NOTE V. PAGE 107

ON A SCANDALOUS TENET CONCERNING THE BLESSED VIRGIN

I FIND the following very apposite passage at note t, p. 390, of vol. i. of Mr. Morris’s “Jesus the Son of Mary,” a work full of learning, which unhappily I forgot to consult, till my Letter was finished and in type.

“An error of this sort [that our Lady is in the Holy Eucharist] was held by some persons, and is condemned in the following language by Benedict XIV. [i.e. by Cardinal Lambertini], as has been pointed out to me by my old and valued friend, Father Faber: ‘This doctrine was held to be erroneous, dangerous, and scandalous, and the cultus was reprobated, which in consequence of it they asserted was to be paid to the most Blessed Virgin in the Sacrament of the Altar.’

“Lambertini de Canonizatione Sanctorum, lib. iv. p. 2, c. 31, n. 32.

“De cultu erga Deiparam in Sacramento Altaris.

“Non multis abhinc annis prodiit Liber de cultu erga Deiparam in Sacramento altaris, auctore Patre Zephyrino de Someire Recollecto Sancti Francisci, in quo asserebatur, in Sacramento altaris aliquam illius partem adesse, eandem videlicet carnem, quam olim ejus sanctissima anima vivificavit, eumdemque illum sanguinem, {166} qui in ejus venis continebatur, et ipsum lac, quo ejus ubera plena erant. Addebatur, nos habere in Sacramento non tantum sanguinem Deiparæ, quatenus in carnem et ossa Christi mutatus est, sed etiam partem sanguinis in propria specie; neque solum veram carnem ipsius, sed etiam aliquid singulorum membrorum, quia sanguis, et lac, ex quibus formatum et nutritum fuit corpus Christi, missa fuerunt ab omnibus et singulis membris Beatissimæ Virginis.

Etiam Christophorus de Vega in volumine satis amplo, quod inscribitur “Theologia Mariana,” Lugduni edito ann. 1653, fusius ea omnia prosecutus est: sed Theophilus Raynaudus in suis Diptychis Marianis, t. 7, p. 65, ea reprobat, asseritque hæresim sapere juxta Guidonem Carmelitam in Summa de hæresibus tract. de hæresi Græcorum, c. 13, cujus verba sunt hæc: “Tertius decimus error Græcorum est. Dicunt enim, quod reliquiæ Panis consecrati sunt reliquiæ corporis Beatæ Virginis. Hic error stultitiæ et amentiæ plenus est. Nam corpus Christi sub qualibet parte hostiæ consecratæ integrum manet. Itaque quælibet pars, a tota consecrata hostia divisa et separata, est verum corpus Christi. Hæreticum autem est et fatuum dicere, quod corpus Christi sit corpus Virginis matris suæ, sicut hæreticum esset dicere, quod Christus esset Beata Virgo: quia distinctorum hominum distincta sunt corpora, nec tantus honor debetur corpori virginis, quantus debetur corpori Christi, cui ratione Divini Suppositi debetur honor latriæ, non corpori Virginis. Igitur dicere, reliquias hostiæ consecratæ esse reliquias corporis Beatæ Virginis est hæreticum manifesto.” {167}

Porro Theologorum Princeps B. Thomas, 3 part. quæst. 31, art. 5, docet primo, Christi corpus conceptum fuisse ex Beatæ Virginis castissimis et purissimis sanguinibus non quibuscunque, sed “perductis ad quamdam ampliorem digestionem per virtutem generativam ipsius, ut essent materia apta ad conceptum,” cum Christi conceptio fuerit secundum conditionem naturæ; materiamque aptam, sive purissimum sanguinem in conceptione Christi sola Spiritus Sancti operatione in utero Virginis adunatum, et in prolem formatum fuisse; ita ut vere dicatur corpus Christi ex purissimis et castissimis sanguinibus Beatæ Virginis fuisse formatum. Docet secundo, non potuisse corpus Christi formari de aliqua substantia, videlicet de carne et ossibus Beatissimæ Virginis, cum sint partes integrantes corpus ipsius: ideoque subtrahi non potuissent sine corruptione, et ejus diminutione: illud vero, quod aliquando dicitur, Christum de Beata Virgine carnem sumpsisse, intelligendum esse et explicandum, non quod materia corporis ejus fuerit actu caro, sed sanguis qui est potentia caro. Docet demum tertio, quomodo subtrahi potuerit ex corpore Adam aliqua ejus pars absque ipsius diminutione, cum Adam institutus ut principium quoddam humanæ naturæ, aliquid habuerit ultra partes sui corporis personales, quod ab eo subtractum est pro formanda Heva, salva ipsius integritate in ratione perfecti corporis humani: quæ locum habere non potuerunt in Beatissima Virgine, quæ uti singulare individuum habuit perfectissimum corpus humanum, et aptissimam materiam ad Christi corpus formandum, quantum est ex parte feminæ, et ad ejus naturalem generationem. Ex {168} quo fit, ut non potuerit, salva integritate Beatæ Virginis, aliquid subtrahi, quod dici posset de substantia corporis ipsius.

Itaque, cum per hanc doctrinam, Fidei principiis conjunctissimam, directe et expressis verbis improbata remanserint asserta in citato libro Patris Zephyrini, ejus doctrina habita est tanquam “erronea, periculosa, et scandalosa,” reprobatusque fuit cultus, quem ex ea præstandum Beatissimæ Virgini in Sacramento altaris asserebat. Loquendi autem formulæ a nonnullis Patribus adhibitæ, Care Mariæ est caro Christi etc. Nobis carnem Mariæ manducandum ad salutem dedit, ita explicandæ sunt, non ut dicamus, in Christo aliquid esse, quod sit Mariæ; sed Christum conceptum esse ex Maria Virgine, materiam ipsa ministrante in similitudinem naturæ et speciei, et ideo filium ejus esse. Sic, quia caro Christi fuit sumpta de David, ut expresse dicitur ad Romanos 1: “Qui factus est ex semine David secundum carnem,” David dicitur Christus, ut notat S. Augustinus enarrat, in Psalm. 144, num. 2: “Intelligitur laus ipsi David, laus ipsi Christo.” Christus autem secundum carnem David, quia Filius David.” Et infra: “Quia itaque ex ipso Christus secundum carnem, ideo David.” Est item solemnis Scripturæ usus, loquendo de parentibus, ut caro unius vocitetur caro alterius. Sic Laban, Gen. 29, dixit Jacob: “Os meum es, et caro mea;” et Judas, loquendo de fratre suo Joseph, Gen. 27, ait: “Frater enim, et caro nostra est;” et Lev. 18 legitur: “Soror patris tui caro est patris tui, et soror matris tuæ caro est matris tuæ;” abaque eo quod hinc inferri possit, ut in Jacob {169} fuerit aliqua actualis pars corporis Laban, aut in Joseph pars Judæ, aut in filio pars aliqua patris. Igitur id solum affirmare licet, in Sacramento esse carnem Christi assumptam ex Maria, ut ait Sanctus Ambrosius relatus in canone Omnia, de Consecrat. distinct. 2 his verbis: “Hæc caro mea est pro mundi vita, et, ut mirabilius loquar, non alia plane quam quæ nata est de Maria, et passa in cruce, et resurrexit de sepulcro; hæc, inquam, ipsa est.” Et infra loquens de corpore Christi: “Illud vere, illud sane, quod sumptum est de Virgine, quod passum est, et sepultum.”

So much for Fr. de Someire’s wild notion. As to Oswald, his work is on the Index. Vide page 5 of “Appendix Librorum Prohibitorum a die 6 Septembris, 1852, ad mensem Junium, 1858.”

Additional Note, Ed. 5.—As another and recent instance of the jealousy with which the Holy See preserves the bounds, within which both tradition and theology confine the cultus of the Blessed Virgin, I refer to a Decree of Inquisition of February 28, 1875, addressed to the Bishop of Presmilia, in which the title of “Queen of the Heart of Jesus,” as well as a certain novelty in the representation of Madonna and Child, as in use in a certain Sodality, are condemned, on the ground that they may be understood in a sense inconsistent with the true faith. It will be found in the “Irish Ecclesiastical Record” for April, 1875.

The Bishop had forbidden the above innovations, and the Sacred Congregation, “to which the examination of the matter was committed by the Holy Father,” says to {170} the Bishop, it cannot but “acknowledge and praise your Excellency’s zeal and care in defending the purity of the faith, especially in these days, when it seems not to be held in much account by men, who, whatever their piety, are led by a sovereign love of novelty to neglect the danger, incurred in consequence by the simple among the faithful, of deviating from the right sense of piety and devotion by means of strange and foreign doctrines.

“To obviate this danger,” the letter proceeds to say, the Sacred Congregation has at other times (altre volte) interposed, “to warn and reprehend” those who, by such language about the Blessed Virgin, “have not sufficiently conformed to the right Catholic sense,” but “ascribe power to her, as issuing from her divine maternity, beyond its due limits; as if this new title had brought her an accession of greatness and glory hitherto unknown, and, in the notion of her sublime dignity hitherto held by the Church according to the doctrine of the Holy Fathers, there were something still wanting, not considering that, although she has the greatest influence (possa moltissimo) with her Son, still it cannot be piously affirmed that she exercises command over Him (eserciti impero).”

Further, in order apparently to mark the ministrative office of the Blessed Virgin, and her dependence as a creature on her Son, “it has been ruled by the Sovereign Pontiff, that the images or pictures to be consecrated to the cultus in question, must represent the Virgin as carrying the infant Jesus, not placed before her knees, but in her arms.”