The Crown of Excellence : Chapter 8 : § 1.19-20

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

 19   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.

 20   I have only one more thing to say on the third proof which I have taken from the nature of original sin : we observe the presence of this sin by its effects, and so when we see no effects we are justified in presuming the absence of the cause from which they arise. 

Imagine that in winter we were to see a beautiful spring from which water bubbles and gushes forth in streams which spread throughout the countryside. Then we revisit the same place in summer and find the streams have dried up. How would we explain this other than by saying there must be no water in the spring since it has ceased to flow in the way it did previously? Now, original sin is like an evil spring and its poisonous waters have poured into the children of Adam, flooding and devastating all the faculties in souls, leaving nothing untouched. As we see no sign in the Holy Virgin of the devastation caused by this inundation everywhere else, may we not fairly conclude that the waters from this poisonous source came nowhere near her blessed soul?

We should indeed see Mary rather as the enclosed garden[1] where everything is pleasing to the eye and where the fragrant beauty of a delightful springtime is everywhere. Here you will find nothing that is dried out, wilting or de-natured; whereas in others you find nothing whole and healthy. I mean by this that you will see everywhere the beneficial effects that original grace produced long ago; but you will find in her no wounds from the serpent’s poisonous tooth, no rebellion in her members, no disorder in her faculties, no darkness in her spirit, no disarray in her affections, no corruption in her body, nothing shameful in her conception of the Divine Word, and none of the labour pains and mess of childbirth. What more may be said to convince doubting minds to yield to reason? 

Now if we can nevertheless notice in Mary certain effects that seem to be the result of original sin, such as bodily suffering and death, let us remember that her dear Son was Himself sinless and yet had to undergo both suffering and death to heal us from sin.  Richard of St Victor[2] writes appositely on this as follows :

 

Concerning the Virgin : if you see that she was not exempt from such things as pain and suffering, you must realize that she was most willing to accept these. In doing so, her crown was made more resplendent and she gave us an example of patience, by bearing with such rectitude the yoke of our common suffering.

Footnotes

[1] My sister, my spouse, is a garden enclosed [hortus conclusus], a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed up.  Cant. iv. 12

[2] Lib. II de Emmanuele, c. 28.

👑       👑       👑

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