The Crown of Excellence : Chapter 8 : § 1. 55-57

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

RESPONSE TO THE FIRST OBJECTION AGAINST THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE GLORIOUS VIRGIN

 55   So as to leave no scruple in anyone’s conscience and to set minds at rest, I am happy to deal with some of the principal difficulties people may have with this doctrine and to highlight a number of passages from the writings of the Holy Fathers.

The first and fundamental objection derives from the statements found in both Scripture and among the Doctors of the Church that all humans have suffered from the general curse of sin. No-one says this less ambiguously than St Paul in the following words[1]: Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. St Ambrose[2] uses equally clear language:

It is a settled thing: of all those who are conceived of man and woman in the ordinary way, none is exempt from sin; consequently, anyone who is free and clear of sin does not come into the world in the ordinary way.

In his work Against Julian[3], St Augustine  affirms that this is indeed the rule of Catholic belief. Even if I were to cite an infinite number of texts, they would not say anything formally different from the ones I have already quoted and you may therefore safely conclude that they use the same language. The difficulty arising from these general statements seems to be reinforced by the fact that certain Doctors name the Saviour as an exception to the rule but without including the Virgin. They would never have forgotten to mention her if they had found any privilege to produce in her favour.

All flesh, says St Hilary[4], is born subject to original sin and to the law of sin, excepting only the flesh of her who was born without sin – even though her flesh was similar to the flesh that in others is sinful.

 

Footnotes

[1] Rom. v. 12.

[2] In Isaiam.

[3] Lib. II.

[4] Citatur ab August., lib. I contra Julianum.

 56   To these objections my reply in the first place is that the holy Councils, notably the one held in Trent, understood the force of those general statements just as well as those who cite them in argument. These Councils did not, however, feel constrained by them and went so far as to recognize the privilege which exempted the Lawgiver’s Mother from such laws of general application. The Jurist says very appositely about this point that if there is a specific item of property which the owner has no wish whatsoever to pledge or hypothecate as security for a debt, then such an item will not be included in any general hypothecation that he may have made of each and every item of his goods, whether presently possessed or acquired later. Now, who would ever argue that God willed His consent to hypothecating His Mother as a special pledge, making her subject to sin and enabling Satan to acquire a right to her? Reason could not allow this, much less the goodness of the Lord’s infinite kindness. St Augustine could not support the argument either, as appears in his explicit teaching[1]:

When it comes to sin, it was in no sense appropriate for her to be included under the general law governing the propagation of human nature.

Lest there be any doubt about his opinion, he says quite clearly that[2]:

it is with very good reason that Mary is exempted from inclusion in similar propositions of a general nature, by virtue of her unsurpassed grace and her sovereign dignity which raise her entirely above the common lot. 

I pray you may recall how King Assuerus once spoke to Queen Esther, his spouse. She feared she would be caught up in the general edict promulgated by this Prince threatening to deliver everyone to death. The law, he said[3], is not made for thee but it hath been published for all others. What do you mean, great King, by telling her the law is published for all? Do you want to increase the fear and dread she has of dying? No, he says, Esther is my sister, she will not die; she is beyond compare and her status does not allow her to share the common lot. She has no part in the reasons that others are threatened by the law, even though it was published for all. Could anyone really say that the MOTHER OF GOD should deserve less than Queen Esther, or that the Saviour felt less affection for Mary His Spouse and His Mother than did Assuerus for Esther?

 

Footnotes

[1] In expositione symboli et Orat. Dominicæ.

[2] Serm. de Assumpt.

[3] Esther xv.

 57   My reply in the second place is to highlight an implication of these general statements : if we argue that the Holy Virgin should be subject to them in their entirety, then we must of necessity conclude she would actually have sinned against God, since the same Scriptures say in many places[1] that there is no-one who does not sin. Now this may not be said without great irreverence, as I shall show later. We would, moreover, be forced to say that her body would be reduced to ashes, and she would be subject to many other such things from which the Church has never made any difficulty in declaring her exempt in view of how far she is above the common lot of mankind. For this reason, she has never been made subject to the general laws which affect all others in common. 

Footnotes

[1] Joann. 1; Jacobi 3; Concil. Milevil., can. 6. 

👑       👑       👑

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