Let those things be recalled which we said in the treatise on faith concerning true progress in faith, and those things which we mentioned in disputation 2 of this treatise, n. 181.
Sectio III.
Quale peccati originalis debitum fuerit in B. V. Maria.
Quale peccati originalis debitum fuerit in B. V. Maria.
SECTION III.
What Debt of Original Sin There Was in the Blessed Virgin Mary.
What Debt of Original Sin There Was in the Blessed Virgin Mary.
471. Distinguenda est actualis contractio peccati originalis a debito illud contrahendi. Contrahitur peccatum originale ipso momento, quo anima corpori jungitur: debitum autem existit natura et tempore ante conceptionem; et nihil est aliud, nisi necessitas peccatum originale contrahendi, nisi proles nascitura Dei privilegio praeservetur. Ex dictis, non minus certum est B. V. Mariam non contraxisse peccatum originale, quam eam habuisse aliquod debitum illud contrahendi; siquidem praeservata fuit immunis a culpa intuitu meritorum Christi, ac proinde redemptione praeservativa vere redempta.
471. The actual contraction of original sin must be distinguished from the debt of contracting it. Original sin is contracted at the very moment at which the soul is joined to the body; but the debt exists by nature and by time before conception. It is nothing other than the necessity of contracting original sin, unless the offspring about to be born is preserved by God's privilege. From what has been said, it is no less certain that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not contract original sin than that she had some debt of contracting it, since she was preserved immune from fault in view of the merits of Christ, and consequently was truly redeemed by preservative redemption.
472. Quaestio igitur est, quale fuerit illud debitum? Duplex distinguitur debitum, proximum et remotum. Proximum situm est in inclusione in pactum cum Adamo initum, seu in alligatione nostrarum voluntatum ad voluntatem Adami praevaricatoris "in quo omnes peccaverunt": remotum situm est in descensu ab Adamo per viam generationis ordinariam, vi cujus, absque speciali privilegio, omnes per se comprehensi fuissent in illo pacto, seu in illa alligatione ad voluntatem Adami.
472. Therefore the question is, what kind of debt was that? A twofold debt is distinguished, proximate and remote. The proximate is placed in inclusion in the covenant entered into with Adam, or in the binding of our wills to the will of Adam the prevaricator, "in whom all sinned." The remote is placed in descent from Adam by the way of ordinary generation, by force of which, without a special privilege, all would of themselves have been included in that covenant, or in that binding to the will of Adam.
473. De pacto illo inferius disserendum est. Nunc ad quaestionis intelligentiam, sufficit animadvertere cum Suarez (in 3. p. Vol. 2. disp. 3. sect. 2.) "ut omnes posteri Adae dicantur in illo peccasse, non satis esse ut omnes fuerint in illo contenti tamquam in primo parente, et naturali principio hominum futurorum omnium. Quia haec sola ratio per se sumpta non satis est ut peccatum parentis derivetur ad filium, neque ut filius in parente peccare dicatur. Oportuit ergo ut Deus speciali lege et pacto voluerit constituere Adam quodammodo ut caput caeterorum, et in ejus voluntate posterorum voluntates ponere, ut veluti omnium nomine praeceptum impositum aut servaret, aut transgrederetur, ita ut, eo in divina obedientia perseverante, omnes posteri quasi haereditario jure justitiam et gratiam Dei obtinerent; illo autem peccante omnes essent Deo invisi et inimici. Potest ergo intelligi, Deum in hoc ipso pacto B. Virginem excepisse, propter merita Christi praevisa, quia nullam involvit repugnantiam, quominus hoc Deus facere potuerit; quia, sicut libere voluit pactum illud cum Adamo inire, ita eadem libertate potuit matrem suam jam praevisam illa lege liberare." - Plures theologi, inter quos Suarez l. c., Vasquez, Bellarminus, etc., asserunt in B. V. Maria debitum proximum: alii vero, ut Salmeronius, Thyrsus Gonzalez, Nierembergius, et communius recentiores agnoscunt in B. V. Maria solum debitum remotum contrahendi peccatum originale.
473. Concerning that covenant we must dispute below. For understanding the present question, it is enough now to observe with Suarez (on III, vol. 2, disp. 3, sect. 2) "that, for all the descendants of Adam to be said to have sinned in him, it is not enough that all were contained in him as in the first parent and natural principle of all future human beings. For this reason alone, taken by itself, is not enough for the sin of the parent to be derived to the child, nor for the child to be said to sin in the parent. Therefore it was necessary that God, by a special law and covenant, willed to constitute Adam in some way as head of the rest, and to place the wills of his descendants in his will, so that, as if in the name of all, he would either keep or transgress the imposed precept; so that, if he persevered in divine obedience, all his descendants would obtain the justice and grace of God as if by hereditary right, but if he sinned, all would be hateful and hostile to God. Therefore it can be understood that God, in this very covenant, excepted the Blessed Virgin, because of the foreseen merits of Christ, since it involves no contradiction that God could have done this; because, just as he freely willed to enter into that covenant with Adam, so by the same freedom he could free his mother, already foreseen, from that law." - Many theologians, among whom are Suarez in the cited place, Vasquez, Bellarmine, etc., assert proximate debt in the Blessed Virgin Mary; but others, such as Salmeron, Thyrsus Gonzalez, Nieremberg, and more commonly the more recent authors, acknowledge in the Blessed Virgin Mary only the remote debt of contracting original sin.
474. His subscribentes, dicimus:
PROP. XXXIX. B. V. Maria immunis fuit a debito proximo contrahendi labem originis.
Prob. Concedenda est haec exemptio B. V. Mariae, si nulla solida ratio affertur in contrarium; atqui nulla videtur esse solida ratio in contrarium; ergo.
Prob. maj. a) Ex doctrina S. Augustini, S. Anselmi et D. Thomae talis est B. V. Mariae puritas ut vicerit omni ex parte peccatum - ut ea puritate niteret, qua major sub Deo nequit intelligi - ut nihil sit purius ea in rebus creatis. Atqui haec omnia non essent omnino vera, si fuisset in B. V. Maria debitum proximum contrahendi peccatum; siquidem jam posset intelligi major puritas. Ergo si nulla afferatur solida ratio in contrarium, immunis ab hoc debito asserenda est.
b) Juxta regulam Petri Cellensis (l. 9. ep. 9.): "B. Virgini concedenda sunt omnia privilegia, quae ei fuisse negata positive et efficaciter non probatur - et praesumptionibus standum est, donec probetur contrarium." - Regulam hanc ratam habuit D. Thomas, qui in 3. sent. dist. 2. q. 1. a. 1., scribit: "Credendum omnino ei (Mariae) collatum esse quidquid conferri potuerit." Ergo.
c) Conveniens haud erat ut Domina subjiceretur servo, et Dei Genitrix ac Regina Angelorum subderetur capiti multo inferiori, nempe Adamo; atqui hoc factum esset, si B. V. Mariae voluntas alligata fuisset voluntati Adami praevaricatoris, seu si in ipsa fuisset debitum proximum. Ergo.
Prob. min. adducendo rationes contrarias, eisque respondendo. Dicunt ergo:
1. Est generalis propositio Apostoli omnes in Adamo peccasse; atqui haec propositio in sua universalitate esset falsa, si B. V. Maria non habuisset debitum proximum; siquidem, uti patet, tunc ea in Adamo non peccavisset. Ergo.
Resp. Dist. maj.: est generalis propositio intelligenda in sensu accommodato vel absoluto con.; intelligenda in sensu absoluto, subdist.: absque speciali privilegio con.; secus neg. - Certe Conc. Trid. sess. 5. can. 2. utitur illo Apostoli testimonio "per unum hominem ... in quo omnes peccaverunt" ad ostendendum omnes posteros Adae concipi in peccato originali: ergo, si textus ille non sumeretur in sensu accommodato, quando agitur de B. V. Maria, sequeretur, contra mentem adversariorum et nunc contra fidem Ecclesiae, non modo debitum proximum, sed ipsam etiam culpam in primo animationis instanti a Deipara fuisse contractam.
2. Legitur 1. Cor. 15.: "Sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur; ita et in Christo omnes vivificabuntur." - Et c. 5.: "Si unus pro omnibus mortuus est; ergo omnes mortui sunt; et pro omnibus mortuus est Christus," etc. "Ubi necesse est," arguit Suarez l. c., "utramque partem distributionis aeque esse universalem. Sicut ergo certum est Christum mortuum esse pro Beata Virgine ita certum est B. V. fuisse mortuam saltem in Adamo."
Resp. Eadem fere est responsio. Etenim quod omnes mortui sunt in Adamo, et omnes egent redemptione Christi, fatentibus adversariis et nunc exigente fide, nequit intelligi eodem sensu de B. V. Maria et caeteris hominibus: hi enim actu mortui sunt nascentes cum privatione gratiae sanctificantis, quae est vita animae; illa mortua fuisset, seu nata fuisset cum privatione gratiae sanctificantis, nisi speciali privilegio fuisset praeventa: illi indigent redemptione liberativa, haec praeservativa. Pari ergo ratione dici potest B. V. Mariam peccavisse in Adamo non quatenus inclusa fuit in pacto cum eo inito; sed quatenus inclusa fuisset, nisi habuisset speciale privilegium: eodemque modo praeservatam fuisse tum a contractione peccati tum a debito proximo: vere tamen fuisse redemptam, quia habuit debitum remotum.
3. Si solum debitum remotum admitteretur in Beatissima Virgine, nullo pacto fuisset redempta per Christum. Quod "explicatur," inquit Suarez l. c., "exemplo de muliere quae serva efficitur excipiendo in ipso contractu aliquem ex filiis, ne servus nasci possit. Hoc enim posito, qui postea mulierem illam a servitute redimeret, revera non redimeret filium, quia non erat obnoxius servituti, sed de se liber erat nasciturus; sic ergo, si B. Virgo non fuisset (ut ita dicam) vendita in Adamo, et de se servituti peccati obnoxia, non fuisset vere redempta. Christus enim illos solos redemit, quos Adam vendidit, et quantum in ipso erat, fecit captivos."
Resp. neg. assumptum; et ad exemplum allatum dicimus: "Si quis, cum mulier aliqua in servam venditur, in ipso contractu quempiam ejus filium exciperet, ne servus nasceretur, merito diceretur illum a servitute liberasse. Sic igitur dicetur Virgo a Christo redempta, etiamsi in Adamo non peccaverit, quoniam ex meritis ejus praevisis ita exempta est, ut in illo peccare non potuerit."
4. Atqui, aiunt, non potuisset B. V. Maria eximi a pacto cum Adamo inito. Nam, quando Deus per suum decretum voluntates nostras alligavit voluntati Adami, et Deiparam, juxta nostram sententiam, excepit, nulla adhuc existebant merita Christi; siquidem Christus non fuit praedefinitus ut Redemptor ante peccatum Adae absolute praevisum.
Resp. Huic argumento responderi potest vel dicendo Christum ut Redemptorem fuisse praedefinitum ante peccatum Adae absolute praevisum - vel dicendo Christum ut Redemptorem, pactum cum Adamo, peccati permissionem, et exemptionem Virginis ab eo pacto, uno eodemque signo fuisse definitum - vel concedendo quidem Christum ut Redemptorem fuisse praedefinitum post peccatum Adae absolute praevisum; sed talem decretorum ordinem statuendo, qui cum praedicta exemptione conciliari possit.
Plena hujus difficultatis explicatio pendet a variis quaestionibus: utrum Verbum Incarnatum fuisset, si Adam non peccasset - quomodo, et quonam signo B. V. Maria praedestinata fuerit, etc.; prout enim diversimode respondetur his quaestionibus, diversimode explicatur quomodo B. V. Maria exempta fuit a pacto ob merita Christi. Non est hujus loci praedictas quaestiones expendere: sufficiet nobis aliquem probabilem decretorum ordinem ad exemplum exhibere, ut inde pateat fieri potuisse ut B. V. Maria exempta fuerit a pacto intuitu meritorum Christi.
Deus itaque, praelucente scientia simplicis intelligentiae, ac scientia media de libertate Christi, Adami, Deiparae, etc., hoc vel simili modo decernere concipitur: "Volo Christum cum hac libertate merendi in carne passibili, in remedium peccati, quod praevideo ab Adamo fore committendum, si ipsum producerem, caput morale posterorum constituerem, praeceptum ei imponerem, et hanc libertatem conferrem - Adamum volo producere in tempore, et hunc posterorum numerum, et in isto hanc quoque Virginem Mariam. - Decerno etiam Adamum caput morale posterorum, quorum voluntates alligo ipsius voluntati in ordine ad observationem vel transgressionem praecepti, quod ei imponere volo, de non comedendo pomo: excipio tamen hanc Virginem Mariam, quam Matrem Christi cum hoc gratiarum cumulo eligo, et quidem ob merita ejusdem Christi Redemptoris. - Volo Adamo conferre hanc libertatem, et permittere ipsius peccatum."
5. Si Adam non peccasset, Deipara accepisset gratiam sanctificantem et caetera dona justitiae originalis vi pacti cum Adamo initi, non secus ac alii homines. Ergo illius voluntas alligata fuit voluntati Adae, etc.
Resp. Negant aliqui antec., quia B. V. Maria ut futura Mater Verbi longe majores praestantioresque gratias acceptura erat in primo suae Conceptionis instanti, quam eidem promereri potuisset Adamus. - Sed transmisso antec., neg. conseq., quia quamvis fuisset in eo pacto comprehensa quoad partem favorabilem, non sequitur ideo fuisse etiam comprehensam quoad partem odiosam, uti patet ex prob. maj. hujus argumenti.
PROP. XXXIX. B. V. Maria immunis fuit a debito proximo contrahendi labem originis.
Prob. Concedenda est haec exemptio B. V. Mariae, si nulla solida ratio affertur in contrarium; atqui nulla videtur esse solida ratio in contrarium; ergo.
Prob. maj. a) Ex doctrina S. Augustini, S. Anselmi et D. Thomae talis est B. V. Mariae puritas ut vicerit omni ex parte peccatum - ut ea puritate niteret, qua major sub Deo nequit intelligi - ut nihil sit purius ea in rebus creatis. Atqui haec omnia non essent omnino vera, si fuisset in B. V. Maria debitum proximum contrahendi peccatum; siquidem jam posset intelligi major puritas. Ergo si nulla afferatur solida ratio in contrarium, immunis ab hoc debito asserenda est.
b) Juxta regulam Petri Cellensis (l. 9. ep. 9.): "B. Virgini concedenda sunt omnia privilegia, quae ei fuisse negata positive et efficaciter non probatur - et praesumptionibus standum est, donec probetur contrarium." - Regulam hanc ratam habuit D. Thomas, qui in 3. sent. dist. 2. q. 1. a. 1., scribit: "Credendum omnino ei (Mariae) collatum esse quidquid conferri potuerit." Ergo.
c) Conveniens haud erat ut Domina subjiceretur servo, et Dei Genitrix ac Regina Angelorum subderetur capiti multo inferiori, nempe Adamo; atqui hoc factum esset, si B. V. Mariae voluntas alligata fuisset voluntati Adami praevaricatoris, seu si in ipsa fuisset debitum proximum. Ergo.
Prob. min. adducendo rationes contrarias, eisque respondendo. Dicunt ergo:
1. Est generalis propositio Apostoli omnes in Adamo peccasse; atqui haec propositio in sua universalitate esset falsa, si B. V. Maria non habuisset debitum proximum; siquidem, uti patet, tunc ea in Adamo non peccavisset. Ergo.
Resp. Dist. maj.: est generalis propositio intelligenda in sensu accommodato vel absoluto con.; intelligenda in sensu absoluto, subdist.: absque speciali privilegio con.; secus neg. - Certe Conc. Trid. sess. 5. can. 2. utitur illo Apostoli testimonio "per unum hominem ... in quo omnes peccaverunt" ad ostendendum omnes posteros Adae concipi in peccato originali: ergo, si textus ille non sumeretur in sensu accommodato, quando agitur de B. V. Maria, sequeretur, contra mentem adversariorum et nunc contra fidem Ecclesiae, non modo debitum proximum, sed ipsam etiam culpam in primo animationis instanti a Deipara fuisse contractam.
2. Legitur 1. Cor. 15.: "Sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur; ita et in Christo omnes vivificabuntur." - Et c. 5.: "Si unus pro omnibus mortuus est; ergo omnes mortui sunt; et pro omnibus mortuus est Christus," etc. "Ubi necesse est," arguit Suarez l. c., "utramque partem distributionis aeque esse universalem. Sicut ergo certum est Christum mortuum esse pro Beata Virgine ita certum est B. V. fuisse mortuam saltem in Adamo."
Resp. Eadem fere est responsio. Etenim quod omnes mortui sunt in Adamo, et omnes egent redemptione Christi, fatentibus adversariis et nunc exigente fide, nequit intelligi eodem sensu de B. V. Maria et caeteris hominibus: hi enim actu mortui sunt nascentes cum privatione gratiae sanctificantis, quae est vita animae; illa mortua fuisset, seu nata fuisset cum privatione gratiae sanctificantis, nisi speciali privilegio fuisset praeventa: illi indigent redemptione liberativa, haec praeservativa. Pari ergo ratione dici potest B. V. Mariam peccavisse in Adamo non quatenus inclusa fuit in pacto cum eo inito; sed quatenus inclusa fuisset, nisi habuisset speciale privilegium: eodemque modo praeservatam fuisse tum a contractione peccati tum a debito proximo: vere tamen fuisse redemptam, quia habuit debitum remotum.
3. Si solum debitum remotum admitteretur in Beatissima Virgine, nullo pacto fuisset redempta per Christum. Quod "explicatur," inquit Suarez l. c., "exemplo de muliere quae serva efficitur excipiendo in ipso contractu aliquem ex filiis, ne servus nasci possit. Hoc enim posito, qui postea mulierem illam a servitute redimeret, revera non redimeret filium, quia non erat obnoxius servituti, sed de se liber erat nasciturus; sic ergo, si B. Virgo non fuisset (ut ita dicam) vendita in Adamo, et de se servituti peccati obnoxia, non fuisset vere redempta. Christus enim illos solos redemit, quos Adam vendidit, et quantum in ipso erat, fecit captivos."
Resp. neg. assumptum; et ad exemplum allatum dicimus: "Si quis, cum mulier aliqua in servam venditur, in ipso contractu quempiam ejus filium exciperet, ne servus nasceretur, merito diceretur illum a servitute liberasse. Sic igitur dicetur Virgo a Christo redempta, etiamsi in Adamo non peccaverit, quoniam ex meritis ejus praevisis ita exempta est, ut in illo peccare non potuerit."
4. Atqui, aiunt, non potuisset B. V. Maria eximi a pacto cum Adamo inito. Nam, quando Deus per suum decretum voluntates nostras alligavit voluntati Adami, et Deiparam, juxta nostram sententiam, excepit, nulla adhuc existebant merita Christi; siquidem Christus non fuit praedefinitus ut Redemptor ante peccatum Adae absolute praevisum.
Resp. Huic argumento responderi potest vel dicendo Christum ut Redemptorem fuisse praedefinitum ante peccatum Adae absolute praevisum - vel dicendo Christum ut Redemptorem, pactum cum Adamo, peccati permissionem, et exemptionem Virginis ab eo pacto, uno eodemque signo fuisse definitum - vel concedendo quidem Christum ut Redemptorem fuisse praedefinitum post peccatum Adae absolute praevisum; sed talem decretorum ordinem statuendo, qui cum praedicta exemptione conciliari possit.
Plena hujus difficultatis explicatio pendet a variis quaestionibus: utrum Verbum Incarnatum fuisset, si Adam non peccasset - quomodo, et quonam signo B. V. Maria praedestinata fuerit, etc.; prout enim diversimode respondetur his quaestionibus, diversimode explicatur quomodo B. V. Maria exempta fuit a pacto ob merita Christi. Non est hujus loci praedictas quaestiones expendere: sufficiet nobis aliquem probabilem decretorum ordinem ad exemplum exhibere, ut inde pateat fieri potuisse ut B. V. Maria exempta fuerit a pacto intuitu meritorum Christi.
Deus itaque, praelucente scientia simplicis intelligentiae, ac scientia media de libertate Christi, Adami, Deiparae, etc., hoc vel simili modo decernere concipitur: "Volo Christum cum hac libertate merendi in carne passibili, in remedium peccati, quod praevideo ab Adamo fore committendum, si ipsum producerem, caput morale posterorum constituerem, praeceptum ei imponerem, et hanc libertatem conferrem - Adamum volo producere in tempore, et hunc posterorum numerum, et in isto hanc quoque Virginem Mariam. - Decerno etiam Adamum caput morale posterorum, quorum voluntates alligo ipsius voluntati in ordine ad observationem vel transgressionem praecepti, quod ei imponere volo, de non comedendo pomo: excipio tamen hanc Virginem Mariam, quam Matrem Christi cum hoc gratiarum cumulo eligo, et quidem ob merita ejusdem Christi Redemptoris. - Volo Adamo conferre hanc libertatem, et permittere ipsius peccatum."
5. Si Adam non peccasset, Deipara accepisset gratiam sanctificantem et caetera dona justitiae originalis vi pacti cum Adamo initi, non secus ac alii homines. Ergo illius voluntas alligata fuit voluntati Adae, etc.
Resp. Negant aliqui antec., quia B. V. Maria ut futura Mater Verbi longe majores praestantioresque gratias acceptura erat in primo suae Conceptionis instanti, quam eidem promereri potuisset Adamus. - Sed transmisso antec., neg. conseq., quia quamvis fuisset in eo pacto comprehensa quoad partem favorabilem, non sequitur ideo fuisse etiam comprehensam quoad partem odiosam, uti patet ex prob. maj. hujus argumenti.
474. Subscribing to these latter, we say:
PROPOSITION XXXIX. The Blessed Virgin Mary was immune from the proximate debt of contracting the stain of origin.
Proof. This exemption must be conceded to the Blessed Virgin Mary if no solid reason is brought forward to the contrary; but there seems to be no solid reason to the contrary; therefore.
The major is proved. a) From the doctrine of St. Augustine, St. Anselm, and St. Thomas, such is the purity of the Blessed Virgin Mary that she conquered sin on every side; that she shone with that purity greater than which cannot be understood under God; that nothing is purer than she among created things. But all these things would not be altogether true if there had been in the Blessed Virgin Mary a proximate debt of contracting sin, since a greater purity could already be understood. Therefore, if no solid reason is brought forward to the contrary, she must be asserted immune from this debt.
b) According to the rule of Peter of Celle (book 9, ep. 9): "All privileges which are not positively and effectively proved to have been denied to the Blessed Virgin are to be conceded to her, and one must stand by presumptions until the contrary is proved." - St. Thomas ratified this rule, writing in III Sent., dist. 2, q. 1, a. 1: "One must altogether believe that whatever could be conferred was conferred on her (Mary)." Therefore.
c) It was hardly fitting that the Lady should be subjected to a servant, and that the Mother of God and Queen of Angels should be placed under a much inferior head, namely Adam. But this would have happened if the will of the Blessed Virgin Mary had been bound to the will of Adam the prevaricator, or if there had been proximate debt in her. Therefore.
The minor is proved by adducing the contrary reasons and responding to them. They say, therefore:
1. It is a general proposition of the Apostle that all sinned in Adam; but this proposition in its universality would be false if the Blessed Virgin Mary had not had proximate debt, since, as is clear, then she would not have sinned in Adam. Therefore.
Resp. I distinguish the major: it is a general proposition to be understood in an accommodated or absolute sense, conceded; to be understood in an absolute sense, I subdistinguish: without special privilege, conceded; otherwise, denied. - Certainly the Council of Trent, session 5, canon 2, uses that testimony of the Apostle, "through one man ... in whom all sinned," to show that all the descendants of Adam are conceived in original sin. Therefore, if that text were not taken in an accommodated sense when the Blessed Virgin Mary is in question, it would follow, against the mind of the adversaries and now against the faith of the Church, that not only the proximate debt, but even the fault itself was contracted by the Mother of God in the first instant of animation.
2. 1 Corinthians 15 reads: "As in Adam all die; so also in Christ all shall be made alive." - And chapter 5: "If one died for all; therefore all died; and Christ died for all," etc. "Here it is necessary," Suarez argues in the cited place, "that each part of the distribution be equally universal. Therefore just as it is certain that Christ died for the Blessed Virgin, so it is certain that the Blessed Virgin was dead at least in Adam."
Resp. The response is nearly the same. For that all died in Adam and all need the redemption of Christ, by the admission of the adversaries and now as faith requires, cannot be understood in the same sense of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the rest of human beings. For these latter actually were dead, being born with the privation of sanctifying grace, which is the life of the soul; she would have been dead, or would have been born with the privation of sanctifying grace, unless she had been anticipated by a special privilege. They need liberative redemption; she, preservative redemption. By equal reason, therefore, it can be said that the Blessed Virgin Mary sinned in Adam not insofar as she was included in the covenant entered into with him, but insofar as she would have been included, unless she had had a special privilege; and in the same way that she was preserved both from the contraction of sin and from proximate debt, but nevertheless was truly redeemed, because she had remote debt.
3. If only remote debt were admitted in the Most Blessed Virgin, in no way would she have been redeemed through Christ. This "is explained," says Suarez in the cited place, "by the example of a woman who becomes a slave, with one of her children being excepted in the very contract, lest he could be born a slave. This being posited, someone who afterward redeemed that woman from servitude would not in reality redeem the son, because he was not liable to servitude, but was going to be born free of himself. Thus therefore, if the Blessed Virgin had not been (so to speak) sold in Adam, and of herself liable to the servitude of sin, she would not have been truly redeemed. For Christ redeemed only those whom Adam sold, and, as much as was in him, made captives."
Resp. I deny the assumption; and to the example brought forward we say: "If someone, when some woman is sold into slavery, should except one of her children in the very contract, lest he be born a slave, he would deservedly be said to have freed him from servitude. Thus therefore the Virgin will be said to have been redeemed by Christ, even if she did not sin in Adam, since from his foreseen merits she was so exempted that she could not sin in him."
4. But, they say, the Blessed Virgin Mary could not have been exempted from the covenant entered into with Adam. For when God by his decree bound our wills to the will of Adam, and, according to our opinion, excepted the Mother of God, no merits of Christ yet existed; since Christ was not predefined as Redeemer before Adam's sin was absolutely foreseen.
Resp. To this argument one can respond either by saying that Christ as Redeemer was predefined before Adam's sin was absolutely foreseen; or by saying that Christ as Redeemer, the covenant with Adam, the permission of sin, and the exemption of the Virgin from that covenant were defined by one and the same sign; or indeed by conceding that Christ as Redeemer was predefined after Adam's sin was absolutely foreseen, but by establishing such an order of decrees as can be reconciled with the aforesaid exemption.
The full explanation of this difficulty depends on various questions: whether the Incarnate Word would have existed if Adam had not sinned; how and by what sign the Blessed Virgin Mary was predestined, etc. For insofar as these questions are answered in different ways, it is explained in different ways how the Blessed Virgin Mary was exempted from the covenant because of the merits of Christ. It does not belong to this place to weigh the aforesaid questions. It will be enough for us to present some probable order of decrees as an example, so that from this it may be clear that it could have happened that the Blessed Virgin Mary was exempted from the covenant in view of the merits of Christ.
Therefore, with the science of simple intelligence shining before, and middle knowledge concerning the freedom of Christ, Adam, the Mother of God, etc., God is conceived to decree in this or a similar way: "I will Christ with this freedom of meriting in passible flesh, as remedy of the sin which I foresee will be committed by Adam if I produce him, constitute him moral head of his descendants, impose a precept on him, and confer this freedom. I will to produce Adam in time, and this number of descendants, and in this number this Virgin Mary also. - I also decree Adam as moral head of his descendants, whose wills I bind to his will in order to the observance or transgression of the precept which I will to impose on him, concerning not eating the fruit. Yet I except this Virgin Mary, whom I choose as Mother of Christ with this abundance of graces, and indeed because of the merits of the same Christ the Redeemer. - I will to confer this freedom on Adam, and to permit his sin."
5. If Adam had not sinned, the Mother of God would have received sanctifying grace and the other gifts of original justice by force of the covenant entered into with Adam, no differently than other human beings. Therefore her will was bound to the will of Adam, etc.
Resp. Some deny the antecedent, because the Blessed Virgin Mary as future Mother of the Word was going to receive far greater and more excellent graces in the first instant of her Conception than Adam could have merited for her. - But, passing over the antecedent, I deny the consequence, because although she would have been included in that covenant with respect to the favorable part, it does not therefore follow that she was also included with respect to the odious part, as is clear from the proof of the major of this argument.
PROPOSITION XXXIX. The Blessed Virgin Mary was immune from the proximate debt of contracting the stain of origin.
Proof. This exemption must be conceded to the Blessed Virgin Mary if no solid reason is brought forward to the contrary; but there seems to be no solid reason to the contrary; therefore.
The major is proved. a) From the doctrine of St. Augustine, St. Anselm, and St. Thomas, such is the purity of the Blessed Virgin Mary that she conquered sin on every side; that she shone with that purity greater than which cannot be understood under God; that nothing is purer than she among created things. But all these things would not be altogether true if there had been in the Blessed Virgin Mary a proximate debt of contracting sin, since a greater purity could already be understood. Therefore, if no solid reason is brought forward to the contrary, she must be asserted immune from this debt.
b) According to the rule of Peter of Celle (book 9, ep. 9): "All privileges which are not positively and effectively proved to have been denied to the Blessed Virgin are to be conceded to her, and one must stand by presumptions until the contrary is proved." - St. Thomas ratified this rule, writing in III Sent., dist. 2, q. 1, a. 1: "One must altogether believe that whatever could be conferred was conferred on her (Mary)." Therefore.
c) It was hardly fitting that the Lady should be subjected to a servant, and that the Mother of God and Queen of Angels should be placed under a much inferior head, namely Adam. But this would have happened if the will of the Blessed Virgin Mary had been bound to the will of Adam the prevaricator, or if there had been proximate debt in her. Therefore.
The minor is proved by adducing the contrary reasons and responding to them. They say, therefore:
1. It is a general proposition of the Apostle that all sinned in Adam; but this proposition in its universality would be false if the Blessed Virgin Mary had not had proximate debt, since, as is clear, then she would not have sinned in Adam. Therefore.
Resp. I distinguish the major: it is a general proposition to be understood in an accommodated or absolute sense, conceded; to be understood in an absolute sense, I subdistinguish: without special privilege, conceded; otherwise, denied. - Certainly the Council of Trent, session 5, canon 2, uses that testimony of the Apostle, "through one man ... in whom all sinned," to show that all the descendants of Adam are conceived in original sin. Therefore, if that text were not taken in an accommodated sense when the Blessed Virgin Mary is in question, it would follow, against the mind of the adversaries and now against the faith of the Church, that not only the proximate debt, but even the fault itself was contracted by the Mother of God in the first instant of animation.
2. 1 Corinthians 15 reads: "As in Adam all die; so also in Christ all shall be made alive." - And chapter 5: "If one died for all; therefore all died; and Christ died for all," etc. "Here it is necessary," Suarez argues in the cited place, "that each part of the distribution be equally universal. Therefore just as it is certain that Christ died for the Blessed Virgin, so it is certain that the Blessed Virgin was dead at least in Adam."
Resp. The response is nearly the same. For that all died in Adam and all need the redemption of Christ, by the admission of the adversaries and now as faith requires, cannot be understood in the same sense of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the rest of human beings. For these latter actually were dead, being born with the privation of sanctifying grace, which is the life of the soul; she would have been dead, or would have been born with the privation of sanctifying grace, unless she had been anticipated by a special privilege. They need liberative redemption; she, preservative redemption. By equal reason, therefore, it can be said that the Blessed Virgin Mary sinned in Adam not insofar as she was included in the covenant entered into with him, but insofar as she would have been included, unless she had had a special privilege; and in the same way that she was preserved both from the contraction of sin and from proximate debt, but nevertheless was truly redeemed, because she had remote debt.
3. If only remote debt were admitted in the Most Blessed Virgin, in no way would she have been redeemed through Christ. This "is explained," says Suarez in the cited place, "by the example of a woman who becomes a slave, with one of her children being excepted in the very contract, lest he could be born a slave. This being posited, someone who afterward redeemed that woman from servitude would not in reality redeem the son, because he was not liable to servitude, but was going to be born free of himself. Thus therefore, if the Blessed Virgin had not been (so to speak) sold in Adam, and of herself liable to the servitude of sin, she would not have been truly redeemed. For Christ redeemed only those whom Adam sold, and, as much as was in him, made captives."
Resp. I deny the assumption; and to the example brought forward we say: "If someone, when some woman is sold into slavery, should except one of her children in the very contract, lest he be born a slave, he would deservedly be said to have freed him from servitude. Thus therefore the Virgin will be said to have been redeemed by Christ, even if she did not sin in Adam, since from his foreseen merits she was so exempted that she could not sin in him."
4. But, they say, the Blessed Virgin Mary could not have been exempted from the covenant entered into with Adam. For when God by his decree bound our wills to the will of Adam, and, according to our opinion, excepted the Mother of God, no merits of Christ yet existed; since Christ was not predefined as Redeemer before Adam's sin was absolutely foreseen.
Resp. To this argument one can respond either by saying that Christ as Redeemer was predefined before Adam's sin was absolutely foreseen; or by saying that Christ as Redeemer, the covenant with Adam, the permission of sin, and the exemption of the Virgin from that covenant were defined by one and the same sign; or indeed by conceding that Christ as Redeemer was predefined after Adam's sin was absolutely foreseen, but by establishing such an order of decrees as can be reconciled with the aforesaid exemption.
The full explanation of this difficulty depends on various questions: whether the Incarnate Word would have existed if Adam had not sinned; how and by what sign the Blessed Virgin Mary was predestined, etc. For insofar as these questions are answered in different ways, it is explained in different ways how the Blessed Virgin Mary was exempted from the covenant because of the merits of Christ. It does not belong to this place to weigh the aforesaid questions. It will be enough for us to present some probable order of decrees as an example, so that from this it may be clear that it could have happened that the Blessed Virgin Mary was exempted from the covenant in view of the merits of Christ.
Therefore, with the science of simple intelligence shining before, and middle knowledge concerning the freedom of Christ, Adam, the Mother of God, etc., God is conceived to decree in this or a similar way: "I will Christ with this freedom of meriting in passible flesh, as remedy of the sin which I foresee will be committed by Adam if I produce him, constitute him moral head of his descendants, impose a precept on him, and confer this freedom. I will to produce Adam in time, and this number of descendants, and in this number this Virgin Mary also. - I also decree Adam as moral head of his descendants, whose wills I bind to his will in order to the observance or transgression of the precept which I will to impose on him, concerning not eating the fruit. Yet I except this Virgin Mary, whom I choose as Mother of Christ with this abundance of graces, and indeed because of the merits of the same Christ the Redeemer. - I will to confer this freedom on Adam, and to permit his sin."
5. If Adam had not sinned, the Mother of God would have received sanctifying grace and the other gifts of original justice by force of the covenant entered into with Adam, no differently than other human beings. Therefore her will was bound to the will of Adam, etc.
Resp. Some deny the antecedent, because the Blessed Virgin Mary as future Mother of the Word was going to receive far greater and more excellent graces in the first instant of her Conception than Adam could have merited for her. - But, passing over the antecedent, I deny the consequence, because although she would have been included in that covenant with respect to the favorable part, it does not therefore follow that she was also included with respect to the odious part, as is clear from the proof of the major of this argument.
475. Unde ipse Suarez, licet (l. c. et de vitiis atque peccatis, disp. 9. sect. 4.) contrariam sententiam, suo tempore, ut videtur, communiorem tenuerit; fatetur tamen (l. c. in 3. p.): "Si quis autem contendat potuisse Virginem esse obnoxiam peccato Adae contrahendo, atque adeo proprie redemptam per Christum, et nihilominus non peccasse in Adamo, sed habuisse solum debitum peccandi in illo, fuisse autem propter Christum praeservatam, non solum ne peccatum Adae contraheret, verum etiam ne in ipso peccaret: talis opinio non posset censura notari, quia utcumque salvat scripturarum locutiones." Vid. Wirceburgenses.
475. Hence Suarez himself, although in his own time, as it seems, he held the contrary opinion, which was more common (l. c. and On Vices and Sins, disp. 9, sect. 4), nevertheless confesses (l. c. on III): "But if someone should contend that the Virgin could have been liable to contracting the sin of Adam, and therefore properly redeemed through Christ, and nevertheless did not sin in Adam, but had only the debt of sinning in him, and was preserved because of Christ not only so that she would not contract Adam's sin, but also so that she would not sin in him: such an opinion could not be marked with censure, because in some way it saves the expressions of the Scriptures." See the Wurzburg theologians.
Sectio IV.
Utrum in B. V. M. fuerit fomes peccati.
Utrum in B. V. M. fuerit fomes peccati.
SECTION IV.
Whether There Was in the Blessed Virgin Mary the Fomes of Sin.
Whether There Was in the Blessed Virgin Mary the Fomes of Sin.
476. Hanc quaestionem hic pertractamus tum quia intimum habet nexum cum quaestione praecedente, tum quia secus, juxta praesentem tractatuum distributionem, esset omnino praetermittenda; quod debitus in Matrem Dei honor et amor minime sinit.
476. We treat this question here both because it has an intimate connection with the preceding question, and because otherwise, according to the present distribution of treatises, it would have to be passed over entirely; and due honor and love toward the Mother of God by no means permits this.
477. Fomes peccati est ipsa naturalis inclinatio appetitus sensitivi, quatenus inordinate et absque rationis consensu sensibilia interdum potest appetere.
477. The fomes of sin is the very natural inclination of the sensitive appetite, insofar as it can sometimes desire sensible things inordinately and without the consent of reason.
478. Conveniunt omnes 1. B. V. Mariam numquam habuisse actum fomitis, seu fomitem in actu secundo. - 2. Imo fomitem fuisse in ea saltem ligatum in prima ejus sanctificatione, seu in primo conceptionis instanti. - 3. Fuisse insuper in ea extinctum saltem in secunda sanctificatione, nempe quando concepit Salvatorem. Disputatur solum inter Theologos, utrum fomes non modo ligatus, sed extinctus fuerit in B. V. Maria in prima ejus sanctificatione.
478. All agree, 1. that the Blessed Virgin Mary never had an act of the fomes, or the fomes in second act. - 2. Indeed, that the fomes was in her at least bound in her first sanctification, or in the first instant of conception. - 3. Moreover, that it was in her extinguished at least in the second sanctification, namely when she conceived the Savior. It is disputed only among theologians whether the fomes was not merely bound, but extinguished in the Blessed Virgin Mary in her first sanctification.
479. Ligari et extingui, quoad rem praesentem conveniunt in hoc, quod "utroque modo infallibiliter fit, ut appetitus nullum inordinatum motum habere possit in sensu composito, id est, posita illa gratia, vel privilegio, quo fomes ligari, vel extingui dicitur. Cum enim appetitus, seu fomes sit potentia de se naturaliter operans, praesertim in iis motibus, qui libertatem antevertunt, non potest infallibiliter impediri, ne hoc modo operetur, nisi careat aliquo principio ad operandum requisito videlicet objecto, concursu Dei, aliove simili." - Discrepant vero in eo, quod ligari dicitur fomes, quando eo in facultate remanente, ejus actus impeditur solum per extrinsecam Dei providentiam; quatenus Deus tollit occasiones, in quibus appetitus in turpes motus prorumperet, vel denegat concursum ad tales motus, etc.: extingui autem dicitur fomes, quando neque in actu primo remanet in appetitu sensitivo dispositio ad motus inordinatos, quatenus Deus ita instruit animam intrinsecis donis (virtutibus, gratiarum copia, etc.), ut nunquam possit sensus rationem antevertere, vel ei resistere. Vide quae diximus (nn. 176. seqq.)
479. Being bound and being extinguished, with regard to the present matter, agree in this, that "in either way it infallibly comes about that the appetite cannot have any inordinate movement in the composite sense, that is, once that grace or privilege is posited by which the fomes is said to be bound or extinguished. For since the appetite, or fomes, is a potency naturally operating of itself, especially in those movements which anticipate freedom, it cannot infallibly be impeded from operating in this way unless it lacks some principle required for operating, namely an object, the concurrence of God, or something similar." - But they differ in this, that the fomes is said to be bound when, while it remains in the faculty, its act is impeded only through the extrinsic providence of God, insofar as God removes occasions in which the appetite would burst forth into shameful movements, or denies concurrence for such movements, etc. But the fomes is said to be extinguished when not even in first act does there remain in the sensitive appetite a disposition toward inordinate movements, insofar as God so furnishes the soul with intrinsic gifts (virtues, abundance of graces, etc.) that sense can never anticipate reason or resist it. See what we said above (nn. 176ff.).
480. His itaque declaratis, dicimus imprimis B. V. Mariam numquam habuisse actum fomitis. Quod
Probatur I. Ex Patribus. Auctor sermonis de Nativ. Christi (inter opera S. Cypriani) haec habet: "Spiritus S. possidebat domum suam, et templum, quod sibi consecraverat, adornabat. Servabat sacrarium suum, et sanctimoniae thalamum honorabat; laetificabant consolationes hujusmodi animam benedictam, et tanti habitatoris reverentia concupiscentiarum ludibria abigebat, legem mentis lex carnis non infestabat, rebellio nulla quietem spiritus affligebat." - In Dogmatica panoplia a Card. Mai edita, (tom. 2.), dicitur Maria "concupiscentiae nescia." - Andreas Cretensis (Orat. 2. in Dormit. Deiparae) vocat eam "eremum passionum." - Petrus Damianus (Orat. 40. in Assumpt. B. V.), dicit: "Caro Virginis ex Adam assumpta, maculas Adae non admisit, sed singularis continentiae puritas in candorem lucis aeternae conversa est." S. Bernardus (Sermo de illis verbis "Signum magnum") ait: "Nihil in ea non dico tenebrosum, sed obscurum saltem, vel minus lucidum, sed ne tepidum quidem aliquid, aut non ferventissimum liceat suspicari." - Richardus a S. Victore (l. 1. de Emman.) dicit (cap. 28.) "Virgini omnem otiositatem fuisse sublatam, solam poenam fuisse relictam;" et (cap. 32.) inquit: "in caeteris sanctis magnificum fuisse, quod a vitiis non sunt expugnati, in Virgine autem, quod nec impugnata fuit."
Prob. II. Ex ratione theologica. "Primo, quia decuit Virginem ea puritate nitere, qua major sub Deo nequit intelligi. Secundo, quia hic est quidam effectus originalis peccati, magnam indecentiam, et cum culpa magnam habens affinitatem, isti enim motus de se mali sunt, et culpabiles nisi ignorantia, vel impotentia illos vitandi, excusat. Unde argumentor tertio ex principio supra posito, quod B. Virgo nunquam venialiter peccaverit. Nam licet posset Deus non obstante fomite, et motibus ejus, impedire omnem culpam in Beata Virgine, tamen cum sapientissime, et suavissime omnia provideat, accommodat fini media, et causam disponit, prout expedit, ad intentum effectum. Quia ergo B. Virginem ab omni culpa praeservaturus erat, eamdem fecit ab omni inordinato motu liberam, quia moraliter difficillimum est pati inordinatos motus, et venialiter saltem nunquam delinquere. Unde fit nullam mentis distractionem, vel variarum cogitationum intellectus, aut phantasiae involuntarias immutationes passam unquam fuisse. Haec enim omnia imperfectionem magnam continent, et ad fomitis inordinationem pertinent."
Probatur I. Ex Patribus. Auctor sermonis de Nativ. Christi (inter opera S. Cypriani) haec habet: "Spiritus S. possidebat domum suam, et templum, quod sibi consecraverat, adornabat. Servabat sacrarium suum, et sanctimoniae thalamum honorabat; laetificabant consolationes hujusmodi animam benedictam, et tanti habitatoris reverentia concupiscentiarum ludibria abigebat, legem mentis lex carnis non infestabat, rebellio nulla quietem spiritus affligebat." - In Dogmatica panoplia a Card. Mai edita, (tom. 2.), dicitur Maria "concupiscentiae nescia." - Andreas Cretensis (Orat. 2. in Dormit. Deiparae) vocat eam "eremum passionum." - Petrus Damianus (Orat. 40. in Assumpt. B. V.), dicit: "Caro Virginis ex Adam assumpta, maculas Adae non admisit, sed singularis continentiae puritas in candorem lucis aeternae conversa est." S. Bernardus (Sermo de illis verbis "Signum magnum") ait: "Nihil in ea non dico tenebrosum, sed obscurum saltem, vel minus lucidum, sed ne tepidum quidem aliquid, aut non ferventissimum liceat suspicari." - Richardus a S. Victore (l. 1. de Emman.) dicit (cap. 28.) "Virgini omnem otiositatem fuisse sublatam, solam poenam fuisse relictam;" et (cap. 32.) inquit: "in caeteris sanctis magnificum fuisse, quod a vitiis non sunt expugnati, in Virgine autem, quod nec impugnata fuit."
Prob. II. Ex ratione theologica. "Primo, quia decuit Virginem ea puritate nitere, qua major sub Deo nequit intelligi. Secundo, quia hic est quidam effectus originalis peccati, magnam indecentiam, et cum culpa magnam habens affinitatem, isti enim motus de se mali sunt, et culpabiles nisi ignorantia, vel impotentia illos vitandi, excusat. Unde argumentor tertio ex principio supra posito, quod B. Virgo nunquam venialiter peccaverit. Nam licet posset Deus non obstante fomite, et motibus ejus, impedire omnem culpam in Beata Virgine, tamen cum sapientissime, et suavissime omnia provideat, accommodat fini media, et causam disponit, prout expedit, ad intentum effectum. Quia ergo B. Virginem ab omni culpa praeservaturus erat, eamdem fecit ab omni inordinato motu liberam, quia moraliter difficillimum est pati inordinatos motus, et venialiter saltem nunquam delinquere. Unde fit nullam mentis distractionem, vel variarum cogitationum intellectus, aut phantasiae involuntarias immutationes passam unquam fuisse. Haec enim omnia imperfectionem magnam continent, et ad fomitis inordinationem pertinent."
480. With these things therefore explained, we say first that the Blessed Virgin Mary never had an act of the fomes. This is proved:
Proof I. From the Fathers. The author of the sermon on the Nativity of Christ (among the works of St. Cyprian) has these words: "The Holy Spirit possessed his own house, and adorned the temple which he had consecrated to himself. He preserved his own sanctuary and honored the chamber of holiness. Consolations of this sort gladdened the blessed soul, and reverence for so great an inhabitant drove away the mockeries of concupiscences; the law of the flesh did not trouble the law of the mind; no rebellion afflicted the quiet of the spirit." - In the Dogmatic Panoply edited by Cardinal Mai (vol. 2), Mary is called "ignorant of concupiscence." - Andrew of Crete (Oration 2 on the Dormition of the Mother of God) calls her "a desert of passions." - Peter Damian (Oration 40 on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin) says: "The flesh of the Virgin, taken from Adam, did not admit the stains of Adam, but the purity of singular continence was turned into the brightness of eternal light." St. Bernard (Sermon on those words "A great sign") says: "Let it be allowed to suspect in it nothing, I do not say dark, but even obscure, or less luminous, but not even anything lukewarm or not most fervent." - Richard of St. Victor (On Emmanuel, book 1, c. 28) says "that every idleness was taken away from the Virgin, and only penalty was left"; and (c. 32) says: "in the other saints it was magnificent that they were not overcome by vices, but in the Virgin, that she was not even attacked."
Proof II. From theological reason. "First, because it was fitting that the Virgin should shine with that purity greater than which cannot be understood under God. Secondly, because this is a certain effect of original sin, having great unbecomingness and great affinity with fault; for these movements of themselves are evil, and culpable unless ignorance or inability to avoid them excuses. Hence I argue thirdly from the principle posited above, that the Blessed Virgin never sinned venially. For although God could, notwithstanding the fomes and its movements, impede every fault in the Blessed Virgin, nevertheless since he provides all things most wisely and most sweetly, he adapts means to the end, and disposes the cause, as is expedient, toward the intended effect. Therefore, because he was going to preserve the Blessed Virgin from every fault, he made her free from every inordinate movement, because it is morally most difficult to suffer inordinate movements and nevertheless never to offend at least venially. Hence it follows that she never suffered any distraction of mind, or involuntary alterations of the intellect or imagination through various thoughts. For all these things contain great imperfection, and pertain to the disorder of the fomes."
Proof I. From the Fathers. The author of the sermon on the Nativity of Christ (among the works of St. Cyprian) has these words: "The Holy Spirit possessed his own house, and adorned the temple which he had consecrated to himself. He preserved his own sanctuary and honored the chamber of holiness. Consolations of this sort gladdened the blessed soul, and reverence for so great an inhabitant drove away the mockeries of concupiscences; the law of the flesh did not trouble the law of the mind; no rebellion afflicted the quiet of the spirit." - In the Dogmatic Panoply edited by Cardinal Mai (vol. 2), Mary is called "ignorant of concupiscence." - Andrew of Crete (Oration 2 on the Dormition of the Mother of God) calls her "a desert of passions." - Peter Damian (Oration 40 on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin) says: "The flesh of the Virgin, taken from Adam, did not admit the stains of Adam, but the purity of singular continence was turned into the brightness of eternal light." St. Bernard (Sermon on those words "A great sign") says: "Let it be allowed to suspect in it nothing, I do not say dark, but even obscure, or less luminous, but not even anything lukewarm or not most fervent." - Richard of St. Victor (On Emmanuel, book 1, c. 28) says "that every idleness was taken away from the Virgin, and only penalty was left"; and (c. 32) says: "in the other saints it was magnificent that they were not overcome by vices, but in the Virgin, that she was not even attacked."
Proof II. From theological reason. "First, because it was fitting that the Virgin should shine with that purity greater than which cannot be understood under God. Secondly, because this is a certain effect of original sin, having great unbecomingness and great affinity with fault; for these movements of themselves are evil, and culpable unless ignorance or inability to avoid them excuses. Hence I argue thirdly from the principle posited above, that the Blessed Virgin never sinned venially. For although God could, notwithstanding the fomes and its movements, impede every fault in the Blessed Virgin, nevertheless since he provides all things most wisely and most sweetly, he adapts means to the end, and disposes the cause, as is expedient, toward the intended effect. Therefore, because he was going to preserve the Blessed Virgin from every fault, he made her free from every inordinate movement, because it is morally most difficult to suffer inordinate movements and nevertheless never to offend at least venially. Hence it follows that she never suffered any distraction of mind, or involuntary alterations of the intellect or imagination through various thoughts. For all these things contain great imperfection, and pertain to the disorder of the fomes."
481. Dicimus secundo: videtur fuisse fomes in B. V. extinctus a prima ejus sanctificatione. Quod
Prob. I. "A prima sanctificatione Virginis statuit Deus nullum motum fomitis in illa permittere: ergo non solum ligavit, sed etiam extinxit in ea fomitem. Quorsum enim fomitem in actu primo (ut ita dicam) in ea relinqueret, cum omnem actum secundum esset impediturus? maxime cum hujusmodi fomes imperfectum quid sit, et de se ad malum inclinet."
Prob. II. "Dici non potest in Virgine solum fuisse impeditos hujusmodi motus per solam extrinsecam providentiam, ut ea ratione dicatur tantum fuisse ligatus, tum quia ille modus est valde imperfectus, et ideo non est, cur Virgini tribuatur: praesertim cum non sit consentaneus ordinario modo providentiae Dei, qui causis secundis principia tribuit intrinseca ad hujusmodi effectus, et ipse solum supplet ea, quae per intrinseca principia fieri a causis secundis convenienter non possunt; tum etiam quia Beata Virgo a principio habuit gratiam, et virtutes omnes per se, et per accidens infusas valde perfectas, quibus conjunctum est illud divinum auxilium."
Prob. III. "Adae et Evae in prima sanctificatione data sunt gratia et virtutes in gradu heroico ad hunc effectum sufficiente, sed copiosior gratia, et perfectiores virtutes datae sunt Virgini in prima sua sanctificatione, ut ex principiis supra positis constat. Unde Bernard. Epist. 174. 'ego inquit, puto quod copiosior sanctificationis benedictio in eam descenderit quae ipsius non solum sanctificaverit ortum, sed vitam ab omni peccato deinceps custodierit immunem.'"
Prob. I. "A prima sanctificatione Virginis statuit Deus nullum motum fomitis in illa permittere: ergo non solum ligavit, sed etiam extinxit in ea fomitem. Quorsum enim fomitem in actu primo (ut ita dicam) in ea relinqueret, cum omnem actum secundum esset impediturus? maxime cum hujusmodi fomes imperfectum quid sit, et de se ad malum inclinet."
Prob. II. "Dici non potest in Virgine solum fuisse impeditos hujusmodi motus per solam extrinsecam providentiam, ut ea ratione dicatur tantum fuisse ligatus, tum quia ille modus est valde imperfectus, et ideo non est, cur Virgini tribuatur: praesertim cum non sit consentaneus ordinario modo providentiae Dei, qui causis secundis principia tribuit intrinseca ad hujusmodi effectus, et ipse solum supplet ea, quae per intrinseca principia fieri a causis secundis convenienter non possunt; tum etiam quia Beata Virgo a principio habuit gratiam, et virtutes omnes per se, et per accidens infusas valde perfectas, quibus conjunctum est illud divinum auxilium."
Prob. III. "Adae et Evae in prima sanctificatione data sunt gratia et virtutes in gradu heroico ad hunc effectum sufficiente, sed copiosior gratia, et perfectiores virtutes datae sunt Virgini in prima sua sanctificatione, ut ex principiis supra positis constat. Unde Bernard. Epist. 174. 'ego inquit, puto quod copiosior sanctificationis benedictio in eam descenderit quae ipsius non solum sanctificaverit ortum, sed vitam ab omni peccato deinceps custodierit immunem.'"
481. We say secondly: it seems that the fomes was extinguished in the Blessed Virgin from her first sanctification. This is proved:
Proof I. "From the first sanctification of the Virgin, God determined to permit no movement of the fomes in her; therefore he not only bound but also extinguished the fomes in her. For to what purpose would he leave the fomes in first act, so to speak, in her, when he was going to impede every second act? Especially since a fomes of this sort is something imperfect, and of itself inclines toward evil."
Proof II. "It cannot be said that movements of this sort were only impeded in the Virgin through extrinsic providence alone, so that for this reason it is said only to have been bound, both because that mode is very imperfect, and therefore there is no reason why it should be attributed to the Virgin, especially since it is not consonant with the ordinary mode of God's providence, who gives to secondary causes intrinsic principles for effects of this sort, and himself only supplies those things which cannot fittingly be done by secondary causes through intrinsic principles; and also because the Blessed Virgin from the beginning had grace and all virtues, both per se and per accidens infused, very perfect, with which that divine assistance is joined."
Proof III. "To Adam and Eve in their first sanctification there were given grace and virtues in a heroic degree sufficient for this effect; but more abundant grace and more perfect virtues were given to the Virgin in her first sanctification, as is clear from the principles posited above. Hence Bernard, Epistle 174, says: 'I think that a more abundant blessing of sanctification descended upon her, which not only sanctified her birth, but thereafter guarded her life immune from every sin.'"
Proof I. "From the first sanctification of the Virgin, God determined to permit no movement of the fomes in her; therefore he not only bound but also extinguished the fomes in her. For to what purpose would he leave the fomes in first act, so to speak, in her, when he was going to impede every second act? Especially since a fomes of this sort is something imperfect, and of itself inclines toward evil."
Proof II. "It cannot be said that movements of this sort were only impeded in the Virgin through extrinsic providence alone, so that for this reason it is said only to have been bound, both because that mode is very imperfect, and therefore there is no reason why it should be attributed to the Virgin, especially since it is not consonant with the ordinary mode of God's providence, who gives to secondary causes intrinsic principles for effects of this sort, and himself only supplies those things which cannot fittingly be done by secondary causes through intrinsic principles; and also because the Blessed Virgin from the beginning had grace and all virtues, both per se and per accidens infused, very perfect, with which that divine assistance is joined."
Proof III. "To Adam and Eve in their first sanctification there were given grace and virtues in a heroic degree sufficient for this effect; but more abundant grace and more perfect virtues were given to the Virgin in her first sanctification, as is clear from the principles posited above. Hence Bernard, Epistle 174, says: 'I think that a more abundant blessing of sanctification descended upon her, which not only sanctified her birth, but thereafter guarded her life immune from every sin.'"
482. Dices: non decuit carnem aliquam omnino liberari a lege fomitis, donec Filius Dei assumeret carnem sanctam, et a fomite liberam; sicut non decuit corpus aliquod humanum ante Christi corpus gloria, et immortalitate donari. - Haec est ratio, propter quam D. Thomas 3. p. q. 27. a. 3. docet fomitem in B. V. Maria fuisse quidem ligatum in prima sanctificatione, extinctum autem solum quando Verbum concepit.
Huic tamen rationi respondet Suarez (l. c. n. 11): "Nihil Christi dignitati derogat, quod hanc perfectionem matri communicaverit inferiori modo, quam in ipso fuit: ipse enim per se habuit omnem et animae, et corporis sanctitatem, Virgo autem per ipsum: ille, ut Deus homo habuit in sua voluntate humana perfectum dominium in omnes actiones suas, et in omnia objecta, quae illas poterant excitare, et ut beatus semper actu considerabat omnia unde etiam per intrinsecam providentiam, et virtutem omnia poterat praevenire. Beata autem Virgo pro statu viae non fuit tantae perfectionis capax. - Sicut autem non derogat sanctitati animae Christi, quod antequam illa extiterit, ex merito ejus multae animae fuerint sanctificatae, etiam in gradu valde perfecto, et eximio, ita non derogat puritati et sanctitati carnis Christi, quod ante formationem ejus caro matris fuerit perfecte sanctificata usque ad extinctionem fomitis, sed hoc potius commendat providentiam, charitatem, et efficaciam meriti ipsius. - Nec est simile de perfectione gloriae, illa enim est perfectio pertinens ad terminum, in quo nullus hominum constitui debuit, nec in anima, nec in corpore ante Christum, haec autem est perfectio accommodata, et communicabilis viatori."
Huic tamen rationi respondet Suarez (l. c. n. 11): "Nihil Christi dignitati derogat, quod hanc perfectionem matri communicaverit inferiori modo, quam in ipso fuit: ipse enim per se habuit omnem et animae, et corporis sanctitatem, Virgo autem per ipsum: ille, ut Deus homo habuit in sua voluntate humana perfectum dominium in omnes actiones suas, et in omnia objecta, quae illas poterant excitare, et ut beatus semper actu considerabat omnia unde etiam per intrinsecam providentiam, et virtutem omnia poterat praevenire. Beata autem Virgo pro statu viae non fuit tantae perfectionis capax. - Sicut autem non derogat sanctitati animae Christi, quod antequam illa extiterit, ex merito ejus multae animae fuerint sanctificatae, etiam in gradu valde perfecto, et eximio, ita non derogat puritati et sanctitati carnis Christi, quod ante formationem ejus caro matris fuerit perfecte sanctificata usque ad extinctionem fomitis, sed hoc potius commendat providentiam, charitatem, et efficaciam meriti ipsius. - Nec est simile de perfectione gloriae, illa enim est perfectio pertinens ad terminum, in quo nullus hominum constitui debuit, nec in anima, nec in corpore ante Christum, haec autem est perfectio accommodata, et communicabilis viatori."
482. You will say: it was not fitting that any flesh be entirely freed from the law of the fomes until the Son of God should assume holy flesh, free from the fomes; just as it was not fitting that any human body be endowed with glory and immortality before the body of Christ. - This is the reason on account of which St. Thomas, III, q. 27, a. 3, teaches that the fomes in the Blessed Virgin Mary was indeed bound in her first sanctification, but extinguished only when she conceived the Word.
To this reason, however, Suarez responds (l. c., n. 11): "It in no way derogates from the dignity of Christ that he communicated this perfection to his mother in a lower mode than it was in himself; for he had by himself every sanctity of both soul and body, but the Virgin had it through him. He, as God-man, had in his human will perfect dominion over all his actions, and over all objects which could stir them up, and as blessed he always actually considered all things; whence also by intrinsic providence and power he could prevent all things. But the Blessed Virgin, for the state of the way, was not capable of so great a perfection. - Just as it does not derogate from the sanctity of the soul of Christ that before it existed, many souls were sanctified from his merit, even in a very perfect and eminent degree, so it does not derogate from the purity and sanctity of the flesh of Christ that before its formation the flesh of his mother was perfectly sanctified even to the extinction of the fomes; rather, this commends the providence, charity, and efficacy of his merit. - Nor is it similar concerning the perfection of glory; for that is a perfection pertaining to the terminus, in which no human being ought to have been constituted, either in soul or in body, before Christ. But this is a perfection accommodated and communicable to one who is a wayfarer."
To this reason, however, Suarez responds (l. c., n. 11): "It in no way derogates from the dignity of Christ that he communicated this perfection to his mother in a lower mode than it was in himself; for he had by himself every sanctity of both soul and body, but the Virgin had it through him. He, as God-man, had in his human will perfect dominion over all his actions, and over all objects which could stir them up, and as blessed he always actually considered all things; whence also by intrinsic providence and power he could prevent all things. But the Blessed Virgin, for the state of the way, was not capable of so great a perfection. - Just as it does not derogate from the sanctity of the soul of Christ that before it existed, many souls were sanctified from his merit, even in a very perfect and eminent degree, so it does not derogate from the purity and sanctity of the flesh of Christ that before its formation the flesh of his mother was perfectly sanctified even to the extinction of the fomes; rather, this commends the providence, charity, and efficacy of his merit. - Nor is it similar concerning the perfection of glory; for that is a perfection pertaining to the terminus, in which no human being ought to have been constituted, either in soul or in body, before Christ. But this is a perfection accommodated and communicable to one who is a wayfarer."