|
Objection 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin was not
cleansed from the infection of the fomes. For just as the fomes,
consisting in the rebellion of the lower powers against the reason, is
a punishment of original sin; so also are death and other corporeal
penalties. Therefore the fomes was not entirely removed from her.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (2 Cor. 12:9):
"Power is made perfect in infirmity," which refers to the weakness
of the fomes, by reason of which he (the Apostle) felt the "sting
of the flesh." But it was not fitting that anything should be taken
away from the Blessed Virgin, pertaining to the perfection of
virtue. Therefore it was unfitting that the fomes should be entirely
taken away from her.
Objection 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii)
that "the Holy Ghost came upon" the Blessed Virgin, "purifying
her," before she conceived the Son of God. But this can only be
understood of purification from the fomes: for she committed no sin,
as Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xxvi). Therefore by the
sanctification in the womb she was not absolutely cleansed from the
fomes.
On the contrary, It is written (Canticles 4:7): "Thou art
all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee!" But the
fomes implies a blemish, at any rate in the flesh. Therefore the
fomes was not in the Blessed Virgin.
I answer that, on this point there are various opinions. For some
have held that the fomes was entirely taken away in that sanctification
whereby the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb. Others say
that it remained as far as it causes a difficulty in doing good, but
was taken away as far as it causes a proneness to evil. Others again,
that it was taken away as to the personal corruption, by which it makes
us quick to do evil and slow to do good: but that it remained as to the
corruption of nature, inasmuch as it is the cause of transmitting
original sin to the offspring. Lastly, others say that, in her first
sanctification, the fomes remained essentially, but was fettered; and
that, when she conceived the Son of God, it was entirely taken
away. In order to understand the question at issue, it must be
observed that the fomes is nothing but a certain inordinate, but
habitual, concupiscence of the sensitive appetite. for actual
concupiscence is a sinful motion. Now sensual concupiscence is said to
be inordinate, in so far as it rebels against reason; and this it does
by inclining to evil, or hindering from good. Consequently it is
essential to the fomes to incline to evil, or hinder from good.
Wherefore to say that the fomes was in the Blessed Virgin without an
inclination to evil, is to combine two contradictory statements.
In like manner it seems to imply a contradiction to say that the fomes
remained as to the corruption of nature, but not as to the personal
corruption. For, according to Augustine (De Nup. et Concup.
i.), it is lust that transmits original sin to the offspring. Now
lust implies inordinate concupiscence, not entirely subject to reason:
and therefore, if the fomes were entirely taken away as to personal
corruption, it could not remain as to the corruption of nature.
It remains, therefore, for us to say, either that the fomes was
entirely taken away from her by her first sanctification or that it was
fettered. Now that the fomes was entirely taken away, might be
understood in this way, that, by the abundance of grace bestowed on
the Blessed Virgin, such a disposition of the soul's powers was
granted to her, that the lower powers were never moved without the
command of her reason: just as we have stated to have been the case
with Christ (Question 15, Article 2), who certainly did not
have the fomes of sin; as also was the case with Adam, before he
sinned, by reason of original justice: so that, in this respect, the
grace of sanctification in the Virgin had the force of original
justice. And although this appears to be part of the dignity of the
Virgin Mother, yet it is somewhat derogatory to the dignity of
Christ, without whose power no one had been freed from the first
sentence of condemnation. And though, through faith in Christ, some
were freed from that condemnation, according to the spirit, before
Christ's Incarnation, yet it does not seem fitting that any one
should be freed from that condemnation, according to the flesh, except
after His Incarnation, for it was then that immunity from
condemnation was first to appear. Consequently, just as before the
immortality of the flesh of Christ rising again, none obtained
immortality of the flesh, so it seems unfitting to say that before
Christ appeared in sinless flesh, His Virgin Mother's or anyone
else's flesh should be without the fomes, which is called "the law of
the flesh" or "of the members" (Rm. 7:23,25).
Therefore it seems better to say that by the sanctification in the
womb, the Virgin was not freed from the fomes in its essence, but
that it remained fettered: not indeed by an act of her reason, as in
holy men, since she had not the use of reason from the very first
moment of her existence in her mother's womb, for this was the
singular privilege of Christ: but by reason of the abundant grace
bestowed on her in her sanctification, and still more perfectly by
Divine Providence preserving her sensitive soul, in a singular
manner, from any inordinate movement. Afterwards, however, at the
conception of Christ's flesh, in which for the first time immunity
from sin was to be conspicuous, it is to be believed that entire
freedom from the fomes redounded from the Child to the Mother. This
indeed is signified (Ezech. 43:2): "Behold the glory of the
God of Israel came in by the way of the east," i.e. by the
Blessed Virgin, "and the earth," i.e. her flesh, "shone with
His," i.e. Christ's, "majesty."
Reply to Objection 1: Death and such like penalties do not of
themselves incline us to sin. Wherefore though Christ assumed them,
He did not assume the fomes. Consequently in order that the Blessed
Virgin might be conformed to her Son, from "whose fulness" her
grace was derived, the fomes was at first fettered and afterwards taken
away: while she was not freed from death and other such penalties.
Reply to Objection 2: The "infirmity" of the flesh, that
pertains to the fomes, is indeed to holy men an occasional cause of
perfect virtue: but not the "sine qua non" of perfection: and it is
quite enough to ascribe to the Blessed Virgin perfect virtue and
abundant grace: nor is there any need to attribute to her every
occasional cause of perfection.
Reply to Objection 3: The Holy Ghost effected a twofold
purification in the Blessed Virgin. The first was, as it were,
preparatory to Christ's conception: which did not cleanse her from
the stain of sin or fomes, but rather gave her mind a unity of purpose
and disengaged it from a multiplicity of things (Cf. Dionysius,
Div. Nom. iv), since even the angels are said to be purified, in
whom there is no stain, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi).
The second purification effected in her by the Holy Ghost was by
means of the conception of Christ which was the operation of the Holy
Ghost. And in respect of this, it may be said that He purified her
entirely from the fomes.
|
|