The Crown of Excellence : Chapter 8 : § 1. 17-18

Chapter 8 : The Seventh Star or Splendour in the Crown of Excellence of the Mother of God

Continuing our translation of the 1845 reprint of Fr François Poiré's Triple Crown of the Mother of God (1643 French edition).

Notre Dame des Grâces, Cotignac.(Poggi, 2020)

Mary’s soul was unique in being totally free of any sin

§ 1. The MOTHER OF GOD was exempt from original sin

The third proof, drawn from the nature of original sin

 17   St Thomas bases his second proof on the Son’s union with the Mother, from whom He takes His substance. This union (or rather unity) is so great that, granted the Son can have no part with Belial[1], then the same will be true (proportionately) of the Mother. This Holy Doctor is quite right for the Sages[2] and the law itself proclaim that children are to be considered with their father and mother as one person, having one voice, one body and one flesh, and that they are not separate[3]. Consider how the Son of God was closer to His Holy Mother than any other child; this being so, then He could not suffer her to be stained with original sin, for her very closeness would risk spreading the infection to Him in both his body and soul. Listen to the words of two excellent Doctors and hear what they have to say on this question. The first is Arnold of Chartres who declares[4]:

Jesus and Mary share the same flesh and also have the same spirit and love. This unity knows neither separation nor division. For even though two things may have been made one thing, this one thing is no longer considered to be divided after the union. From this it follows that, strictly speaking, it should not be said that the Son’s glory is shared with the Mother but rather that it is one and the same glory which belongs to them both undivided.

The other Doctor is St Anastasius Sinaita, Patriarch of Constantinople who writes as follows:[5]

Could anyone be found, either among men or among the demons, who would dare to say of her whose nature is the same as God’s nature in respect of the flesh that she was not made in the image and likeness of Him who was born of her? For how could she call herself His Mother if she were not marked in His image and if she were deficient in her likeness to Him?

Footnotes

[1] And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? II Corinthians vi.15.

[2] Tull. III Verr.

[3] Aristot. VIII Ethic.

[4] Lib. de Laudib. Virg.

[5] Lib. VI Anagogicarum questionum.

 18   The third proof presented by St Thomas is based on the fact that God established His abode with Mary in a particular manner, for He did not simply possess her soul but He also filled her sacred womb and her body became His home. Now, Solomon proclaims loud and clear[1] that wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins. But what worse contamination could there be than that of original sin which ruins both body and soul, spreading through all their faculties, as I have shown earlier? From this, St Anselm[2] fittingly draws the following conclusion : no-one can doubt that the Virgin’s body most chaste and her soul most holy were protected from all stain whatsoever of sin; for they were to serve as an abode where God who created them and all things would dwell corporeally and wherein He was to unite man personally to Himself.

Footnotes

[1] Sap. i. 4.

[2] Lib. de Excellentia Virg.

👑       👑       👑

The Vladimirskaya Icon. >12th century.

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

 

 

Totus tuus ego sum

Et omnia mea tua sunt;

Tecum semper tutus sum:

Ad Jesum per Mariam. 

© Peter Bloor 2024