Chapter 6 : The Fifth Star or Splendour of the Crown of Power of the MOTHER OF GOD
She is the Mother of the world to come and Redeemer of our race
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) |
§ 4. The second reason that the Holy Virgin has the right to be considered as the Co-Redemptrix of men and the Mother of the world to come
The second reason: She offered her Son unto death
1 The Holy Fathers do not stop with the first reason we have just discussed, for they are unwilling to agree that she was called Co-Redemptrix only because she brought forth the Redeemer into the world. They go further than this and, taking into account that the most Sacred Virgin was Mother and Spouse of the Father of the world to come, they acknowledge a certain power in her which, conjoined with her free and considered consent to deliver up her Son and her Spouse for us, meant that she cooperated in a very special way in our salvation and our redemption.
This makes me recall the incident which is recorded in the fourth book of Exodus[1] where it is written that as Moses was returning into Egypt with his wife and his children, in compliance with God’s express commandment, he found himself in an inn where an Angel approached him with a sword in his hand, threatening to kill him. His wife Sephora, seeing that her husband was in danger, intervened. Their little son Eliezer Had not yet been circumcised according to the commandment which had been given by God[2]. They were at the time in a rocky area of Arabia where the lack of iron had caused the inhabitants to file and sharpen stones to serve in place of metal razors. She took one of these and circumcised her son. When she had done this, she threw the bloody foreskin at the feet of her husband, saying to him: A bloody spouse art thou to me[3]. Some maintain that it was the displeasure she felt at seeing her son bleeding from his wound that drew from her these words showing her anger. Others believe with greater probability that it was a token of her affection, as though she were to have said to him: My dear friend, without me thou wouldst have been killed; but I saved thee, preserving thy life, for which the price was the blood of our poor little innocent son. Whether or not this is the correct interpretation, it seems to me that the Holy Virgin had far more reason than Sephora to say to our Lord that He was in truth a spouse of blood to her and that she herself could most properly be called a spouse of blood too, since she had been obliged by God’s eternal decree to deliver her Son and her Spouse unto death, and that their marriage could be consummated only through the shedding of blood.
Footnotes
[1] Exod. iv. 21-26.
[2] Gen. xvii. 10-14. This is the Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate: Sponsus sanguinum tu mihi es – A spouse of blood(s) to me thou art.
[3] This is the Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate: Sponsus sanguinum tu mihi es – A spouse of blood(s) to me thou art.
2 For a better understanding of what I mean, I invite you to recall what I wrote earlier[1] about the natural power Our Lady had over the Saviour as her Spouse and of the far greater natural power[2] that she had over him as her true and legitimate Son. The divine person of the Word Incarnate never gainsaid or limited this power. She was a mother in the fullest sense and was accordingly not wanting in any of the maternal rights which the Saviour always respected, showing towards her every sort of love and compliance. Let no one try to contradict me by quoting the words that her Son spoke to her at the wedding of Cana when he said[3]: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? – for I shall reply by quoting the irreproachable authority of several learned Doctors, including St Augustine[4], Saint Gregory of Nyssa[5], Saint Gregory the Great[6], Saint Bernard[7], Saint Thomas[8] and others who maintain that these words were in no way uttered by the Saviour by way of reproach or to take anything away from the obedience and respect that He owed to His Mother, but He wanted to start giving proofs of His divinity, showing to the people present that the miracle His Mother was requesting depended entirely upon the divine nature, in which He was not subject to her. This does not apply, however, to what we are discussing, for it is impossible to deny that He held from His holy Mother both the life that He was to give up and the human nature which was to undergo suffering, and she therefore had a right over both of these. This means that no one could go against either of these without giving offence to her and violating her natural right. In consequence, when she offered this divine life and this most holy humanity she was giving something which belonged to her, with all the power that nature can bestow upon a mother.
Footnotes
[1] See previous chapter.
[2] Chap. 5.
[3] John ii. 4.
[4] Tract. XIX in Joann., et lib. de Fide et Symbolo, c. 4.
[5] Orat. in illud dictum Apostoli : Tunc erit et ipse subjectus, etc.
[6] Lib. VIII, epist. 13.
[7] Serm. 1 et 2 Dominic. 4 post Epiphan.
[8] In illud Joann.
3 In this regard as in every other, her will and her desires were in perfect harmony with those of the Eternal Father; to such an extent that with one common accord both the Father and the Mother consented to the death of their Son, and delivered Him up for our redemption. On the basis of this understanding, the Holy Archbishop of Florence[1] applies to her the words that St Paul wrote[2] of God the Father, saying:
She spared not even her own son, but delivered him up to death for us all.
For the same reason, St Bonaventure applies to her the beautiful words of St John[3]:
For she so loved the world as to give her only begotten son for our salvation.
St Bernadine applies the words of the Church to her:
What a marvellous condescension of the mercy of the Father and Mother of blessed Jesus towards us! What an ineffable token of love by both who, to redeem the slave, have abandoned their own Son to death, all through the superabundance of love that they have for us!
For my part, every time I think about this, I feel my heart melting at the sound of those words full of compassion that the Saviour uttered through the Prophet King, when he said: I have been cast into thine arms from my mother’s womb; or, according to the original text[4]: I was cast upon thee from the womb of my mother; forasmuch as when I was emerging from her womb, she offered me no more nor less than as a victim for reconciliation. Apart from this, I am also much taken by the wondrous coming together and holy agreement of the wills of the three parties that have been the cause of our joy: the Father as Father, as King and as Monarch over all things, giving up His Son; the Son as Sovereign Pontiff going into the Sanctuary, there to shed His blood and to sacrifice Himself; the Holy Virgin as Mother and as Spouse delivering Him up, and as one officiating at the sacrifice, presenting Him to God. The noble idea of St Bernard[5] also comes frequently to mind, shown in the following words:
God, having determined to redeem the world, placed the purchase price for the redemption in the hands of the most sacred Virgin.
This leads me think that there is much to be said for what we find taught by a number of theologians who gave serious thought to this question. Let us imagine (for we are free to conjecture about this) that the Eternal Father had not determined to will the deliverance of His Son unto death for the deliverance of sinners from their sin, then the command alone of the Mother, once given, would have been enough to make the Son do this, and to make Him do everything that He actually went on to doat the command of His Father. If this argument of St Bernard is well founded, then it opens up the possibility that an idea some well-instructed minds have proposed may well be true: that the Holy Virgin encouraged the Saviour when He felt in a state of extreme abandonment to go forward along this demanding and painful path. There are good reasons to agree with him when he says that she did this:
so that she might counteract in every way what our first Mother had done, repairing and restoring what had been lost through her sin; so that just as the first Eve had led the first of men into sin and as a consequence had brought about the ruin of his children, in the same way the second Eve would initiate the process of repair and restoration, reminding the second Adam of the compelling reasons he had to complete the work that had been begun.
Footnotes
[1] S. Antonin., IV p., tit. XIII, c. 12, § 1.
[2] He that spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. Rom. viii. 32.
[3] For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. John iii. 16.
[4] I was cast upon thee from the womb. From my mother's womb thou art my God. Ps. XXI. 11.
[5] Serm. in Signum magnum.
👑 👑 👑
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.
The Virgin of Tenderness. >12th century.
Totus tuus ego sum
Et omnia mea tua sunt;
Tecum semper tutus sum:
Ad Jesum per Mariam.
© Peter Bloor 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment