Tertia Pars
Lecture 69: Sanctification of the Blessed Virgin in the Womb

Transcript
================================================================================

Because it is said in Jeremiah 1.5, Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. But the soul was not poured in before the formation of the body. Likewise about John the Baptist, Ambrose says, upon the Gospel of Luke, that there was no more inside him the spirit of life than there was inside of him the spirit of what? Grace, huh? Therefore, much more was the Blessed Virgin before animation able to be what? Made holy, huh? Moreover, it was suitable, as Anselm says in the book on the virginal conception, that that virgin with that purity shined, right? That none greater under God can be what? Understood, huh? Whence in the Catechals, the Song of Songs, it is said about Mary, You are wholly beautiful, my friend, and there is no stain in you. But there would be a greater purity of the Blessed Virgin if never she was what? Stained with the contagion of sin. Therefore, this was given that before her flesh was animated, she was what? Made holy. And that text there is being used for another purpose here, but it's replying to them when I passed around, you know? I think it's just quoted as the same one there, you know, about nothing being greater than what the Blessed Virgin had, right? And Thomson explained that, it seems to exclude original sin from her, right? Versus text, Totopulchrasta, I mean, the one that they use, huh? When they think about the Magna Conception. Moreover, as has been said, one does not celebrate a feast except about someone holy, but some celebrate the feast of the conception of the Blessed Virgin. Therefore, it seems that in the conception itself, she was holy. That's the Magna Conception, isn't it? Therefore, it seems that before animation, she was what? Made holy. Moreover, the Apostle says, Romans 11, If the root is holy, so also the branches, huh? But the root of sons are their parents. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin was able to be made holy, even in her parents before what? Animation, huh? But against this is those things that happened in the Old Testament are a figure of the new. According to that of St. Paul, 1 Corinthians chapter 10, everything in a figure happened to them, right? But through the sanctifying of the tabernacle, about which it is said in Psalm 45, the Most High sanctified is tabernacle. It seems to signify the sanctifying of the Mother of God, who is called the, what? The tabernacle of God, huh? According to that of Psalm 18, in the sun he placed his, what? Tabernacle. And about the tabernacle is said in Exodus chapter 40, After all things are perfected, the clouds, right? Covered the tabernacle, the testimony, and the glory of God filled it. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified, except after all of her was perfect, right? To it, both the body and the soul. Answer, it should be said that the sanctifying of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood before her, what? Animation. For two reasons, huh? First, because the sanctification about which we speak is not except a cleansing from, what? Original sin. But holiness is a perfect cleansing, as Danisha says in the 12th chapter of the Divine Names. And culpa, guilt, cannot be cleansed except through grace, whose subject is only the, what? Rational creature. And therefore, before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not, what? Sanctified. Of course, she doesn't have that sanctification. Immunutio. She is. Preservatio from the copter originality, right? I'm finding a funny way to speak, because before the infusion of her soul, she didn't exist yet. It's just, the formulation of the question seems kind of... It's just basing it on that idea that emanation comes after conception, through the time. That's consistent with positive. Yeah, but see, before she's emanated, you don't have anything on human person yet. In other words, how could she be, how could somebody be sanctified before they're emanated, because they're not even exist, they don't exist until they're emanated? Well, what he's saying is that the sanctification takes place through grace, right? And the subject of grace is the reasonable soul. So before there's a reasonable soul there, there can't be grace, and before there's grace, there can't be, what? Sanctification. So it's that idea you conceive because of the stage of vegetative soul, animal soul, and the rational soul. So he's saying, he's saying there can't be, and then telling you to rational, there can't be sanctification. So it seems like it's based on that understanding of biology, or something, whatever. There's another question where you could have original sin before you have a rational soul. Okay. But you certainly couldn't have someone cleanse the original sin without grace. You can't, and the subject of grace has to be a rational soul, or an angel, something like that, you know, but a rational creature. His grace is a, what? Partaking of the divine nature, right? And only possible in those that are made in the image of God. And secondly, because since only the rational creature is, what? Susceptible of guilt, right? I was reading, incidentally, the compendium of theology of Thomas, right, huh? And in Latin, you have these two words here, hecatum, culpa, right? And pecatum is a, what? Defect in an act, right? But you can have a defect in your natural act, see? So, if the offspring, say, the child is defective, huh? That's called, sometimes you see the phrase, pecatum naturae, see? We're accustomed to translate pecatum as sin, and it seems kind of funny to say in English, a sin of nature, right? Or nature is sinned in producing this defective child, right? But I think it's used in a little, you know, broader sense than we use the word sin, right? But culpa is more like what? Kill. Kill. So, Thomas says, a pecatum in the will that you're responsible for is not only a pecatum, but it's culpa, right? But there's no culpa in nature, right? Right. But you will see, you know, that phrase in Thomas. That phrase in Thomas. Now, there's a peccatum natura, right? And if you translate peccatum only by sin, you've got a little problem, right? You're already understanding sin in the way we do, you know? But sin is really something voluntary, right? It can't be a natural defect. If you read the Latin, you've got to be aware of the fact that peccatum can even be applied to nature, right? And kulpa is kind of the more strict thing that you have when you have a peccatum that's free. So he says, secondly, because only the rational creature is susceptible of kulpe, right? These are kulpe rather than peccatum. Before the infusion of the reasonable soul, and the offspring conceived is not what? Subject to, you might say, right? To guilt, right, huh? And thus, in whatever way, before animation, the Blessed Virgin was sanctified, she would never have incurred the stain of original what? Guilt. And therefore, she would not have needed redemption and salvation, which is through Christ, huh? Okay. Now we talked about that in the definition here of the Immaculate Conception, right? What's that again? That, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, he says, right? The young. Now I was just thinking, does it say that, going back to that question, because this implies that you have to be animated at the same moment of conception, or did it use the word preserved, such that... Well, I don't know if the church has ever said exactly when the human, the reasonable soul is infused in the body, right? Yeah, but I'm talking about the Blessed Mother, remember I asked, would this imply that the Blessed Mother, if no one else, was animated at the first moment of conception? It doesn't, I don't think so, no. No, no. And is it because it uses the word preserved, or something? No. It says, oh, I see what you mean, the definition itself. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. It says, in the first instant of her conception, right, by singular grace and privilege of the omnipotent God, in 2e2, the merits of Christ, right, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus, the Savior of the human race, she was preserved, immune from all originalis coupe, yeah, you read the word coupe, right, than the word, the capulum, present, you read the word coupe, yeah, labe, preserved, immune, right? I think the answer to your question depends on what he means by conception. Yeah. You see, I don't know what the cult means by conception. You might kind of assume he means by conception, if you're, you know, the sperm in the egg or something like that, but that might not mean what he means. Right. So, I'm not sure what the cult means by conception. But I think we're having a sin of daga, because it is the word preserved, it seems like it leaves it open, that you can have an animation afterwards. Assuming I can accept it, I mean, it's normal. In this text, the English text that I have, from all stain of original sin, right, these words sin there, coupe, but sin is translated coupe there, and this he says is inconvenience, I'm not fitting, that Christ not be the, what, the savior of all men, right? But as I'm mentioning again, I remember I was seeing a text in Thomas where he's talking about, what, mortal sin, right? And he actually uses the expression that we are all saved from mortal sin through our Lord, right? But some of us, after having committed mortal sin, right, being purged by, by water baptism or confession or something, and some are saved from original or mortal sin by being preserved from ever, what, committing it, right? Like they say, they say, trees of the sue or something like that, right? And, why couldn't you use a similar phrase in regard to original sin, right? And say they were all saved from original sin, through the savior of all men, right? To the one who saves them, these people from their sins. But all of us, after contracting it with the exception of the Virgin Mary, who, in view of the merits of Christ, as the definition says, right, was preserved from original sin, right? So she's saved from, you know, you could use that way of speaking, But, Don't doesn't see that here anymore. But as I say, he subjected his works to judgment of the church, so, we'll excuse him for that. I remember seeing in, in, in Dominican Banez, who was, very close to St. Teresa of Avila, right? One of her, fishes and, you know, spiritual, he's very indignant almost about those who are trying to claim the back of conception, if I remember rightly. You know? So. Those are the days when the Jewish were hard at it, so. Yeah, yeah. So probably the Jewish were. Yeah. So the element of truth here, and what Thomas is saying there, is preserved in the text of the definition. Okay. To first, therefore, it should be said, that the Lord has said that before the formation in the uterus, in the womb, he knew, what? Jeremiah's, by the knowledge of what? Predestination. But, he says he sanctified him, or he was sanctified, not before the formation, but before he went out of the womb. What, however, Ambrose says, that, in John the Baptist, there was not yet the spirit of life, when he already had the, what? Spirit of grace. Should not be understood, that the spirit of life is called the, what? Soul, making alive the body. But, according as spirit is said to be here, what? Yeah. Yeah, I don't know if that's, or it can be said that not yet in him was the spirit of life, that is the soul, as regards the manifest and complete operations of it, huh? He's trying. He's trying, most of you. The second, it should be said that if never the soul of the Blessed Virgin was, what? Stained, or not stained? By the contagion of original sin, it would, what? Detract from the dignity of Christ, according as he is the Savior, the universal Savior of all. And therefore, under Christ, who did, what? Not need to be saved, as being himself the universal Savior, most of all was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, right? For Christ in no way contracted original sin, but in his conception, he was, what? Holy. Holy. According to that of Luke 1, who is born from you, who is called the Son of God. But the Blessed Virgin contracted the original sin. This is not true, Thomas. But she was cleansed from it before she was born from the womb. And this is signified in Job 3, 9, where about the night original sin it is said, expect light that is Christ and does not see, because nothing's stained into it. Nor the, what, rising of the morning sun, right? There's the Blessed Virgin who, in her origin, was immune from original sin, right? She was immune, period, right? It's interesting, in regard to this text, the one that comes to man's son, right? I think that's the text that's coming up in that text that I was giving you from the sentences, right? Where he seems to say she's immune from even, what, original sin. So second thoughts are not always better than first thoughts. To the third, it should be said that although the Roman Church does not, what, celebrate the conception of the Blessed Virgin, it tolerates, nevertheless, the custom of some churches celebrating that, what, feast, huh? When such celebrity or celebration should not be totally, yeah. Nevertheless, through this feast of the conception celebrated, it should be understood, it shouldn't be understood, that in her conception she was holy, right? Oh, it's not the way the church reads it now, huh? Yeah. But because in what time she was sanctified, it was, what, not known. One celebrated the feast of her sanctification more than ever conception, the day of her conception. That's not exactly what the thing is doing. And his thought on this, you know, he was expressing the same thing as St. Bernard, St. Bono-Mentri, Albert the Great, and others. Others of his previous works, especially the angelic preceptor, as they call him, St. Thomas taught the immunity of the Blessed Virgin from Brindoson in his exposition on that angelic salutation of Hail Mary, which after, which was composed after this present article, in which he says, for she was most pure, both as regards to guilt, culpa, since neither original nor mortal nor venial sin did she incurred from a certain edition of his, I think, quote a certain edition of this. I looked at the Marietta this morning there at the one, the Alvinria, you know, but there he seems to be saying, the same thing he's saying here, you know. Maybe this is, they're signing a particular edition. It may be that this one... Corrected edition. This is the purified version. But this one here, in the sentences I've run across, and I think it's quoted in the Marietta too, the, it kind of seems to be saying the opposite, right? So, you might have had a very short stay in purgatory because of this, right? You might have had a very short stay in purgatory. You might have had a very short stay in purgatory. At least, at least as long as I hail Mary. No, this would be a, if Thomas didn't have such humor about this, I don't know. Yeah, he might be, he might be a little sore. Don't bring it up to you. No. Well, I'll say that was it. Don't end. I've heard, I've heard nothing but this since I've come here. He'll be chosen to lay the wreath in front of the neck of the concession. Mary didn't say anything to me, but the book she gave me. No, boy, you're going to say, she didn't say anything to me, but boy, had her son tell me a thing. Third article here. To the third one precedes us. Oh, okay. Oh, fourth one, okay. Okay, to the fourth it should be said. That twofold is the, what, sanctifying. One of the whole nature, insofar as the whole nature, human nature, is what, liberated from the corruption of guilt and punishment, and this will be in the resurrection. Another is the personal sanctification, which does not carry over to the, what, yeah. Because such sanctification is not regarding the flesh, but the mind. And therefore, although the parents of the Blessed Virgin were cleansed from original sin, nevertheless, the Blessed Virgin contracted original sin, huh? When she was, what, conceived according to the desire of the flesh, right? And from the union of the male and the female. For what Guston says in the book on, what, upsean, upseals and pubicins, everything that it is, what, born from this union, is a flesh of sin, right? Well, you get Augustine in trouble, too, right? Well, you did say, you know, I've seen your statements in Augustine, you know, so when you talk about the Blessed Virgin, you don't want to talk about sin, you know? You know, like, that's excluded from the union of consideration of the Blessed Virgin, so. But I don't know what the Blessed Virgin is, but it's explicitly about that. The third, then, one proceeds thus, which consists in the rebellion of the lower powers to reason. right so also the punishment of original sin is death right and the other bodily punishments but the blessed version was subject to these what punishments right and therefore the foes were not wholly removed from her okay more in second corinthians chapter 12 it is said virtue is made perfect infirmity and he speaks of the infirmity of the foes according to which saint paul suffered the stimulus of the flesh whatever that was exactly that's what he prayed god to remove and god said no it's going to keep you from getting proud but nothing that pertains the perfection of virtue should be what it's attracted from the blessed virgin therefore the blessed virgin not totally was subtracted the what foes more of a damascene says in the blessed virgin the holy spirit came over her purging her right before the conception of the son of god which cannot be understood except about the purgation from the foes for she did not do or make any sin as augustine says in the book of nature and grace therefore the sanctification in the womb she was not what freely cleansed from the foes fully but against all this is what is said in canicles 4 chapter 7 you are all beautiful my what friend and there's no stain in you that's a pretty good argument that when they're if that applies to the best version right she had no stain of original sin i wonder what print says here song of songs uh interesting uh but the foes pertains to a stain right at least to the flesh therefore the blessed virgin the foes were not no thomas you saw it there why didn't you apply it to them i answer it should be said that about this there are diversity opinions, huh? Some say that in the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin, by which she was made holy in the womb, totally were the foams taken away, right? Subtracted. Some, however, say that the foams remain as far as causing a difficulty for the good, but they took away as far as a proneness to evil. I don't know if that's really possible, huh? It could give man a difficulty to know the truth, but not a proneness to be mistaken. Others say that there was taken away the foams insofar as they pertain to the corruption of the person, insofar as they impel him to something bad, and they caused difficulty for the good. But there remains, insofar as they pertain to the, what, corruption of the nature, insofar as it is a, what, cause of the transmitting original sin to the offspring. Others say that in the first sanctification, there remained the foams in their essence, but bound, huh? But in the conception of the Son of God, it was totally, what, taken away, right? Now, it says, to the understanding of these things is necessary to consider that the foams are nothing other than a disordered desire of the sense apatita, habitual one, however, because the actual concupiscence is the emotion of what? Sin. Sin, huh? Now, the concupiscence, or the desire of sensuality, is said to be disordered insofar as it is impugnant to the flesh. I mean, to reason. I was thinking of Christ saying the flesh there, warring, yeah, it's the spirit. Which, insofar as it inclines to evil, which makes that, or it comes about insofar as it inclines to the bad, right? Or makes difficulty for the good. And therefore, to the very notion of the foams pertains that it inclines to the bad, or causes difficulty in the good. Whence to lay down that there remain foams in the blessed virgin, not inclining to evil, right? Is to lay down to what? Opposites, huh? Likewise, it seems to imply some opposition. That there remain the foams as regards to the corruption of nature, not of her as it pertains to the corruption of the person. For, according to Augustine in the book on nuptials and concupiscence, libido is what original sin transmits to the what? Hospice. But libido implies a disordered desire, which is not wholly subject to what? Reason. And therefore, if totally the foams were taken away insofar as they pertain to the corruption of the person, they could not remain insofar as they pertain to the corruption of the, what? Nature, right? It remains, therefore, that we say that either wholly the foams were taken away from her by their first sanctification, or that they were, what? Tied up. Now, it is possible to be understood that wholly was taken away from the foams in this way, that there was bestowed upon the blessed virgin from the abundance of the grace descending on her, right? That such was the disposition of the powers of the soul in her, that the lower powers never were moved without the judgment of reason. Just as has been said was the case in what? In Christ, huh? Whom it stands to not have the, what? Foam of sin. And as it was in Adam before sin, right? So it wasn't Adam through original justice, right? Before sin. So also, in this regard, the grace of sanctification Mary had the strength of original, what? Justice, huh? Now, though this position seems to pertain to the dignity of the virgin mother, nevertheless, it takes away in sum to the dignity of Christ, without whose power no one is freed from the first damnation, right? He's stubborn at times about this. And although through the faith of Christ, some before the incarnation of Christ were in the spirit freed from that damnation. Now, there is something like in the view of the merits, right? Nevertheless, according to the flesh, someone is liberated from that damnation, does not seem to come about, or ought to come about, except after his incarnation, in which first the immunity of damnation ought to appear. And therefore, before the immortality of the flesh of Christ rising, no one attained, what? The immortality of flesh. So it is unsuitable, it seems, that before the flesh of Christ, in which there was no sin, the flesh of the virgin mother of God, or of anyone else, was without, what? The foams, which is called the law of the flesh structure of the members, right? So the law in me, that Thomas calls it the lex foamitus there in the treatise on law. And therefore, better it should be said that through the sanctification in the womb, there was not taken away from the virgin the foams according to their essence, but they remained, what? Bound, huh? Not through the act of her reason, as in the, what? Men? Because she did not have, at once, the use of, what? Free will, still existing in the womb of the mother, for this was a special privilege of Christ, right? But through the abundant grace which she received in the sanctification. And also, more perfectly, through divine providence, huh? Prohibiting her sensuality from all disordered, what? Movement, huh? But afterwards, in the very conception of the flesh of Christ, in which first ought to shine forth the immunity of, what, from sin, it should be believed that from the offspring, their flowed back on the mother, totally a subtraction from, what, the foams. And this is signified in Ezekiel chapter 43, where it says, Behold, the glory of the God of Israel enters into the, what, oriental way, that is, to the blessed virgin, and the earth, that is, the flesh of her, shines forth from his majesty in the name of the majesty of Christ, huh? You got all that? Pretty subtle. I've heard some people, you know, who maintain that Mary never died, huh? What do you think about that? That's, that's, that's, um, well, yeah, that's, that some, some of the, I think the Greeks, I don't know if the Maronites have one, one opinion about it, but I know they say it's not clear from the definition, because Pope Pius circumvented the question by just saying, at the end of her earthly course. Yeah. He didn't say, at the end of her life, or when she died, he just said, at the end of her course, she was assumed, so, kind of left it over. They kind of argued with her, not, her being amused, which she'll sin, right, that she'll not be somebody to death, right? Well, they also argued that she, shared up with Christ in some sense. It always seemed to me more reasonable that you die if Christ had died. It would be a sweet death. I think that's kind of what the Greeks mean when they say the Dormition. All of us are called to fall asleep in the Lord because of our belief in the resurrection and so on. We're not dead as a doornail. We're asleep. You wake up? That's right. Now to the first objection. Here you're talking about her being subject to things like death, I guess. So also the punishment of the original sin is death and other what? Bodily punishments, right? But the Blessed Virgin was subject to these bodily things. To the first it should be said that death and things of this sort of themselves did not incline to sin, right? Whence also Christ, although he assumed these what? Defects of the body, these pains. He nevertheless did not take on what? The foams, right? Whence also in the Blessed Virgin that she might be conformed to the Son of whose fullness she received grace. first was what? The foams bound, huh? And afterwards removed, huh? But she was not freed from death and other penalties of these sort, huh? She got tired on the trip down to Egypt and so on, right? Thomas seems to think of her as undergoing death, right? The second thing was about infirmity making you perfect, right? To the second it should be said that the infirmity of the flesh pertaining to the foams is in holy men an occasion of perfect, what? Virtue. Causey, right? Exidental cause. Not, however, a cause without which perfection is not able to be had, huh? It suffices then in the Blessed Virgin to place perfect virtue in the abundance of, what? Grace, huh? Nor in her to place every occasion of perfection. Okay? Did I hear you say accidental cause? Yeah, occasion is an accidental cause. Yeah. Well, it's not the cause as such of perfection, right? I mean, just like you say, you know, someone is tormenting me, right? This is an occasion for, what? Patient, right? But is there tormenting me as such cause patience? Wouldn't it work? It's people annoying you that make you patient, right? Would you say that? That people annoying you make you patient? Most people get impatient with people annoying them. So it's not that people annoying you as such causes you to be patient, right? But it is an occasion, right? To be patient, huh? I think Thomas uses that word of causio, you know, to name an accidental cause, right? Now, to the third it should be said. The third injection is called. Okay, it's a text in the scene there about the Holy Spirit purging Mary, right? He's in trouble too, I think, a little bit. The third should be said that the Holy Spirit in the Blessed Virgin made a two-fold purgation, right? One in preparation for the conception of Christ, right? Which was not from any impurity of what? Guilt or the foams, but collecting her mind more in what? Unity, right? And sustaining it from a multitude of things, right? Interesting. For also, the angels are said to be purged, right? In whom there is no what? Impurity found, as Daenicia said. The other purgation was done by, inherited by the Holy Spirit through the medium of the conception of Christ, which was a work of the Holy Spirit. And according to this, it can be said that he purged her wholly or completely from the foams, huh? We'll break here now. 2.30 now. It's time.