https://ia801206.us.archive.org/28/items/cihm_52245/cihm_52245.pdf
CONTENTS.
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE CONTROVERSY ON THE IMMACULAR CONCEPCIÓN. By Fatuer Faux, 8, J.,
INTRODUCTION,
I, I. Conception is either active or pasive.
III. The passive Conception of Mary was Immaculate.
IV. It was most fitting that Mary should be exempt from original sin.
V, VI. This exemption is proved by arguments taken from the Holy Scriptures. 43
VII. There is nothing contrary to the Immaculate Conception of Mary to be deduced from the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. 45
VIII. The Council of Trent inclines to our opinion. 48
IX, X. The Declaration of the Council of Trent confirms the opinion that Mary was exempt,from original sin. 52
XI. The opponents of the doctrine seek in vain for a renewal of the Constitutions of Sixtus IV, attributing to the declaration a meaning contrary that pious Opinion. 54
XII. Definition of the Council of Basle adopted by the provincial Council of Aragon. 56
XIII. How the Sovereign Pontiffs favored the opinion of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. 59
XIV. Prohibition to speak against the opinion that Mary was exempt from original sin.
XV. The opinion favorable to Mary's privilege may alone be maintained either in public or in private,
XVI, XVII. Alexander VII renews and confirms the Constitutions of his predecessors in favor of the Immaculate Conception,
XVIII. Judgment of the Holy Fathers on the present question-The silence of the two first centuries is by no means inimical to the Immaculate Concep-tion, but on the contrary supposes it. 65
XIX. Document which justifies that supposition.
XX. Origen admits the fair privilege of Mary.
XXI. The Greek Liturgy and Menologies confirm our doctrine.
XXII. The Fathers of the fourth century are favorable to the plous opinion that Mary was exempt from original sin.
XXIII. Famous testimony of St. Jerome in favor of our doctrine.
XXIV. Important testimony of St. Augustine on the subject.
XXV. The word renascendi employed by the holy Doctor is not at all favorable to the contrary opinion,.
XXVI. Those passages wherein the holy Doctor affirms that original sin was trans-mitted to all men, do not include the Blessed Virgin Mary,
XXVII-XXXII. Testimony of other Fathers of the Church in favor of Mary's privilege,
XXXIII. St. Bernard was never opposed to the doctrine of the Immaculate Concep-tion of Mary; he is defended against such an imputation,
XXXIV, XXXV. It is probable that in his letter to the Canons of Lyons, the Baint spoke of the active and not of the passive conception.
XXXVI-XVIII. St. Thomas is exonerated from the charge of denying the Immaculate Conception of Mary-Passages from his works which are favorable to it.
XXXIX. The writings of the holy Doctor have been altered in some places.
XL-XLII. Examples of these interpolatiors.
XLIII. Doctrines of the Theologians on this subject.
XLIV. St. Dominick a defender of our doctrine.
XLV. St. Vincent Ferrier defends our doctrine.
XLVI. It was also the opinion of Albert the Great.
XLVII. John of Viterbo, an adversary of the plous opinion, became its defender-Reasons of this change,
XLVIII. Consequences which proceed from this document,
XLIX. Opinion of Thaulere, Melchior Cano, and Noel Alexander,
L. Opinion of Vincent Justinian.
LI. Favorable testimony of St. Bernardine of Sienna, St. Bruno, St. Lawrence Justinian, St. Thomas of Villanova, St. Alphonso de Liguori. 109
LII-LIV. The Theologians of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, with few excep-tions, strenuously defend our doctrine. 112
LV. Authority of Suares. 114
LVL. Authority of Petau. 116
LVII. Authority of Corneille de la Pierre.117
LVIII. Cardinal Bellarmine is favorable to the plous opinion that Mary was exempt from the original stain, 119
LIX. Testimony of Barradi, 120
LX. Father Corrio an illustrious defender of the plous opinion-Cardinal Gerdil also professes the same doctrine, 121
LXI. All the Universities have adopted this opinion, 199
LXII. Popes and Bishops, Monarchs and Nations, favorable to the plous opinion, 128
LXIII. The common consent of the faithful proves the truth of the opinion that Mary was exempt from original sin. 126
LXIV. The unanimous consent of the faithful is preparing a formal definition of the present question,. 128
LXV. Prophecy contained in the Fortieth Psalm relating to this privilege of Mary, 120
LXVI, LXVII. Our doctrine is not the less valid because the Church has not yet defined the question-The Miraculous Medal, and miracles wrought by it. 189
XVIII. JUDGMENT OF THE HOLY FATHERS ON THE PRESENT QUESTION-THE SILENCE OF THE TWO FIRST CENTURIES IS BY NO MEANS INIMICAL TO THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, BUT ON THE CONTRARY SUPPOSES IT.
We have now to ascertain what was thought of this matter by the Holy Fathers who have trans-mitted to us the sacred tradition of the Church, and whose authority must ever be invoked in all ques-tions of ecclesiastical discipline and Catholic faith.
Now, we are free to confess that the two first ages of the Church are entirely silent on the point of which we treat. But that silence, very far from invalidating our doctrine, proves, on the contrary, that it was then professed and universally adopted.
During those two centuries, Mary was venerated by all with a particular devotion, and regarded as highly privileged, by reason of her sublime quality of Mother of God, and that she had never had an equal in plenitude of grace. If her exemption from original sin had been only called in question by some Doctor, assuredly, others would have taken up the defence, and the writings of those two cen-turies would present some indication of the fact; but there is neither trace nor record of any such discussion: therefore, the silence of the two first ages of the Church is rather favorable to the belief in the Immaculate Conception, as it leaves room to suppose it.
XIX. DOCUMENT WHICH JUSTIFIES THA’ SUPPOSITION,
This supposition is, morever, founded on a docu- ment of considerable importance, viz., the well- known letter of the Priests and Deacons of Achaia, in which is related the martyrdom of the glorious apostle St. Andrew, and the discourse pronounced by him before his passion, in presence of the pro- consul Figeus. In this discourse, the holy apostle thus spoke: “And, therefore, because the first
man was created of immaculate earth, it was necessary that of an immaculate virgin should be born that perfect man, by whom the Son of God (who first formed man) was to restore that eternal life which men had lost.”* This comparison of the virgin earth shows us Mary immaculate in her very origin, even as was the earth of which the first man was formed, before God had as yet said to Adam: “ Oursed is the earth in thy work.”? This document was at first considered spurious, or at least doubtful, because it was in Latin, and no Greek copy known; but, since the latter was found in the Bodleian Library, and published by Charles Christian Woog, a Protestant writer, all doubt has ceased, so that the celebrated Morcelli made no difficulty of inserting it as true and authentic in his Calendar of the Church of Constantinople, under the date of the 30th November. It would follow, then, from this document, that the belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary was professed by the faithful, even in the two first ages of the Church, and that it is supported by clear apostolic testimony.
XX. ORIGEN ADMITS THE FAIR PRIVILEGE OF MARY.
Let us now pass on to the third century. Then appeared Origen, who, not in an apologetic man-ner (for no one raised a doubt on the subject), but naturally and without discussion, expressed himself, with regard to Mary, in such a manner that we can clearly infer from his words that he thought of the privilege of the Blessed Virgin precisely what we ourselves do. Here is how he states his opinion in the Homily VI in Lucam: "But because the angel saluted Mary by a new form of expression, wholly unprecedented in the Scripture, there are a few words to be said on the subject. For his salu-tation, Ave gratia plena, which in Greek is Κεχα ριτωμένη, I cannot remember reading such another in any part of the Scripture; neither is it here ad-dressed to a man. For Mary alone is this saluta-tion reserved. If Mary had known that a similar salutation was ever made to any one else (she being well acquainted with the written law, and with all the predictions of the prophets) the salutation would never have alarmed her as it did." Now, the Greek word Keyapitwpévn, not only signifies full of grace, according to the Vulgate, but may also sig- nify formed in grace. That Origen gave precisely that meaning to the Greek word in question, is clearly manifested in his First Homily, cited by St. Alphonso de Liguori, where he speaks thus of Mary: “ Neither was she infected by the breath of the poisonous serpent.”* If, then, Origen thought that the wicked serpent, that is to say, the devil, never attacked Mary, not even with his pestilential breath, we must necessarily conclude that Origen considered Mary exempt from original sin.
XXI. THE GREEK LITURGY AND MENOLOGIES CONFIRM OUR DOOTRINE,
We have next the Liturgy of the Greek Church, reported by Lebrun,’ and much more ancient than St. John Chrysostom, wherein Mary is styled “in all respects blameless ;”* which sufficiently indi- cates that that Church believed her conceived with- out the original fault.
And before Lebrun, Father Wangnereck, a Jesuit, in his crudite work entitled: Pretas Mariana Grecorum, printed at Munich, by Wagner, in 1647, collected many passages from the oldest Greek Menologies wherein Mary is styled, now “free from all blemish,’’* now as the only one who has escaped the spiritual death of original sin, now as “ Her who was formed pure from all eternity,” * and again as “the only one who was worthy from all eternity to become the mother of God.”* This work, now very rare, and only made known to us after our own was considerably advanced, elicited the highest praise from two learned cardinals, Baronius and Sirlet, not to speak of the Bollandists who held it in the greatest esteem.
XXII. THE FATHERS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY ARE FAVORABLE TO THE PIOUS OPINION THAT MARY WAS EXEMPT FROM ORIGINAL SIN,
In the fourth century, we must quote Amphilacus, bishop of Icona, who, in his fourth Discourse in S. Deiparam, says that God formed the Virgin “ without sin and without stain.” * St. Ambrose, in his Treatise on the 118th Psalm, commenting on the seventh virse, calls her “ a vir- gin freed by grace from every stain of sin,”? Here, certainly, the huly Doctor makes no dis- tinction between actual and original sin ; therefore, according to him, Mary was also exempt from the latter: otherwise he could not speak of her as free from every stain of sin. St. Epiphanius, who died in the year 408, expresses himself thus in his Opuscule De Laudt- bus Virginis: “She was superior to all beings, God alone excepted; more beautiful by nature than the Cherubim, the Seraphim, and all the an- gelic host, . . . the immaculate sheep who brought forth Christ the Lamb.” *
XXIII. FAMOUS TESTIMONY OF ST. JEROME IN FAVOR OF OUR DOCTRINE.
Let us continue the chain of the Fathers. St. Jerome, a Doctor of great authority, commenting on the 77th Psalm, and explaining the words: “He conducted them with a cloud by day,” thus speaks: “ Behold the Lord cometh into Egypt in alight cloud. The light cloud we must under- stand, either as properly signifying the body of the Saviour, as being light and burdened with no sin : or we may certainly take the light cloud as signifying Holy Mary. . . . Behold the Lord cometh into the Egypt of this world on a light cloud, which is the Virgin. ‘And he conducted them with a cloud by day.’ He said beautifully by day, for that cloud was never in darkness, but always in light.”’ Now if, according to the doctrine of St. Epiphanius, after God comes Mary, whose nature 3 is fairer and more noble than the angelic nature itself; and if the Blessed Virgin was, according to St. Jerome, prefigured by that light cloud foretold : by the prophet which was always in light and never in darkness, it is quite evident that both these great Doctors believed Mary exempt from ;original sin; for if that sin could have defiled her even for an instant, how could it be verified in her that she was “never in, darkness, but always in light ”?
XXIV. IMPORTANT TESTIMONY OF ST. AUGUSTINE ON THE SUBJECT,
But let us now come to the doctrine of St. Au- gustine, so much abused by those who favor the contrary opinion. That great Doctor (who may be considered as the organ and interpreter of all the Fathers who preceded him), refuting Pelagius, who affirmed that all the children of baptized parents are born free from original sin, expresses himself thus : “Except, therefore, the Holy Virgin Mary, whom, through respect for the Lord, J will not suffer to be named when there is question of sin; for, do we not know that, in order to conquer sin entirely, a fullness of grace has been conferred on her who merited to bear Him who, it is certain, had no sin? This Virgin, then, being excepted, could we assemble all those saints (viz., those of the old law), when they lived here on earth, and ask them if they were without sin, what would be their answer? would it be what this man says, or what St. John the Apostle said? I ask you, if they could be questioned on this point (however great might have been their sanctity while in the body), would they not all cry out with one accord: ‘If we say we have not sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us’?”?*
XXV. THE WORD “ RENASCENDI ” EMPLOYED BY THE HOLY DOCTOR IS NOT AT ALL FAVORABLE TO THE CONTRARY OPINION.
And Julian having made this objection: “ Thou dost transfer Mary herself to the devil by the condition of birth,”* as if the holy Doctor had said that Mary also, by the condition of nature, must have been born subject to the devil, he immediately replied in these terms: ‘ We do not transfor Mary to the devil by the condition of birth; for that condition itself is dissolved by the grace of regeneration ;”* the meaning of these words is that Mary was exempted from original sin by virtue of a special grace which preserved her from it. The word regeneration (renascendz) cannot be opposed to this sense, as thouga the holy Doctor meant to indicate that Mary escaped the slavery of the devil by means of purification from sin; since it is clear, from the context of the whole discourse, that St. Augustine spoke against Julian precisely with reference to the conception that we call passiwe, declaring Mary’s Conception immaculate from the jist moment, as the schools say, and not from the second. That such was the real intention of St. Augustine, clearly results from his XIIth Sermon Jn Natali Domini, where we find these precise words: “The Church, like Mary, has perpetual integrity and incorrupt fruitfulness. For that which Mary merited in the flesh, the Church preserved in the spirit; the only difference is that the former bore one, the latter many.”’' Here, the holy Doctor institutes a comparison between Mary and the Church ; he says that the purity of the one was equal to that of the other, and that purity was perpetual, “ perpetual integrity :” hence, according to St. Augustine, there was not a single moment in which Mary, like the Church, was not perfectly pure and undefiled: therefore, the holy Doctor excludes Mary from the defiiement of original sin; and, consequently, in the text cited above, the word regeneration can have no other meaning than that which we have given it.
XXVI. THOSE PASSAGES WHEREIN THE HOLY DOCTOR AFFIRMS THAT ORIGINAL SIN WAS TRANSMITTED TO ALL MEN, DO NOT INCLUDE THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY.
If, in other places in his works, he seems to affirm the contrary, as when, in his Epistle to Optat, De Origine Animarum, he says in general: “ That no one is born of Adam unbound by the chain of sin and damnation, and that no one is delivered therefrom unless by regeneration through Christ ;”’ and in the second book of his Baptismo Parvulorum : “There is not amongst the sons of men, neither was there nor will there be, any one who was never bound by the chain of sin ;”’ and finally (as it is superfluous to quote all the places where such general expressions are to be met) when he adds, in his Enchiridion, chapter VI: “ All children, without any exception, contract sin in their birth ;”* we must always bear in mind the declaration made by the holy Doctor in the book On Wature and Grace, chapter XX XVI, and elsewhere: “Except the Blessed Virgin, whom I will uot suffer to be named when sin is in question, because she totally over came sin,”’ and consequently suppose that these general conclusions do not include the Blessed Vir- gin: otherwise, it would appear as though St. Au- gustine had contradicted himself; which cannot be supposed without the most grievous injury to so. great a Doctor.
XXVII. TESTIMONY OF OTHER FATHERS OF THE CHURCH IN FAVOR OF MARY’s PRIVILEGE.
After St. Augustine, we like to quote St. Ephraim, the Syrian, by whom the Blessed Virgin is pro- claimed “ Immaculate and unsullied, incorrupt and wholly chaste, and most remote from all filth and stain of sin, the Spouse of God and our Queen.’”? St. Cyril of Alexandria, who flourished in the fifth century, expresses himself in a manner still more decisive. Here are his words: “ All men, except Him who was born of a Virgin, and that same most holy Virgin of whom was born the Man- God, are born in original sin, and we come into this world afflicted with the most grievous blindness, Which indeed we inherit from our first parent, the origin of our race.”’ And he gives, moreover, the motive for this exception, since he goes on to say: “ Who ever heard of an architect, building a house for himself, and giving possession of it to his greatest enemy ?””’ Let us follow up St. Cyril with St. Maximus, bishop of Turin, who says explicitly: “Mary was a fit dwelling for Ohrist, not because of the disposition of her body, but on account of original grace.”* Then, we have St. Proclus, disciple and successor of St. John Chrysostom, who affirms that Mary was formed essentially pure.
XXVIII.
The sixth century presents St. Fulgentius, who judiciously remarks® that the Angel, addressing Mary as full of grace, wished to convey the idea that the ancient sentence of the first wrath was a- solutely destroyed with regard to her.
XXTX.
In the seventh century, St. Ildefonso taught, in formal terms, that Mary was exempt from original sin: “It is certain that she was exempted from original sin.””?
XXX.
In the eighth century, St. John Damascene wrote: “Since it was to be that the Virgin Mother of God was to spring from Anne, nature did not by any means dare to anticipate the embryo of grace, but - waited until grace should have produced its fruit.”? He speaks still more positively in his second Dis- course on the Asswmption, where he says: “ To this paradise the serpent had no access.”* If then, in the blessed Conception of Mary, nature dared not to anticipate the birth of grace, but waited till the latter had produced its fruit; and if the serpent,that is to say, the devil, had no access to Her, as- suredly she was exempt from original sin,
XXXI.
St. Peter Damian, who flourished in the tenth century, entirely excludes Mary from the guilt of Adam, that is to say, original sin with its evil con- cupiscence. Here is what he says: “The flesh of the Virgin, received from Adam, admitted none of Adam’s guilt.” And why? Because, replies St, Ansebn, that bright luminary of the eleventh cen- tury, “it was fitting that the Virgin, whom God prepared to be the mother of his only Son, should shine with a purity than which, under God, none greater can be conceived.”* And in order that no doubt might arise from the generality of these terms, the holy Doctor, afterwards commenting on the 12th chapter of St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, explains his idea more clearly by these words: “.\ll have been dead in sin, whether original, or w..1ully incurred ; no one has ever been excepted, save only the Mother of God.”* Assuredly, these words are so formal and precise, that they require no explanation. XXXII. In the course of the thirteenth century, St. Bona- venture, in his Second Sermon on the Blessed Vir- gin, taught that “ our Lady was full of grace in her sanctification, a grace truly preservative against the defilement of original guilt.’””? Many others preached the same doctrine, and especially the learned and meritorious Order of Franciscans, who always professed and vigorously defended it.
XXXIII. ST. BERNARD WAS NEVER OPPOSED TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF MARY—HE IS DEFENDED AGAINST SUCH AN IMPUTATION,
As St. Bernard closes the series of the Fathers of the Church, it is proper to examine here whether he was really of the contrary opinion, as the pro- fessors of that opinion have falsely and unjustly pretended. Their only foundation is the famous Letter addressed by the holy Doctor to the Chapter of the Church of Lyons, when, influenced by the example of other particular churches, who had done the same, it adopted, in its turn, the custom of celebrating the feast of the Immaculate Concep- ,tion of Mary. The holy Abbot exclaimed against the institution of that festival, and it is quite true that he declared it novel, unknown to the holy Fathers, and foreign to the ecclesiastical rite. ‘Wherefore we wonder much,” wrote he, “that some are now pleased to desire a change of existing colors, to introduce a new solemnity, which the ecclesiastical rite knows not, which reason approves not, and which ancient tradition recommends not.” Without entering here on the critical examination of the question whether that letter is wrongly attributed to the holy Doctor (as many eminent theo- logians think), and admitting it, on the contrary, as authentic, I say it does not at all prove St. Bernard averse to our opinion. Let us see how he justities lus reprimand, addressed to the Chapter of Lyons, for having instituted this solemnity: “For, if it thus seemed proper, the matter should have been first referred to the authority of the Apostolic See, and not to act thus rashly and unadvisedly on the simple notions of a few unlearned persons. I had, i ’ indeed, noticed this error heretofore amongst some, a but I chose to connive at it, as proceeding from j 3simplicity and devotion to the Virgin. But, having detected superstition amongst the wise, and in that famous and noble church of which I am specially a son, I know not how I could longer remain silent without great scandal to you all. Yet what I have said is by no-means prejudicial to those of sound wisdom ; I reserve this whole matter, with all others of a similar nature, for the special examination and decision of the Roman Church, and am prepared to abide by its decision, even if it be of a different opinion.”* Here the holy Doctor stops. It must be observed that at that period the feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was nut yet solemnly introduced into the Church. Still, the faithful and the clergy of some places, of their own accord, honored the Mother of God under that title and by that festival. Hence it was that St. Bernard, full of zeal to banish from the Church all the errors and inconveniences which might be introduced by the individual mind, considering, on the one side, that the Holy See had given no decision on this head, and, on the other, seeing it adopted by a church so ancient and so illustrious as that of Lyons, feared lest the example of that church, the first planted amongst the Gauls, might cause the solemnity to be generally propagated, to the great detriment of the rights and the supreme authority of the Roman Church. He, consequently, disapproved, and condemned the Chapter of Lyons for having taken upon itself to celebrate and institute such a festival, without having first consulted the Apostolic See: “For, if it thus seemed proper, the matter should have been first referred to the authority of the Apostolic See, and not to act thus rashly and unadvisedly on the simple suggestions of a few unlearned persons.” If he adds that such a feast was new, and neither approved by reason, nor recommended by tradition, it was still from the same motive, because that institution took place without the authority of the Holy See, to whose judgment he, moreover, submitted his own opinion on that point and on all others: “I reserve this whole matter, with all others of a similar nature, for the special examination and decision of the Roman Church, and am prepared to abide by its decision.”
XXXIV. IT 18 PROBABLE THAT, IN HIS LETTER TO THE OANONS OF LYONS, THE SAINT SPOKE OF THE “ ACTIVE,” AND NOT or THE “PASSIVE” CONOEPTION
For the rest, amongst the learned who have written on this subject, some have thought that the Abbot of Clairvaux, when condemning, in the letter quoted above, the introduction of the feast of the Immaculate Conception, or when he adds in his Sermon on the Assumption: “If she contracted original guilt from her parents, yet Christian piety forbids us to think that she was less sanctified in the womb than was Jeremias,”! meant to speak of her active conception, that is to say, that in which the holy parents of the Virgin, opere maritali, to use the language of the schools, “ inwicem conveni- entes, preestiterunt ea quae maxime spectabant ad ipsius corporis formationem, organisationem et dis- positionem ad recipiendam animam rationalem Deo infundendam ;” and that he did not mean to speak of the passive conception, that is to say, the infusion of the soul, and its union with the body already formed and duly organized, the passive conception which takes place precisely “ at the mo- ment when the rational youl is united to the body composed of all its members and organs,” * as we have proved from the beginning. Those who maintain that St. Bernard spoke of the active, instead of the passive conception, found their opinion on the very text of the same letter, where the holy Doctor says: ‘“ Whence is the sanctity of the Conception ? Is she said to be holy before she exists; since she did not exist before she was conceived? or was there sanctity in the conception itself znter maritales amplexus, so that she was conceived and sanctified at one and the same time? Not even this does reason admit. For how can there be sanctity without the sanctifying Spirit? .... If then she could not be sanctified before her conception, inasmuch as she did not exist; nor in her conception, on account of the sin by which it was accompanied; it follcws that she must have been sanctified in the womb after her conception, which sanctification, having excluded sin, made her nativity holy, though not her conception.” * Assuredly, these words seem sufficiently strong to authorize the conclusion that the holy Doctor meant to speak, not of the passive conception, but of the ac- tive conception only. If this interpretation were admitted, all difficulty would vanish, and the doc- trine of the Abbot of Clairvanx would be found in perfect accordance with ours.
XXXV. Any one who‘refused to admit this interpre- tation, which seems to us just and reasonable, and would, on the contrary, maintain with Mabillon that St. Bernard was unfavorable to us, would still have to admit that the holy Abbot professed a most tender devotion for Mary, that he showed himself a most ardent defender of her privileges, and that it certainly never was his intention to de- tract in any degree from the dignity of the Mother of God. It must also be admitted that, whatever might then have been the opinion of the holy Doc- tor on this subject, if he lived in our days, when the Church has long since established the feast of the Conception, he would not only defend it, but would rejoice beyond measure in that great privi-
LV. AUTHORITY OF SUAREZ,
The illustrious Father Suarez triumphantly demonstrates’ that Mary, having been predestined to become the Mother of God, must necessarily be exempted from the law of sin: “For God gives grace to every one in such time, measure and perfection as, according to right and prudent reason, is best adapted to the end, dignity and office, to which he is appointed by God himself: now, to be the Mother of God was the primary dignity of the Virgin, by which title the greatest love and honor are dne to her, and to that dignity is joined another, namely, that of cooperating in a singular manner in the work of Redemption; to which end nothing can be more antagonistic than sin. And hence it follows that she is in a singular manner Lady of all, and Queen of Angels. For (as Anselm has well observed), as God by creating all things is Father and Lord of all, so the Blessed Virgin re- pairing all things by His merits is Mother and Lady of all things: but it did not become the Mistress to be inferior to her servants, the holy Angels, in per- petual holiness, and innocence,and purity of life.’ He afterwards strengthens his argument by say- ing: “No gift of grace conferred on any pure crea- ture, has been withheld from the Virgin: now, to be created in grace is a great gift of grace, which was conferred on Adam and Eve, and perfect inno- cence, excluding all guilt, was bestowed on the een Angels: both gifts must, therefore, have been given in still greater perfection to the Virgin.”’ And the objection which some are wont to draw from the singularity of this privilege, he successfully answers in this way: “Nor does it matter that grace preserving from immediately contracting sin is granted to none; because, for that very reason the Virgin required that privilege more than any other, and it was, therefore, meet and reasonable that it should be given her; and because it is no way surprising that He grants something more to his Mother than to any one else.”’ Thus we see that Suarez (who, moreover, followed and perfectly interpreted the doctrine of the Angelic Doctor) maintained and defended the Immaculate Conception of Mary in the sense indicated by us.
LVI. AUTHORITY OF PETAU. Let us now hear Petau. That illustrious and profound theologian, well versed in the writings of the holy Fathers, persuaded of the truth of our doctrine by the host of arguments in its favor, prin- cipally drawn from tradition, and strongly influ- enced by the unanimous and universal eagerness of the faithful to embrace it, speaks thus of it in his esteemed work entitled, Dogmata Theologica :' “Above all, I am induced to be of that mind by reason of the common opinion of all the faithful who have it deeply rooted in their inmost souls, and testify by offices and every other sign, that nothing has been created by God more chaste, more pure, more innocent, more remote, in a word, from all filth and stain of sin than that Virgin ; and, further. more, that she had nothing whatever to do with hell and its ruler the devil, neither with damnation or any sort of offence to God.’’?
LVII. AUTHORITY OF CORNEILLE DE LA PIERRE, Corneille de la Pierre pronounces no less clearly in favor of our opinion ; for he hesitates not to assert, on the authority of Suarez, Canisius, the learned Sebastian Barradi, and others, that it is a common belief amongst all the faithful, that Mary was preserved from original sin ; and he gives the reason by adding: “This entire purity became the Mother of God, for who can believe that the Mother of God had ever been the devil’s daughter and the slave of sin?”? and then he concludes: “She was therefore endowed with the purest sanctity in her conception, but received from Christ’s majesty, in the Incarnation, an immense increase of sanctity. And this is what is meant by the word splendebat, for which the Septuagint use ééAaumev we péyyos, that is brillant as lightning, as if the Blessed Virgin in conceiving Christ, received from Him a glorious effulgence and splendor of sanctity ; that she in her own conception received the brightness of the same Christ, but that now she should be refulgent with surpassing splendor, yea, the brilliancy of the lightning, who before was clear and bright.”
LVIII. CARDINAL BELLARMINE IS FAVORABLE TO THE PIOUS OPINION THAT MARY WAS EXEMPT FROM THE ORIGINAL STAIN, With respect to Bellarmine, although he wrote no particular book in defence of Mary’s special privilege, the occasion being perhaps wanting, nevertheless he stated and openly declared in hig Controversies: “Tt is the pious belief of the great- er portion of the Church that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without original sin ;” and he adds: “which even our adversaries Luther and Erasmus confess, the former in his sermon on the Feast of the Conception, the latter in his Apology ad- dresssed to Albertum Pium Carpensem.”? And Cardinal Sfondrate specifies that in the year 1617, a Congregation of Cardinals having been held in presence of the Pope Paul V, to discuss the question of the Conception of Mary, the must pious Cardinal there gave it as his was exempt from original sin; an opinion whose truth he clearly demonstrated, and even supported it by miracles, citing amongst others this which follows: “Ships which had not the sign of the Immaculate Conception were wrecked and sunk, whilst those which had an image of the Immaculate Virgin did happily reach the shore.” Thus, wherever it happened that Bellarmine had occasion to speak of this lofty privilege of Mary, far from being silent, he openly admitted it and took up its defence.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario