Discourses on the Seven Principal Feasts of Mary

Discourse I — On the Immaculate Conception of Mary

How fitting it was for all three divine Persons to preserve Mary from original sin.

Too great was the ruin that the accursed sin brought upon Adam and upon the whole human race; for in losing grace, he lost at the same time all the other goods with which he had been enriched in the beginning, and drew upon himself and upon all his descendants, together with the hatred of God, the sum of every evil. But from this common disaster God willed to exempt that blessed Virgin whom he had destined to be the Mother of the second Adam, Jesus Christ, who was to repair the damage done by the first.

Let us see, then, how fitting it was for God and for all three divine Persons to preserve this Virgin from original sin. We shall see that it was fitting for the Father to preserve her as his daughter, for the Son as his Mother, and for the Holy Spirit as his spouse.

Point I

And in the first place it was fitting for the Eternal Father to make Mary free from the stain of original sin, because she was his daughter and his firstborn daughter, as she herself attested: Ego ex ore Altissimi prodivi primogenita ante omnem creaturam (Ecclus. 24:5); since this passage is applied to Mary by the sacred interpreters, by the holy Fathers, and by the Church herself in the very solemnity of her Conception. For whether she was firstborn in the sense that she was predestined together with the Son in the divine decrees before all creatures, as the school of the Scotists holds; or whether she was firstborn of grace, as predestined for Mother of the Redeemer after the foresight of sin, as the school of the Thomists holds — all nonetheless agree in calling her the firstborn of God. This being so, it was indeed fitting that Mary should never have been a slave of Lucifer, but only and always possessed by her Creator, as she herself declares: Dominus possedit me in initio viarum suarum (Ecclus. loc. cit.). With good reason, therefore, Mary was called by Dionysius, Archbishop of Alexandria, Una et sola filia vitae — the one and only daughter of life, in contrast to all others who, being born in sin, are daughters of death.

Moreover, it was well fitting that the Eternal Father should create her in his grace, since he destined her to be the restorer of the lost world and the mediatrix of peace between men and God — as indeed the holy Fathers call her, and especially St. John Damascene, who addresses her thus: O blessed Virgin, you were born to serve the salvation of the whole earth: In vitam prodiisti, ut orbis universi administram te praeberes. Therefore St. Bernard says that Mary was already prefigured in the ark of Noah; for just as through the ark men were saved from the flood, so through Mary we are saved from the shipwreck of sin — but with this difference, that through the ark only a few were saved, whereas through Mary the entire human race has been delivered: Sicut per illam omnes evaserunt diluvium, sic per istam peccati naufragium. Per illam paucorum facta est liberatio, per istam humani generis salvatio. Hence Mary is called by St. Athanasius Nova Heva, mater vitae — the New Eve, the Mother of life. For the first Eve was the mother of death, but the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of life. St. Theophanes, Bishop of Nicaea, says to her: Salve, quae sustulisti tristitiam Hevae. St. Basil calls her the peacemaker between God and men: Ave, Dei hominumque sequestra constituta. St. Ephrem calls her the peacemaker of the whole world: Ave, totius orbis conciliatrix.

Now it certainly does not befit one who is to negotiate peace to be an enemy of the offended party, and still less to be an accomplice in the same offense. St. Gregory says that a person who is the enemy of the judge cannot go to appease him; otherwise, instead of placating him, he would provoke him more. Therefore, since Mary was to be the mediatrix of peace between men and God, every reason demanded that she should not appear as a sinner and enemy of God, but entirely his friend and free from every stain.

Furthermore, it was fitting that God should preserve her from original sin, since he destined her to crush the head of the infernal serpent who, by seducing the first parents, brought death upon all mankind, as the Lord foretold to him: Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius: ipsa conteret caput tuum (Gen. 3:15). Now if Mary was to be the valiant woman placed in the world to vanquish Lucifer, it certainly was not fitting that she should first be conquered by Lucifer and made his slave; rather, it was reasonable that she should be exempt from every stain and from every subjection to the enemy. The proud one sought, just as he had already infected the whole human race with his poison, to infect also the most pure soul of this Virgin. But praised forever be the divine goodness, which prevented her to this end with so much grace that, remaining free from every guilt of sin, she was able to overthrow and confound his pride. As St. Augustine (or whoever the author of the commentary on Genesis may be) says: Cum peccati originalis caput sit diabolus, tale caput Maria contrivit, quia nulla peccati subiectio ingressum habuit in animam Virginis, et ideo ab omni macula immunis fuit. And more clearly St. Bonaventure: Congruum erat ut B. Virgo Maria, per quam aufertur nobis opprobrium, vinceret diabolum, ut nec ei succumberet ad modicum.

But above all it was principally fitting for the Eternal Father to keep this his daughter unharmed by the sin of Adam, because he destined her to be the Mother of his Only-begotten. Tu ante omnem creaturam in mente Dei praeordinata fuisti, ut Deum ipsum hominem procreares, says St. Bernardine of Siena. If for no other reason, then at least for the honor of his Son who was God, it was right that the Father should create her pure from every stain. The Angelic Doctor St. Thomas says that all things which are ordained for God ought to be holy and free from every defilement: Sanctitas illis rebus attribuitur quae in Deum sunt ordinatae. Hence David, describing the temple of Jerusalem with the magnificence befitting the Lord, said: Neque enim homini praeparatur habitatio, sed Deo (1 Par. 29:1). How much more reasonably must we believe that the supreme Creator, having destined Mary to be the Mother of his own Son, must have adorned her soul with every finest gift, so that she might be a worthy dwelling for a God? Omnium artifex Deus, affirms Blessed Denis the Carthusian, Filio suo dignum habitaculum fabricaturus, eam omnium gratificantium charismatum plenitudine adornavit. And the holy Church herself assures us of this, attesting that God prepared the body and soul of the Virgin to be a worthy abode on earth for his Only-begotten: Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui gloriosae Virginis et Matris Mariae corpus et animam, ut dignum Filii tui habitaculum effici meretur, Spiritu Sancto cooperante, praeparasti, etc.

It is well known that the first honor of children is to be born of noble parents: Gloria filiorum patres eorum (Prov. 17:6). Hence it is more tolerable in the world to be thought lacking in wealth and learning than to be thought base of birth; for the poor man may become rich by his industry, the ignorant man learned by his study, but he who is born of low estate can hardly come to be noble; and should he ever manage it, the original stain of his lowly birth can always be cast in his face. How then can we think that God, being able to have his Son born of a noble Mother by preserving her from sin, would have willed him to be born of a Mother infected by sin, allowing Lucifer always to cast in his face the reproach of having been born of a Mother who was his slave and the enemy of God? No — the Lord did not permit this, but well provided for the honor of his Son by ensuring that his Mother was always immaculate, so that she might be a Mother befitting such a Son. So the Greek Church attests: Providentia singulari perfecit, ut SS. Virgo ab ipso vitae suae principio tam omnino exsisteret pura, quam decebat illam quae Christo digna mater exsisteret.

It is a common axiom among theologians that no gift was ever granted to any creature with which the Blessed Virgin was not also enriched. Here is how St. Bernard speaks: Quod vel paucis mortalium constat esse collatum, fas certe non est suspicari tantae Virgini fuisse negatum. And St. Thomas of Villanova: Nihil umquam alicui sanctorum concessum est, quod a principio vitae cumulatius non praefulgeat in Maria. And since it is true that between the Mother of God and the servants of God there is an infinite distance, according to the celebrated saying of St. John Damascene — Matris Dei et servorum Dei infinitum est discrimen — it must certainly be supposed, as St. Thomas teaches, that God conferred upon the Mother privileges of grace in every kind greater than upon the servants: Maiora in quovis genere privilegia gratiae deferenda sunt Matri Dei, quam servis. Now given all this, St. Anselm, the great defender of Mary Immaculate, takes up the argument and says: Impotensne fuit sapientia Dei mundum habitaculum condere, remota omni labe conditionis humanae? Was the divine Wisdom perhaps unable to prepare for his Son a pure dwelling, free from every stain of the human condition? God, St. Anselm continues, was able to preserve the angels of heaven unharmed amid the ruin of so many others — and could he then not preserve the Mother of his Son, the Queen of angels, from the common fall of mankind? Angelos, aliis peccantibus, a peccato reservavit; et Matrem ab aliorum peccatis exsortem servare non potuit? God was able, I add, to give even to an Eve the grace of coming into the world immaculate — and then he could not give it to Mary?

Ah no — God could well do it and did do it; since it was in every way fitting, as the same St. Anselm says, that the Virgin whom God was preparing to give as Mother to his only Son should be adorned with a purity that not only surpassed that of all men and all angels, but was the greatest that can be conceived after God: Decens erat, ut ea puritate, qua maior sub Deo nequit intelligi, Virgo illa niteret, cui Deus Pater unicum sibi Filium dare disponebat. And more clearly St. John Damascene: Cum Virginis una cum corpore animam conservasset, ut eam decebat, quae Deum in sinu suo exceptura erat: sanctus enim ipse cum sit, in sanctis requiescit. So that the Eternal Father could well say to this beloved Daughter: Sicut lilium inter spinas, sic amica mea inter filias (Cant. 2:2) — Daughter, among all my other daughters you are as a lily among thorns, for they are all stained by sin, but you were always immaculate and always my friend.

Point II

In the second place it was fitting for the Son to preserve Mary from sin, as his Mother.

No other son is ever given the power to choose his mother according to his pleasure; but if this were ever granted to anyone, who would there be who, being able to have a queen for his mother, would want a slave? Who, being able to have a noblewoman, would want a peasant? Who, being able to have a friend of God, would want an enemy of God? If then the only Son of God alone could choose a mother to his liking, we must certainly hold that he chose one as befitted a God. So speaks St. Bernard: Nascens de homine Factor hominum talem sibi debuit eligere matrem, qualem se decere sciebat. And since it was well befitting a most pure God to have a mother pure from every sin, such indeed he made her, as St. Bernardine of Siena affirms: Tertio fuit sanctificatio maternalis, et haec removet omnem culpam originalem. Haec fuit in B. Virgine: sane Deus talem tam nobilitate naturae, quam perfectione gratiae condidit matrem, qualem eum decebat habere suam matrem. To this accords what the Apostle wrote: Talis enim decebat ut nobis esset pontifex sanctus, innocens, impollutus, segregatus a peccatoribus (Heb. 7:26). A learned author notes here that according to St. Paul it was fitting that our Redeemer should not only be separated from sins, but also from sinners, as St. Thomas explains: Oportuit eum qui peccata venit tollere, esse segregatum a peccatoribus, quantum ad culpam cui Adam subiacuit. But how could Jesus Christ be called separated from sinners if he had a sinful mother?

St. Ambrose says: Non de terra, sed de caelo vas sibi hoc, per quod descenderet, Christus elegit, et sacravit templum pudoris. The saint alludes to the words of St. Paul: Primus homo de terra, terrenus: secundus homo de caelo, caelestis (1 Cor. 15:47). St. Ambrose calls the divine Mother a heavenly vessel — not because Mary was not earthly by nature, as the heretics have imagined, but heavenly by grace, since she was superior to the angels of heaven in holiness and purity, as befitted a King of glory who was to dwell in her bosom, as the Baptist revealed to St. Bridget: Non decuit regem gloriae iacere nisi in vase purissimo et electissimo, prae omnibus angelis et hominibus.

To which is joined what the Eternal Father himself said to the same saint: Maria fuit vas mundum et non mundum. Mundum, quia tota pulchra: sed non mundum, quia de peccatoribus nata est; licet sine peccato concepta, ut Filius meus de ea sine peccato nasceretur. Note well these last words: that Mary was conceived without sin so that the divine Son might be born from her without sin — not that Jesus Christ was capable of contracting sin, but so that he might not bear the reproach of having a mother infected by sin and a slave of the devil.

The Holy Spirit says that the honor of the father is the glory of the son, and the dishonor of the father is the shame of the son: Gloria enim hominis est honor patris sui, et dedecus filii pater sine honore (Ecclus. 3:13). St. Augustine therefore says that Jesus Christ preserved the body of Mary from corruption after death, since it would have been a dishonor to him if that virginal flesh with which he himself had been clothed should have been destroyed by decay: Putredo namque humanae est opprobrium conditionis, a quo cum Iesus sit alienus, natura Mariae excipitur; caro enim Iesu caro Mariae est. Now if it would have been a reproach to Jesus Christ to be born of a mother whose body was subject to the corruption of the flesh, how much more would it have been to be born of a mother whose soul was infected by the corruption of sin? Moreover, since it is true that the flesh of Jesus is the same as that of Mary — in such a way, as the same saint adds, that the flesh of the Savior even after his resurrection remained the same that he took from the Mother: Caro Christi caro est Mariae, et quamvis gloria resurrectionis fuerit glorificata, eadem tamen mansit quae de Maria sumpta est — hence St. Arnold of Chartres said: Una est Mariae et Christi caro; atque adeo Filii gloriam cum Matre non tam communem iudico, quam eamdem. Now this being true, if the Blessed Virgin had been conceived in sin, although the Son would not have contracted the stain of sin, it would nonetheless always have been a certain stain upon him to have had his flesh united to flesh once infected by sin, a vessel of uncleanness, and subject to Lucifer.

Mary was not only Mother but worthy Mother of the Savior. So all the holy Fathers call her. St. Bernard: Tu sola inventa es digna, ut in tua virginali aula Rex regum primam sibi mansionem eligeret. St. Thomas of Villanova: Antequam conciperet, iam idonea erat, ut esset Mater Dei. The holy Church herself attests that the Virgin merited to be the Mother of Jesus Christ: B. Virgo, cuius viscera meruerunt portare Christum Dominum. Explaining this, St. Thomas Aquinas says: B. Virgo dicitur meruisse portare Dominum omnium, non quia meruit ipsum incarnari, sed quia meruit ex gratia sibi data illum puritatis et sanctitatis gradum, ut congrue posset esse Mater Dei. The Angelic Doctor says, then, that Mary could not merit the Incarnation of the Word, but by divine grace she merited such perfection as rendered her a worthy Mother of a God, according to what St. Peter Damian also wrote: Singularis eius sanctitas ex gratia hoc promeruit, quod susceptione Dei singulariter iudicata est digna.

Now given that Mary was a worthy Mother of God, what excellence, says St. Thomas of Villanova, and what perfection was not befitting for her? Quae autem excellentia, quae perfectio decuit eam, ut esset Mater Dei?

The same Angelic Doctor teaches that when God chooses someone for a dignity, he also renders that person fit for it; hence he says that God, having chosen Mary for his Mother, certainly rendered her worthy of that office by his grace: Beata autem Virgo fuit electa divinitus ut esset Mater Dei; et ideo non est dubitandum quin Deus per suam gratiam eam ad hoc idoneam reddiderit iuxta illud: Invenisti gratiam apud Dominum: Ecce concipies, etc. (Lk. 1). And from this the saint concludes that the Virgin never committed any actual sin, not even venial; otherwise, he says, she would not have been a worthy Mother of Jesus Christ, since the ignominy of the Mother would have reflected also upon the Son, having a sinner for his mother: Non fuisset idonea Mater Dei, si peccasset aliquando, quia ignominia matris ad Filium redundasset. Now if Mary, by sinning with even a single venial sin — which does not deprive the soul of divine grace — would not have been a worthy Mother of God, how much more if Mary had been guilty of original sin, which would have made her an enemy of God and a slave of the devil? For this reason St. Augustine declared in that celebrated sentence that, speaking of Mary, he would make no mention of sin, for the honor of that Lord whom she merited to have as her Son, and through whom she received the grace of conquering sin on every side: Excepta itaque S. Virgine Maria, de qua propter honorem Domini nullam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, habere volo quaestionem. Unde enim scimus quod ei plus gratiae collatum fuerit ad vincendum ex omni parte peccatum, quae concipere et parere meruit eum, quem constat nullum habuisse peccatum.

So we must hold it as certain that the Incarnate Word chose for himself a mother such as befitted him and of whom he would not have to be ashamed, as St. Peter Damian says: Christus talem matrem sibi elegit, quam meruit habere, de qua non erubesceret. And likewise St. Proclus: Intra viscera, quae citra ullam sui dedecoris notam creaverat, habitavit. It was not a reproach to Jesus to be called by the Jews the son of Mary in contempt, as the son of a poor woman — Nonne mater eius dicitur Maria? (Mt. 13:55) — for he came to earth to give examples of humility and patience. But without a doubt it would have been a reproach to him if the demons could have said: Nonne mater eius exstitit peccatrix? — Was not his mother a sinner, and once our slave? It would also have been unfitting for Jesus Christ to be born of a woman deformed or crippled in body, or possessed by demons in body. But how much more so to be born of a woman once deformed in soul and possessed in soul by Lucifer?

Ah, that God who is Wisdom itself well knew how to build for himself on earth such a house as befitted the one who was to dwell in it: Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum (Prov. 9:1). Sanctificavit tabernaculum suum Altissimus... Adiuvabit eam Deus mane diluculo (Ps. 45:5-6). The Lord, says David, sanctified this his dwelling mane diluculo — that is, from the beginning of her life — to make her worthy of himself; for a holy God could not choose for himself a house that was not holy: Domum tuam decet sanctitudo (Ps. 92:5). And if he declares that he will never enter to dwell in a soul of ill will or in a body subject to sins — In malevolam animam non introibit sapientia, nec habitabit in corpore subdito peccatis (Wis. 1:4) — how can we think that the Son of God chose to dwell in the soul and body of Mary without first sanctifying her and preserving her from every filth of sin? For, as St. Thomas teaches, the Eternal Word dwelt not only in the soul but also in the womb of Mary: Dei Filius in ipsa habitavit, non solum in anima, sed etiam in utero. The holy Church sings: Lord, you did not shrink from dwelling in the Virgin's womb: Non horruisti Virginis uterum. Yes, for God would have shrunk from becoming incarnate in the womb of an Agnes, a Gertrude, a Teresa — since these virgins, though holy, were nevertheless once stained by original sin — but he did not shrink from becoming man in the womb of Mary, because this beloved Virgin was always pure from every spot of sin and never possessed by the enemy serpent. Hence St. Augustine wrote: Nullam digniorem domum sibi Filius Dei aedificavit, quam Mariam, quae numquam fuit ab hostibus capta, neque suis ornamentis spoliata.

On the other hand, says St. Cyril of Alexandria, who has ever heard of an architect building a house for his own use and then yielding its first possession to his chief enemy? Quis umquam audivit architectum qui sibi domum aedificavit, eius occupationem et possessionem primo suo inimico cessisse? Yes, for that Lord, says St. Methodius, who gave us the precept to honor our parents, would not, in becoming man like us, fail to observe it himself by giving his Mother every grace and honor: Qui dixit, honora patrem et matrem, ut decretum a se promulgatum servaret, omnem Matri gratiam et honorem impendit. Therefore St. Augustine says that it must certainly be believed that Jesus Christ preserved the body of Mary from corruption after death, since it would have been a violation of the law which, sicut honorem matris praecipit, ita inhonorationem damnat. Now how much less would Jesus have attended to the honor of his Mother if he had not preserved her from the sin of Adam? Well would that son sin, says Fr. Thomas of Argentina, an Augustinian, who, being able to preserve his mother from original sin, should not do so; now what would be sin for us, says the same author, must be believed not to have been fitting for the Son of God, who, being able to make his Mother immaculate, would not have done so. St. Gerson adds: Cum tu summus princeps velis habere Matrem, illi certe debebis honorem. Nunc autem appareret illam legem non bene adimpleri, si in abominationem peccati originalis permitteres illam quae esse debet habitaculum totius puritatis.

Moreover, it is well known that the divine Son came into the world to redeem Mary more than all other men, as St. Bernardine of Siena wrote: Christus plus pro redimenda Virgine venit, quam pro omni alia creatura. And since there are two ways of redeeming, as St. Augustine teaches — one by raising up the one who has already fallen, the other by preventing someone from falling: Duplex est redimendi modus, unus redimendo lapsum, alter redimendo non lapsum, ne cadat — without doubt this second is the nobler way: Nobilius redimitur cui providetur ne cadat, quam ut lapsus erigatur (St. Antoninus); for in this way even the damage or stain that the soul always contracts from its fall is avoided. Therefore in this nobler way — as befitted the Mother of a God — we must believe that Mary was redeemed, as St. Bonaventure says: Credendum est enim quod novo sanctificationis genere in eius conceptionis primordio Spiritus Sanctus eam a peccato originali — non quod infuit, sed quod infuisset — redemit, atque singulari gratia praeservavit. On this point Cardinal Cusano elegantly wrote: Alii liberatorem, Virgo sancta praeliberatorem habuit — Others had a Redeemer who freed them from sin already contracted; but the holy Virgin had a Redeemer who, because he was her Son, freed her from contracting sin.

In sum, for the conclusion of this point, Hugh of St. Victor says that the tree is known by its fruit. If the Lamb was always immaculate, always immaculate too must the Mother have been: Talis Agnus, qualis mater Agni; quoniam omnis arbor ex fructu suo cognoscitur. Hence this same Doctor greeted Mary calling her: O digna digni — O worthy Mother of a worthy Son; meaning that none other than Mary was a worthy Mother of such a Son, and none other than Jesus was a worthy Son of such a Mother: O digna digni, formosa pulchri, excelsa Altissimi, Mater Dei. Let us therefore say to her with St. Ildephonsus: Nurse, O Mary, your Creator; nurse him who made you and who made you so pure and perfect that you merited that he should take his human nature from you: Lacta, o Maria, Creatorem tuum, lacta eum qui te fecit, et qui talem fecit te, ut ipse fieret ex te.

Point III

If then it was fitting for the Father to preserve Mary from sin as his daughter, and for the Son as his Mother, so too it was fitting for the Holy Spirit to preserve her as his spouse.

Mary, says St. Augustine, was the one woman who alone merited to be called both Mother and Spouse of God: Haec est quae sola meruit mater et sponsa vocari. For St. Anselm declares that the Divine Spirit already came bodily into Mary and, enriching her with grace above all creatures, rested in her and made her — his spouse — Queen of heaven and earth: Ipse Spiritus Dei, ipse amor Patris et Filii corporaliter venit in eam, singularique gratia prae omnibus in ipsa requievit, et reginam caeli et terrae fecit sponsam suam. He says that he came into her bodily as to his effect, for he came to form from her immaculate body the immaculate body of Jesus Christ, as the Archangel foretold to her: Spiritus Sanctus superveniet in te (Lk. 1:35). Hence, says St. Thomas, Mary is called the temple of the Lord, the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit, because by the working of the Holy Spirit she was made Mother of the Incarnate Word: Unde dicitur templum Domini, sacrarium Spiritus Sancti, quia concepit ex Spiritu Sancto.

Now if a most excellent painter were ever to have his spouse turn out as beautiful or as plain as he himself painted her, what diligence would he not use to make her as beautiful as possible? Who then can say that the Holy Spirit acted otherwise with Mary — that he, who could make this his spouse entirely beautiful as befitted him, did not do so? No — so it was fitting, and so he did, as the Lord himself attested when, praising Mary, he said to her: Tota pulchra es, amica mea, et macula non est in te (Cant. 4:7). These words, say St. Ildephonsus and St. Thomas, are properly understood of Mary, as Cornelius a Lapide reports on the passage; and St. Bernardine of Siena with St. Lawrence Justinian assert that they refer precisely to her Immaculate Conception; hence the Idiot says to her: Tota pulchra es, Virgo gloriosissima, non in parte, sed in toto; et macula peccati sive mortalis, sive venialis, sive originalis, non est in te.

The same was signified by the Holy Spirit when he called this his spouse an enclosed garden and a sealed fountain: Hortus conclusus, soror mea sponsa, hortus conclusus, fons signatus (Cant. 4:12). Mary was indeed this enclosed garden and sealed fountain, says St. Jerome, for the enemies never entered her to harm her, but she always remained unscathed, holy in soul and body: Haec est hortus conclusus, fons signatus, ad quam nulli potuerunt doli irrumpere, nec praevalere fraus inimici; sed permansit sancta mente et corpore. And similarly St. Bernard said, speaking to the Blessed Virgin: Hortus conclusus tu es, quem ad deflorandum manus peccatorum numquam introivit.

We know that this divine Spouse loved Mary more than all the other saints and angels combined, as Fr. Suarez asserts together with St. Lawrence Justinian and others. From the beginning he loved her and exalted her in holiness above all, as David expressed: Fundamenta eius in montibus sanctis; diligit Dominus portas Sion super omnia tabernacula Iacob... Homo natus est in ea, et ipse fundavit eam Altissimus (Ps. 86:1-2, 5). Words which all signify that Mary was holy from her very Conception. The same is signified by what the same Spirit said to her in other places: Multae filiae congregaverunt divitias, tu supergressa es universas (Prov. 31:29). If Mary surpassed all in the riches of grace, then she also had original justice, as Adam and the angels had. Adolescentularum non est numerus: una est columba mea, perfecta mea — the Hebrew reads, integra, immaculata mea — una est matris suae (Cant. 6:7-8). All just souls are daughters of divine grace; but among them Mary was the dove without the gall of sin, the perfect one without the stain of origin, the only one conceived in grace.

Hence it is that the Angel, before she was Mother of God, already found her full of grace and thus greeted her: Ave, gratia plena. On which words Sophronius wrote that to the other saints grace is given in part, but to the Virgin it was given in its fullness: Bene gratia plena dicitur, quia ceteris per partes praestatur, Mariae vero simul se tota infudit plenitudo gratiae. So that, says St. Thomas, grace not only made holy the soul but also the flesh of Mary, so that with that flesh the Virgin might then clothe the Eternal Word: Anima B. Virginis ita fuit plena, quod ex ea refudit gratiam in carnem, ut de ipsa conciperet Deum. Now all this conduces to the understanding that Mary from her very conception was made rich and full of divine grace by the Holy Spirit, as Peter of Celles argues: Simul in ea collecta est gratiae plenitudo, quia ab exordio suae conceptionis aspersione Spiritus Sancti tota deitatis gratia est superfusa. Hence St. Peter Damian says: A Deo electam et praeelectam totam eam rapturus erat sibi Spiritus Sanctus. Rapturus — to express the swiftness of the Divine Spirit in anticipating and making his own this spouse, before Lucifer should possess her.

I wish finally to close this discourse — in which I have been more expansive than in the others, for the reason that our small Congregation has as its principal patroness the Blessed Virgin Mary precisely under this title of her Immaculate Conception — I wish, I say, to close by briefly declaring the motives that make me certain, and which in my opinion ought to make everyone certain, of this sentiment so pious and so glorious to the divine Mother: that she was immune from original sin.

There are many Doctors who even maintain that Mary was exempt from contracting the debt of sin, such as Cardinal Galatino, Cardinal Cusano, De Ponte, Salazar, Catharinus, Novarino, Viva, De Lugo, Aegidius, Richelius, and others. Now this opinion is certainly probable; for if it is true that in Adam's will as head of mankind the wills of all were included, as Gonet, Habert, and others probably hold, based on the text of St. Paul — Omnes in Adam peccaverunt (Rom. 5) — if this then is probable, it is also probable that Mary did not contract the debt of sin, since God having so greatly distinguished her by grace from the common run of mankind, we must piously believe that in Adam's will he did not include that of Mary.

This opinion is only probable, and I adhere to it as more glorious for my Lady. But I then hold as certain the position that Mary did not contract the sin of Adam; just as those hold it for certain — indeed, as proximately definable as a matter of faith, as they call it — Cardinal Everard, Duval, Raynald, Lossada, Viva, and many others. I leave aside, therefore, the revelations that confirm this position, especially those made to St. Bridget, already approved by Cardinal Torquemada and by four Sovereign Pontiffs, as one reads in the sixth book of those Revelations in many places (ch. 12, 49, and 55). But on no account can I fail to note here the statements of the holy Fathers on this point, to demonstrate how unanimous they were in according this privilege to the divine Mother.

St. Ambrose says: Suscipe me non ex Sara, sed ex Maria, ut incorrupta sit virgo, sed virgo per gratiam ab omni integra labe peccati. Origen, speaking of Mary, says: Nec serpentis venenosis afflatibus infecta est. St. Ephrem: Immaculata, et ab omni peccati labe alienissima. St. Augustine, on the words of the Angel, Ave, gratia plena, wrote: Quibus ostendit ex integro — note, ex integro — iram primae sententiae exclusam, et plenam benedictionis gratiam restitutam. St. Jerome: Nubes illa non fuit in tenebris, semper in luce. St. Cyprian (or whoever the author may be): Nec sustinebat iustitia, ut illud vas electionis communibus laxaretur iniuriis, quoniam plurimum a ceteris distans natura communicabat, non culpa. St. Amphilochius: Qui antiquam virginem sine probro condidit, ipse et secundam sine nota et crimine fabricatus est. Sophronius: Virginem ideo dici immaculatam, quia in nullo corrupta est. St. Ildephonsus: Constat eam ab originali peccato fuisse immunem. St. John Damascene: Ad hunc paradisum serpens aditum non habuit. St. Peter Damian: Caro Virginis ex Adam sumpta maculas Adam non admisit. St. Bruno: Haec est incorrupta terra illa, cui benedixit Dominus: ab omni propterea peccati contagione libera. St. Bonaventure: Domina nostra fuit plena gratia praeveniente in sua sanctificatione, gratia scilicet praeservativa contra foeditatem originalis culpae. St. Bernardine of Siena: Non enim credendum est quod ipse Filius Dei voluerit nasci ex Virgine et sumere eius carnem quae esset maculata aliquo originali peccato. St. Lawrence Justinian: Ab ipsa conceptione fuit in benedictionibus praeventa. The Idiot, on the words Invenisti gratiam, says: Gratiam singularem, o dulcissima Virgo, invenisti, quia fuerunt in te ab originali labe praeservatio, etc. And the same is said by many other Doctors.

But the motives that finally assure us of the truth of this pious position are two. The first is the universal consent of the faithful on this point. Fr. Aegidius de la Presentacion attests that all the religious Orders follow this position; and of the Order of St. Dominic itself, a modern author says that although 92 writers are for the contrary, 136 are nonetheless for ours. But above all, what ought to persuade us that our pious position is in accord with the common sense of Catholics is what Pope Alexander VII attests in his celebrated bull Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum, issued in 1661, in which it is said: Aucta rursus et propagata fuit pietas haec et cultus erga Deiparam... ita ut, accedentibus Academiis ad hanc sententiam — that is, to the pious one — iam fere omnes Catholici eam complectantur. And in fact this position is defended by the academies of the Sorbonne, of Alcala, of Salamanca, of Coimbra, of Cologne, of Mainz, of Naples, and many others, in each of which every graduate binds himself by oath to the defense of Mary Immaculate.

The other motive, stronger than the first, that makes us certain of the Virgin's exemption from the stain of original sin, is the celebration decreed by the universal Church of her Immaculate Conception. And regarding this I see on the one hand that the Church celebrates the first instant in which her soul was created and infused into her body, as Alexander VII declares in the aforementioned bull, in which it is expressed that the Church gives to the Conception of Mary that same worship which the pious position gives it — the position that holds her conceived without original sin. On the other hand I understand it to be certain that the Church cannot celebrate anything that is not holy, according to the declarations of Pope St. Leo and of Pope St. Eusebius: In sede apostolica extra maculam semper est catholica servata religio; and as all the theologians teach, with St. Augustine, St. Bernard, and St. Thomas, who to prove that Mary was sanctified before her birth uses precisely this argument — that of the celebration by the Church of her nativity — and therefore says: Ecclesia celebrat nativitatem B. Virginis; non autem celebratur festum in Ecclesia nisi pro aliquo sancto; ergo B. Virgo fuit in utero sanctificata. Now if it is certain, as the Angelic Doctor says, that Mary was sanctified in the womb because the holy Church celebrates her birth, why should we not then hold it as certain that Mary was preserved from original sin from the first instant of her Conception, now that we know that the Church celebrates the feast in this very sense?

In confirmation of this great privilege of Mary, the innumerable and prodigious graces are already well known which the Lord is pleased to dispense daily throughout the Kingdom of Naples by means of the little cards of her Immaculate Conception. I could relate many that passed through the hands of the Fathers of our own Congregation, but I will narrate only two that are truly admirable.

Example

In one of the houses that our small Congregation has in this kingdom, a woman came to one of our Fathers to say that her husband had not confessed for many years, and that the poor wife no longer knew what to do to bring him around, for whenever she spoke to him of confession, he beat her. The Father told the woman to give him a card of Mary Immaculate. When evening came, the woman again begged her husband to confess; but he, turning a deaf ear as usual, refused. She then gave him a card. And behold, no sooner had he received the card than the husband said: "Very well, when do you want to take me to confession? I am ready." The wife began to weep for joy, seeing that change so instantaneous. The next morning the man did indeed come to our church. When our Father asked him how long it had been since his last confession, he answered: twenty-eight years. "And how," replied the Father, "were you moved this morning to come and confess?" "Father," the man said, "I was obstinate; but last night my wife gave me a card of Our Lady, and immediately I felt my heart change; so much so that last night every moment seemed a thousand years until daybreak, so that I could come to confess." And in fact he confessed with much contrition, changed his life, and for a long time continued to confess frequently to the same Father.

In another place of the diocese of Salerno, while our Fathers were preaching a holy mission, there was a certain man who harbored a grave enmity against another who had offended him. One of our Fathers spoke to him about forgiveness, and the man answered: "Father, have you ever seen me at the sermons? No, and that is why I do not come. I can see that I am damned; but it cannot be helped — I intend to take my revenge." The Father labored hard to convert him, but seeing that words were wasted, he said: "Take this card of Our Lady." The man at first replied: "And what good is this card?" But having taken the card, as though he had never refused the forgiveness that was asked of him, he said to the missionary: "Father, you want nothing more than the reconciliation? Here I am, ready to make it." And they arranged to meet the following morning. But when morning came, the man had changed his mind again and wanted nothing more to do with it. The Father held out another card; the man did not want to take it, but with some effort he finally accepted it. And what happened? No sooner had he taken the second little card than he immediately said: "Come, let us settle this — where is the notary?" And immediately he made the reconciliation; and then he went to confession.

Prayer

Ah, my Immaculate Lady, I rejoice with you to see you enriched with such purity. I thank, and I resolve always to thank, the common Creator for having preserved you from every stain of sin, as I firmly believe; and to defend this your so great and singular privilege of your Immaculate Conception, I am ready and I swear to give, if need be, even my life.

I wish that all the world might know you and confess you as that beautiful dawn that was always adorned with divine light; as that chosen ark of salvation, free from the common shipwreck of sin; as that perfect and immaculate dove, as your divine Spouse declared you; as that enclosed garden which was the delight of God; as that sealed fountain into which the enemy never entered to trouble it; as that white lily, finally, which you are — you who, born among the thorns of the children of Adam, where all are born stained by sin and enemies of God, were born pure and wholly radiant and entirely the friend of your Creator.

Allow me, then, to praise you also as your own God praised you: Tota pulchra es et macula non est in te. O most pure dove, wholly radiant, wholly beautiful, always the friend of God: O quam pulchra es, amica mea, quam pulchra es! Ah, most sweet, most lovable, Immaculate Mary, you who are so beautiful in the eyes of your Lord, do not disdain to look with your compassionate eyes upon the loathsome wounds of my soul. Look upon me, and have compassion on me, and heal me.

O beautiful magnet of hearts, draw to yourself also my wretched heart. You who from the first moment of your life appeared pure and beautiful before God, have pity on me, who not only was born in sin but after baptism have again defiled my soul with sins. That God who chose you as his daughter, his Mother, and his spouse, and therefore preserved you from every stain, and preferred you in his love above all creatures — what grace will he ever deny you? Immaculate Virgin, you must save me. I will say to you with St. Philip Neri: Grant that I may always remember you; and do not forget me. It seems a thousand years before I come to behold your beauty in paradise, the better to praise and love you, my Mother, my Queen, my beloved, most beautiful, most sweet, most pure, Immaculate Mary. Amen.