The Concept of Redemption and Co-redemptioin During the "Golden Age" of Spanish Theology and Mariology

3) - Anti-debitist Theologians, or Defenders of the Immaculate Conception Without a Debitum 

 Can we consider the Virgin Mary as "redeemed," yet without a debitum to sin? 

An adequate reply must take into consideration two main themes at the core of the question:

1) How do we understand redemption? To what type of redemption do we refer?

2) What is meant by, or what meaning does debitum peccati have?

a) The concept of redemption: We have treated this question earlier and have explained the concept of redemption as understood by the Salmanticenses. As we are treating a concrete redemption, not a simple concept nor a redemption in the abstract, but the redemption which Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, achieved for us, we may define it thus: the spiritual liberation whereby Christ has freed us from slavery and servitude through the mysteries of His humanity, or His blood.

As we are treating an historical deliverance, it is called "redemption," from the Latin verb redimere-iterum emere, meaning to buy, to free again. Thus, we set in relief, the characteristic which this deliverance bestows on those who had once enjoyed freedom of spirit in Adam, and who had lost this by sin.¹

The Salmanticenses stress these characteristics. For this reason, they affirm that for a true and proper redemption as such, it is essential to include in some sense slavery-servitude, or a debt to contract this, and the true freedom which Christ bestows on us. In conclusion, it is necessary that liberation, to be redemptive or truly "soteriological," must possess some relation with sin or a preceding enslavement.

Someone may object that this explanation is a theory of one particular theologian, and as such enjoys no more authority than the theories of theologians from other schools and of other theological orientations. Although we concede that this is so, we have no doubt that the explanation of the redemption set forth by the Salmanticenses is in accord with the common teaching in theology and with the living Magisterium of the Church.²

All this did not appear so clearly or so definite during the golden age. Some authors understood "redemption" in a broader sense: as grace of the Redeemer. In terms of application to the Virgin Mary, redemption is a more eminent grace, because it is given to Her by reason of Her divine Maternity or in consideration of the divine Maternity as its basis. This is the hypothesis and explanation of Cristóbal de Vega, SJ, an author rarely consulted on this point, yet of immense importance from the chronological and doctrinal point of view, whose views we will analyse below.³

b) On the notion of the debitum: In sixteenth and seventeenth century authors, there exists no full uniformity in the way of understanding, classifying, and explaining the debitum. Not all employ the same criteria to determine the meaning of this term, much less when they apply it and refer to original sin. There exist numerous meanings and classifications for the debitum. We come across a debitum naturae and a debitum personae; a debitum physicum and a debitum morale; ⁴ a debitum proximum and a debitum remotum. According to Gil de la Presentación, there exists a debitum secundum quid, a debitum formale, and a debitum fundamentale (Salmanticenses).⁵

To add to the confusion of the problem, some authors say that the debitum, according to its class or qualification, presupposes bases which may be intrinsic or extrinsic. Are these in relation to the debitum itself or to the person in debt, the descendent of Adam? Authors do use this terminology, but it is not easy to discover its significance or how it is to be applied.

All these distinctions do not bear the same sense, with full or perfect equivalence, in those many theologians who deal with this question. The very definitions or descriptions of the debitum do not involve the same elements, nor do those employed have the same force of expression in the great theologians. Generally, all declare that the debitum does not correspond to a precept of God, nor to a law entailing obligation. All admit, more or less, that it is a determination or moral necessity to contract original sin. The Salmanticenses translate it as reatus, obligatio, obnoxietas (guilt, obligation, inclination).⁶

F. Suárez declares that the debitum is not physical, nor anything involving personal guilt of the debtor. But he does understand it as an obligation, or moral necessity to contract the sin of Adam. Without doubt, G. Vázquez defines it as an aspect or passive element: it is a certain passive relation which obliges a descendant of Adam to receive the fruit of the merit of the first man, Adam: original sin, which he merited for all his descendants.

The Salmanticenses offer us a description of the debitum, as such, true but also very rigid or strict in its bearing on original sin. It may, however, be immediate or mediate in view of the headship of Adam or other explanations.

All this renders it advisable not to enter into more detailed and structured analyses of this problem, and to explain it, taking account of the criteria found in the different schools of theology, as well as the various theories of many independent authors.

How is redemption to be understood, or how is the concept of redemption adopted by the theologians and mariologists of the golden era, who defended the Immaculate Conception of Mary in being preserved from original sin and without the debitum to contract it, to be understood? We may also ask: if it is affirmed that the Immaculate Virgin had no debt at all to contract original sin, is this synonymous with saying that She was not redeemed,
or that the merits of the redemption were not applied to Her, since Her redemption, according to many authors, does not include the debitum of sin?

c)The interpretation of some historians: We must take account of a number of presuppositions in order to find a unified criterion for the development of this question. When I make reference here to "redemption," as when I say: if Mary could have been "redeemed" without a debitum, etc., I intend redemption in a proper sense, the sense which the Salmanticenses call proper and legitimate. ⁷ Similarly, in referring to the debitum peccati, I refer in general to a debitum in the proper sense of the term, or according to the definition common in contemporary mariology: "a certain (moral) necessity, more or less proximate, to contract original sin."⁸

Juniper B. Carol published a brief, well-documented essay on the theory of six Jesuit theologians. According to their theory, the Virgin Mary did not need a debitum to be redeemed. How then explain Her redemption, or what the concept of being redeemed means?⁹

The six authors of the Society of Jesus take a like position on this problem. All maintain that Mary had no debitum peccati. They differentiate diverse aspects of redemption: integral and disjunctive, salvation and redemption. Mary received redemption in the proper sense, because She received from Christ a grace which elevated Her to a higher order (Turriano). Salazar defends Mary's redemption in the true and proper sense. For this it is not necessary to contract the debitum. He adduces as basis for this, the defectibility or possibility of sinning. I detect a slip in this affirmation. At times this author does not evidence much sureness in his exposition. He affirms that, to Mary, grace was given not per modum redemptionis, but rather per modum elevationis. ¹⁰ 

Juan Perlin, very close to Salazar, introduces some new points, which touch all aspects of the question. To explain the redemption of Mary, he bases himself on the scotistic theory of preservative redemption, and the explanation given it by G. Sánchez Lucero in terms of the scientia media. ¹¹ Ambrosio de Peñalosa follows the explanations of Perlin on the relation of Mary to the headship of Adam, and the theory of Salazar on Her redemption in the proper sense. So also Juan Antonio Velázquez who lacks originality in his solution of questions bearing on the Immaculate Conception. ¹²

Finally, rather eclecticly, Eusebius Nieremberg, following Salazar, attempts to harmonize denial of the debitum in Mary with Her redemption in the true and proper sense. The grace which sanctified Mary in the first moment of Her conception was a redemptive grace, because it was due, according to this author, to the shedding of the blood of Christ.

Here we raise a question: up to this point we have engaged in the work of research. It is quite clear that some authors deny precisely any proximate debitum in Mary. But is Her redemption in the proper and true sense explained with the same clarity? Does Cristóbal de Vega clarify this point?

d) The position of Cristóbal de Vega in this problem: Cristóbal de Vega, SJ (1595-1672) represents the doctrinal synthesis on this problem, and is one of the most distinguished mariologists of the Society of Jesus in this era. ¹³ Among the more important Jesuit theologians and mariologists in this epoch, the theory of the exemption of the Mother of God from all debt to contract original sin was commonly held, in opposition to the teaching of Francisco Suárez. At the same time, they defended in general, Mary's redemption, by a redemption more eminent that that of the rest of the redeemed. Are these expositions correct from the point of view of theology and mariology, and can they harmonize this exemption from the debitum with redemption of the Mother of God in the proper and true sense?

I will expound schematically the teaching of Cristóbal de Vega.

i) Cristóbal de Vega, well-informed on all aspects of Spanish theology and of classic mariology, whose exponents he cites, assesses, and interprets, was quite opposed to any kind of debitum in the Mother of God. He devotes all of "Palaestra quinta" to this theme. ¹⁴ However, it is not so much his opinions on the debitum, which is for us a presupposition, as his teaching on redemption.

The title of his second "certamen" (disputation) acquaints us with his position on this: "The Virgin Mother neither sinned in Adam nor contracted a proximate and proper debt to sin (p. 205)... I hold as most true that the Blessed Virgin in no way sinned in Adam, nor indeed was She contained in our first parent in view of contraction of the stain of sin in his descendants..." (no. 573, p. 205).

The argumentation of Cristóbal de Vega, on his premises, is conclusive. If Mary is not included in the moral headship of Adam, She neither contracted sin, nor the debt to contract it. What are not so effective are his arguments. I believe that De Vega exaggerates and maximalizes the sense of guilt, of personal fault, of offense, of what it means to sin in Adam. He himself acknowledges this: "I will still further stress the turpitude of this debt... (n. 578). The debt neither supposes nor includes any personal, moral turpitude... If this is lacking, the basis of all his argumentation collapses. This is what seems to me to occur in De Vega's exposition. For the Salmanticenses use the same arguments and come to opposite conclusions. Mary, they say, was included in the headship of Adam, and so incurred the proximate debt to contract sin. But to be included in Adam does not mean in the least to incur a personal stain of sin, nor moral filth, nor any other defect, contrary to what C. de Vega affirms.

 ii) On the supposition that Mary was not included under Adam's headship, and hence had neither original sin nor stain of that sin, Cristóbal de Vega claims to have "reconciled" in the Virgin Mary immunity from the debitum, maximal sinlessness, with redemption by Christ. ¹⁵ Is it possible to integrate these two extremes? This is the question formulated by his opponents. He himself contextualizes his thought along these lines and acknowledges a basis for doubt:

At this point there arises a doubt on the part of those defending the contrary position: if the All Holy Virgin contracted neither guilt nor debitum, as we have affirmed, in no way could She have been redeemed by Christ. ¹⁶

De Vega thinks that this proposition pertains to the faith of the Church or is certain de fide: "The Blessed Virgin was redeemed by Christ." Indeed it certainly can be so considered. But how can one in such a case and along these lines of thought maintain a redemption in the true and proper sense in the case of the Virgin Mary, without the debitum peccati and without any clear, personal relation to original sin?

He offers multiple arguments from different standpoints. They do not all enjoy the same probative force, and some of them lack any clear foundation for demonstrating that the application he makes of them, to the Mother of God, constitutes a true redemption in virtue of the merits of Christ.

- He relies on the authority of the Tridentine decree, declaring the Council had no intention of including the Immaculate Virgin in the definition of the universality of original sin, and claims this extends even to the debitum. This is a very weak argument, not to say inefficacious, to prove that the Mother of God did not contract any kind of debt (no. 574). So, too, is the argument he builds on the testimony of some Fathers of the Church and of ecclesiastical writers (no. 575).

 - Nor is his argumentation convincing when he claims that the Virgin Mary was dispensed from, or not included under the law or contract with Adam, concerning the universality and transmission of original sin. Nor is there any validity to the deduction going as follows: if God preserved Her from guilt, he preserved Her also from the debitum; because to sin in Adam is a filthy and a dirty obligation and necessity to sin (no. 277). The error is perfectly plain, because to sin in Adam is not a personal sin, is not true sin. It is only a sin of nature.

 - The argumention in no. 578 is extremely ineffective. It is based on an exaggeration of the concept of debitum proprium, which he considers as moral vileness, as spiritual suicide, the shadow of sin. All this being in error, he is forced to exaggerate to maintain any strength in the reasoning. His argument boomerangs on him. ¹⁷

- He offers other types of arguments to ground and guarantee his hypothesis on the total exemption of the debitum in the Virgin Mary. The greater number of these reflections suffer from the defects already noted.

iii) Cristóbal de Vega affirms, quite radically, and as doctrine of faith that: The Immaculate Virgin was truly and properly redeemed in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer. How can this affirmation be reconciled with his hypothesis on exemption from the debitum?

 As noted above, he devotes Certamen IV to the resolution of this problem: Immunity from a debt to contract original sin in the Blessed Virgin is reconciled with redemption through Christ and with the order of decrees. This is a satisfactory formulation of the problematic, incorporating the sense of the question as I have formulated it, and which was the formulation adopted by supporters of the opposite thesis in his time (no. 590).

- It prescinds from the exclusion or inclusion of Mary under the headship of Adam, because without this inclusion She cannot be considered as redeemed. He considers another fact as basis for Her redemption, one similar and of the same kind and theological certitude: the fact of Mary's predestination. He reasons thus: in the first sign, Christ was predestined as Redeemer, and Mary as His Mother. The redemption may be considered actively and passively. To be redeemed, it was necessary for Mary to be included in this sign, to have the debt of sinning in Adam (no. 590). But what need or debt is there or obligation to fall, to be included in Adam's predestination?

 - Another argument is based on "preservative redemption" as a common teaching of the Fathers. An act of redemption is that by which a fallen person is freed. Or it may be one whereby one is preserved from falling (no. 590). The latter is a more perfect and noble redemption. However, how could there be preservation, when there is neither debt nor inclusion under the headship of Adam, nor any necessity nor any probability of falling into sin?

- Cristóbal de Vega shows himself quite broadminded, but hardly precise, in his theological discernment, when he proposes as adequate, for demonstrating Mary's redemption, a defect of nature or its inclination to sin. ¹⁸ This is clearly not redemption in the proper sense of the term. It is a personal privilege, which does not redeem from a state of prostration, into which one was obliged to fall. To avoid a simple possibility is not a redemption, according to the proper meaning of the terms. ¹⁹

Cristóbal de Vega himself appears to have been not entirely convinced of his hypothesis if he had to resort to a natural inclination to sin (obnoxietas), or similar phenomena which cannot be considered redemptive works in the true and proper sense. The example of the Angels, who indeed had an inclination and capacity to sin, is a case in point. It is evident that they were not redeemed. One may say that Christ died for them, to confer on them the blessings of grace. De Vega dares to state, as a kind of concession lacking in theological rigor, that Christ redeemed them. ²⁰From what? They committed no sin.

CONCLUSION

This last section reveals the weakness of the argumentation employed by anti-debitist theologians who deny any kind of debitum peccati in the Immaculate Virgin, in order to explain Her redemption by Christ. I believe that in view of the arguments proposed by Cristóbal de Vega, it is necessary to reaffirm a genuine relation to original sin, in order to speak of a proper, authentic redemption by Christ, one which frees the human race from its sins through the mysteries of His flesh.

There remain many questions to clarify in this matter and many authors still to be studied. The contribution of the theologians and mariologists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is extremely valuable. The debitum peccati and its relation to the redemption of the Immaculate Virgin, are questions of highest importance. They merit further study, more wide-ranging and more in depth, so as to reveal the brilliance and splendor of the Immaculate Conception in the history of classical mariology, without shadow of error or equivocation.

[Note: The second part of the theme, the concept of coredemption during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Spain, must be the subject of presentation on another occasion.]