Edition ausblenden
De carne Christi

XXIII

[1] Sed agnoscimus adimpleri propheticam vocem Simeonis super adhuc recentem infantem dominum pronuntiatam, Ecce hic positus est in ruinam et suscitationem multorum in Israel et in signum quod contradicitur. signum enim nativitatis Christi secundum Esaiam: Propterea dabit vobis dominus ipse signum: ecce virgo concipiet in utero et pariet filium. [2] agnoscimus ergo signum contradicibile conceptum et partum virginis Mariae, de quo Academici isti, 'Peperit et non peperit virgo et non virgo.' quasi non, et si ita dicendum esset, a nobis magis dici conveniret: peperit enim quae ex sua carne, et non peperit quae non ex viri semine, et virgo quantum a viro, non virgo quantum a partu-- [3] non tamen, ut ideo non pepererit quae peperit quia non ex sua carne, et ideo virgo quae non virgo quia non de visceribus suis mater. sed apud nos nihil dubium, nec retortum in ancipitem defensionem: lux lux et tenebrae tenebrae et est est et non non: quod amplius hoc a malo est. peperit quae peperit, et si virgo concepit in partu suo nupsit: [4] nam nupsit ipsa patefacti corporis lege, in quo nihil interfuit de vi masculi admissi an emissi: idem illud sexus resignavit. haec denique vulva est propter quam et de aliis scriptum est, Omne masculinum adaperiens vulvam sanctum vocabitur domino. quis vere sanctus quam sanctus ille dei filius? quis proprie vulvam adaperuit quam qui clausam patefecit? [5] ceteris omnibus nuptiae patefaciunt. itaque magis patefacta est quia magis erat clausa. utique magis non virgo dicenda est quam virgo, saltu quodam mater antequam nupta. et quid ultra de hoc retractandum est? cum hac ratione apostolus non ex virgine sed ex muliere editum filium dei pronuntiavit agnovit adapertae vulvae nuptialem passionem. [6] legimus quidem apud Ezechielem de vacca illa quae peperit et non peperit: sed videte ne vos iam tunc providens spiritus sanctus notarit hac voce disceptaturos super uterum Mariae. ceterum non contra illam suam simplicitatem pronuntiasset dubitative, Esaia dicente Concipiet et pariet.

Übersetzung ausblenden
On the Flesh of Christ

Chapter XXIII.--Simeon's "Sign that Should Be Contradicted," Applied to the Heretical Gainsaying of the True Birth of Christ. One of the Heretics' Paradoxes Turned in Support of Catholic Truth.

We acknowledge, however, that the prophetic declaration of Simeon is fulfilled, which he spoke over the recently-born Saviour: ¹ "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign that shall be spoken against." ² The sign (here meant) is that of the birth of Christ, according to Isaiah: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." ³ We discover, then, what the sign is which is to be spoken against--the conception and the parturition of the Virgin Mary, concerning which these sophists ⁴ say: "She a virgin and yet not a virgin bare, and yet did not bear;" just as if such language, if indeed it must be uttered, would not be more suitable even for ourselves to use! For "she bare," because she produced offspring of her own flesh and "yet she did not bear," since she produced Him not from a husband's seed; she was "a virgin," so far as (abstinence) from a husband went, and "yet not a virgin," as regards her bearing a child. There is not, however, that parity of reasoning which the heretics affect: in other words it does not follow that for the reason "she did not bear," ⁵ she who was "not a virgin" was "yet a virgin," even because she became a mother without any fruit of her own womb. But with us there is no equivocation, nothing twisted into a double sense. ⁶ Light is light; and darkness, darkness; yea is yea; and nay, nay; "whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." ⁷ She who bare (really) bare; and although she was a virgin when she conceived, she was a wife ⁸ when she brought forth her son. Now, as a wife, she was under the very law of "opening the womb," ⁹ wherein it was quite immaterial whether the birth of the male was by virtue of a husband's co-operation or not; ¹⁰ it was the same sex ¹¹ that opened her womb. Indeed, hers is the womb on account of which it is written of others also: "Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord." ¹² For who is really holy but the Son of God? Who properly opened the womb but He who opened a closed one? ¹³ But it is marriage which opens the womb in all cases. The virgin's womb, therefore, was especially ¹⁴ opened, because it was especially closed. Indeed ¹⁵ she ought rather to be called not a virgin than a virgin, becoming a mother at a leap, as it were, before she was a wife. And what must be said more on this point? Since it was in this sense that the apostle declared that the Son of God was born not of a virgin, but "of a woman," he in that statement recognised the condition of the "opened womb" which ensues in marriage. ¹⁶ We read in Ezekiel of "a heifer ¹⁷ which brought forth, and still did not bring forth." Now, see whether it was not in view of your own future contentions about the womb of Mary, that even then the Holy Ghost set His mark upon you in this passage; otherwise ¹⁸ He would not, contrary to His usual simplicity of style (in this prophet), have uttered a sentence of such doubtful import, especially when Isaiah says, "She shall conceive and bear a son." ¹⁹