Aquinas on the Immaculate Conception

[thistle]

Thread opened for our friend una fides as this subject was off topic in another thread.

First, in the time of Aquinas the Immaculate Conception was not a dogma and so people could express their views on this freely without condemnation.

Second, I am aware that there are conflicting views by scholars as to whether Aquinas did agree with the Immaculate Conception or not and this is with all of them reading the same writings of Aquinas. Some say he did not agree with it. Some say he did. Others say he did but did not express himself in a way that it could be understood that he agreed with it. I concede, therefore, that it is likely to remain open.
My question centers around the words of Aquinas in his Catechetical Instructions in the section on the Virtues of the Blessed Virgin.

I have the book but I have searched and found an online English translation of the text in EWTN’s library. At the end of this post I will give the website.

The specific words of Aquinas (which you can read in context as the entire text is at the website) that I want to focus on are:

"Christ excelled the Blessed Virgin in this, that He was conceived and born without original sin, while the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, but was not born in it."

My question is why would Aquinas write that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin if he believed in the Immaculate conception?

See also Endnote 12.

Entire text is at:

ewtn.com/library/SOURCES/TA-CAT-5.TXT

 

[mark_a]

My question is why would Aquinas write that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin if he believed in the Immaculate conception?

It makes me wonder if all the reasoning we claim today was taught at Aquinas’ time.

 

[Dark_Warrior]

Thread opened for our friend una fides as this subject was off topic in another thread.

First, in the time of Aquinas the Immaculate Conception was not a dogma and so people could express their views on this freely without condemnation.

Second, I am aware that there are conflicting views by scholars as to whether Aquinas did agree with the Immaculate Conception or not and this is with all of them reading the same writings of Aquinas. Some say he did not agree with it. Some say he did. Others say he did but did not express himself in a way that it could be understood that he agreed with it. I concede, therefore, that it is likely to remain open.
My question centers around the words of Aquinas in his Catechetical Instructions in the section on the Virtues of the Blessed Virgin.

I have the book but I have searched and found an online English translation of the text in EWTN’s library. At the end of this post I will give the website.

The specific words of Aquinas (which you can read in context as the entire text is at the website) that I want to focus on are:

"Christ excelled the Blessed Virgin in this, that He was conceived and born without original sin, while the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, but was not born in it."

My question is why would Aquinas write that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin if he believed in the Immaculate conception?

See also Endnote 12.

Entire text is at:

ewtn.com/library/SOURCES/TA-CAT-5.TXT

Seems evident he didn’t believe in it. I do not see the big deal with it neither. Christians argue over this as if it is a doctrine that’ll wash away your sins, and it’s kind of silly to me.

 

[SyCarl]

Aquinas also wrote in Summa Theologica:

If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Lk. 1:35: “The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.”** But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb******.

ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP.ii.TP_Q27.TP_Q27_A2.html

 

[tdgesq]

Aquinas clearly does state that Mary was conceived with original sin:

Reply to Objection 2. If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Luke 1:35: “The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb.

newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm#article2

Nevertheless, Aquinas taught that Mary was born without original sin and remained sinless throughout her life. That is why Protestants get so little purchase in citing Aquinas in opposition to the dogma of The Immaculate Conception.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Thistle,

The specific words of Aquinas (which you can read in context as the entire text is at the website) that I want to focus on are:

"Christ excelled the Blessed Virgin in this, that He was conceived and born without original sin, while the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, but was not born in it."

My question is why would Aquinas write that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin if he believed in the Immaculate conception?

Aquinas, like many others, believed that the spiritual conception (i.e., ensoulment - when the soul enters the body) occurred at a different, later time than the physical conception (up to 40 days apart).

Aquinas believed that Mary’s sanctification (when she was freed from original sin) occurred upon spiritual conception.

TODAY, we understand and believe that the physical and spiritual conceptions, though they are DISTINCT occurences, nevertheless OCCUR AT THE SAME TIME. Thus, we can say that Mary from the moment of conception was free from original sin.

The basics are all there to understand that St. Thomas believed in the Immaculate Conception:

1. The distinction between physical and spiritual conception;
2. The belief that the spiritual conception was immaculate;
3. The belief that the spiritual conception effects the sanctification of the body.

It should be noted that the Catholic dogma on the Immaculate Conception relates to Mary’s SPIRITUAL conception, NOT her physical conception.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mlchance]

Nevertheless, Aquinas taught that Mary was born without original sin and remained sinless throughout her life. That is why Protestants get so little purchase in citing Aquinas in opposition to the dogma of The Immaculate Conception.

There is that. There is also the fact that Thomas Aquinas, as brilliant as he was, was at no time the Magesterium of the Church. Even if Aquinas flat-out denied the Blessed Virgin’s sinlessness contra Church doctrine, the error would be Aquinas’s, not the Church’s.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[SyCarl]

Dear brother Thistle,

Aquinas, like many others, believed that the spiritual conception (i.e., ensoulment - when the soul enters the body) occurred at a different, later time than the physical conception (up to 40 days apart).

Aquinas believed that Mary’s sanctification (when she was freed from original sin) occurred upon spiritual conception.

TODAY, we understand and believe that the physical and spiritual conceptions, though they are DISTINCT occurences, nevertheless OCCUR AT THE SAME TIME. Thus, we can say that Mary from the moment of conception was free from original sin.

The basics are all there to understand that St. Thomas believed in the Immaculate Conception:

1. The distinction between physical and spiritual conception;
2. The belief that the spiritual conception was immaculate;
3. The belief that the spiritual conception effects the sanctification of the body.

It should be noted that the Catholic dogma on the Immaculate Conception relates to Mary’s SPIRITUAL conception, NOT her physical conception.

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t think that the spiritual conception distinction helps. Aquinas indicates:

If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ,

He is talking about her soul when he says Mary contracted original sin. Therefore he seems to feel that both her physical and spiritual conception was tainted by original sin.

 

[SyCarl]

Aquinas clearly does state that Mary was conceived with original sin:

Reply to Objection 2. If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Luke 1:35: “The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb.

newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm#article2

Nevertheless, Aquinas taught that Mary was born without original sin and remained sinless throughout her life. That is why Protestants get so little purchase in citing Aquinas in opposition to the dogma of The Immaculate Conception.

However, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is quite specific that she never had the taint of original sin. A belief in a sinless birth does not conform to the dogma as promulgated.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Sycarl,

I don’t think that the spiritual conception distinction helps. Aquinas indicates:

He is talking about her soul when he says Mary contracted original sin. Therefore he seems to feel that both her physical and spiritual conception was tainted by original sin.

In the parlance of the philosophers, the “SOUL” is not the same as the “SPIRIT.” The “SOUL” refers more specifically to the mind/personality.

The distinction that I stated does indeed apply.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SyCarl]

There is that. There is also the fact that Thomas Aquinas, as brilliant as he was, was at no time the Magesterium of the Church. Even if Aquinas flat-out denied the Blessed Virgin’s sinlessness contra Church doctrine, the error would be Aquinas’s, not the Church’s.

– Mark L. Chance.

What is relevant is that when Pius IX promulgated the dogma he said:

The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth **and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin **-- a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God – and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

If had ever been held by the Church somehow Aquinas did not seem to realize it had been. And neither did Bernard of Clairvaux who wrote:

Wherefore I cannot but wonder that there should have been among you at this time some who wished to sully this splendid fame of your Church by introducing a new Festival, a rite which the Church knows nothing of, and which reason does not prove, nor ancient tradition hand down to us. Have we the pretension to be more learned or more devoted than the Fathers? It is a dangerous presumption to establish in such a matter what their prudence left unestablished. And the matter in question is of such a nature that it could not possibly have escaped the diligence of the Fathers if they had not thought that they ought not to occupy themselves with it….For how does the consequence follow that since the conception has preceded the birth, and the birth is holy, the conception should be considered holy also? Did it make the birth holy because it preceded it? Although the one came first that the other might be, yet not that it might be holy. From whence came that holiness to the conception which was to be transmitted to the birth which followed? Was it not rather because the conception preceded without holiness that it was needful for the being conceived to be sanctified, that a holy birth might then follow? Or shall we say that the birth which was later than the conception shared with it its holiness? It might be, indeed, that the sanctification which was worked in her when conceived passed over to the birth which followed; but it could not be possible that it should have a retrospective effect upon the conception which had preceded it….If, therefore, before her conception she could not possibly be sanctified, since she did not exist, nor in the conception itself, because of the sin which inhered in it, it remains to be believed that she received sanctification when existing in the womb after conception, which, by excluding sin, made her birth holy, but not her conception….Willingly the glorious Virgin will be without this honour, by which either a sin seems to be honoured or a sanctity supposed which is not a fact. And, besides, she will by no means be pleased by a presumptuous novelty against the custom of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of rashness, the sister of superstition, the daughter of levity.
LETTER XLV (circa A.D. 1140),To the Canons of Lyons, on the Conception of S. Mary.

ccel.org/ccel/bernard/letters.lxviii.html?highlight=mary#highlight

In light of Pius’ comment that the doctrine had ever been held, Bernard’s comments that it was unknown to ancient tradition and the fathers is interesting.

 

[tdgesq]

However, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is quite specific that she never had the taint of original sin. A belief in a sinless birth does not conform to the dogma as promulgated.

That is because you make no distinction between original sin and personal (actual) sin. Mary did not commit personal sin ever in her lifetime according to Aquinas:

“We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Canticles 4:7) is fulfilled: “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee,” etc.”

newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm#article4

You as a Protestant disagree with this, even though Reformers such as Luther agree that she was without actual sin; even going so far as to say she was without original sin.

I enjoy it when Protestants bring up this issue so as to show that not only do the disagree with Aquinas on everything about Mary and sin - other than the exact point that she was without original sin - and contradict their own Reformers.

 

[mardukm]

If had ever been held by the Church somehow Aquinas did not seem to realize it had been. And neither did Bernard of Clairvaux who wrote:

ccel.org/ccel/bernard/letters.lxviii.html?highlight=mary#highlight

In light of Pius’ comment that the doctrine had ever been held, Bernard’s comments that it was unknown to ancient tradition and the fathers is interesting.

St. Bernard was working off of the same belief as St. Thomas - that the spiritual conception occurred at a different instance than physical conception.

Also, keep in mind, as stated before, that the dogma of the IC DOES NOT refer to the physical conception of Mary, but to the spiritual conception of Mary.

I hope you read my post#10 above.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SyCarl]

Dear Sycarl,

In the parlance of the philosophers, the “SOUL” is not the same as the “SPIRIT.” The “SOUL” refers more specifically to the mind/personality.

The distinction that I stated does indeed apply.

Blessings,
Marduk

If you look at Questions 75-102 in Summa Theologica First Part, it seems clear that Aquinas feels man is composed of a spiritual and corporeal substance. He identifies the spiritual substance with the soul. He makes no mention of a spirit other than the soul that I can see.

 

[SyCarl]

That is because you make no distinction between original sin and personal (actual) sin. Mary did not commit personal sin ever in her lifetime according to Aquinas:

“We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Canticles 4:7) is fulfilled: “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee,” etc.”

newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm#article4

You as a Protestant disagree with this, even though Reformers such as Luther agree that she was without actual sin; even going so far as to say she was without original sin.

I enjoy it when Protestants bring up this issue so as to show that not only do the disagree with Aquinas on everything about Mary and sin - other than the exact point that she was without original sin - and contradict their own Reformers.

I do not say either way whether Mary was sinless or not. She may well have been. However, I do not feel it is something we need to know. However, the Immaculate Conception is not talking about actual sin. It talks about a freedom from original sin and Aquinas says she was not free from original sin from her conception.

 

[tdgesq]

I do not say either way whether Mary was sinless or not. She may well have been. However, I do not feel it is something we need to know.

It isn’t a matter of whether you feel we need to know it or not. Aquinas taught it. Luther taught it. But please, speak up into the microphone: Are you saying that it is possible Mary was without sin?

However, the Immaculate Conception is not talking about actual sin. It talks about a freedom from original sin and Aquinas says she was not free from original sin from her conception.

Yes, that is what I think Aquinas is saying as stated in one of my earlier posts. But of course you agree with him and Luther that Mary was born without original sin. Don’t you?

 

[mardukm]

If you look at Questions 75-102 in Summa Theologica First Part, it seems clear that Aquinas feels man is composed of a spiritual and corporeal substance. He identifies the spiritual substance with the soul. He makes no mention of a spirit other than the soul that I can see.

Part 1, Ques. 76, Art. 3,Reply to obj. 3:
“The embryo has first of all a soul which is merely sensitive, and when this is removed, it is supplanted by a more perfect soul, which is both sensitive and intellectual…”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SyCarl]

It isn’t a matter of whether you feel we need to know it or not. Aquinas taught it. Luther taught it. But please, speak up into the microphone: Are you saying that it is possible Mary was without sin?

Yes, that is what I think Aquinas is saying as stated in one of my earlier posts. But of course you agree with him and Luther that Mary was born without original sin. Don’t you?

Yes it is possible that Mary was born without original sin. Or it may be that she was purified when the Holy Spirit descended on her at Jesus’ conception as Cyril of Jerusalem seems to say.

1. This is the Holy Ghost, who came upon the Holy Virgin Mary; for since He who was conceived was Christ the Only begotten, the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and the Holy Ghost came upon her, and sanctified her, that she might be able to receive Him, by whom all things were made -Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 17, Paragraph 6)

newadvent.org/fathers/310117.htm

John of Damascus seems to say the same thing.

So then, after the assent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit descended on her, according to the word of the Lord which the angel spoke, purifying her, and granting her power to receive the divinity of the Word, and likewise power to bring forth.-John of Damascus (Exposition of the Faith, Book 3, Chapter 2)

newadvent.org/fathers/33043.htm

As for myself, I hold no belief either way with respect to Mary being born and remaining sinless.

 

[SyCarl]

Part 1, Ques. 76, Art. 3,Reply to obj. 3:
“The embryo has first of all a soul which is merely sensitive, and when this is removed, it is supplanted by a more perfect soul, which is both sensitive and intellectual…”

Blessings,
Marduk

In the section first quoted Aquinas also says:

Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified.

It would therefore seem he is referring to her being sanctified when she had the sensitive and intellectual soul. ie the rational soul.

 

[mardukm]

However, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is quite specific that she never had the taint of original sin. A belief in a sinless birth does not conform to the dogma as promulgated.

You are misreading St. Thomas’ Reply to Objection 2, or at least misunderstanding the Catholic dogma on the IC. St. Thomas’ statement in his Reply to Objection 2 that “If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all” in NO WAY detracts from the dogma of the IC. In fact, the dogma specificially asserts that it is GOD who preserves Mary from original sin. Mary was not INHERENTLY free of original sin - whether her body or her spirit/soul - and NEEDED God to save her. That is all that St. Thomas is saying.

In any case, the “soul” St. Thomas refers to here I propose is the “sensitive” soul of every newly conceived person, NOT the perfected, “intellectual AND sensitive” soul that person eventually receives upon their spiritual conception. As I noted in the previous post, the purely “sensitive” soul of an embryo is eventually replaced by the “intellectual AND sensitive” soul that is supernaturally from God.

Thus, the distinction I stated before regarding the spiritual conception is valid. There is no reason to doubt that St. Thomas (or St. Bernard) believed in the Immaculate Conception. The only difference is the timing between the physical conception and the spiritual conception. Yet all the elements of belief are already present to conclude that St. Thomas and St. Bernard did believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Blessings,
Marduk