Aquinas on the Immaculate Conception

[mardukm]

In the section first quoted Aquinas also says:

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

I believe that is what I’ve been saying all along.

Let me restate this again:

Many during St. Thomas’ era (including himself and St. Bernard) believed that:

1. The physical conception occured at a different moment than the spiritual conception (i.e., ensoulment).
2. The difference in time between physical conception (which occurred first) and spiritual conception was 40 days (more for a woman, IIRC)
3. Mary’s embryo was sanctified - i.e., freed from the spiritual effects of original sin - at the moment of her SPIRITUAL conception.

TODAY, we believe that the physical conception and spiritual conception occur AT THE SAME TIME. Hence, the sanctificiation is regarded, according to the dogma, from the first moment of her physical conception.

But you MUST understand that the dogma of the IC primarily refers to the SPIRITUAL conception of Mary, NOT her physical conception.

Did St. Thomas believe that Mary was sanctified (i.e., freed from the spiritual effects of original sin) from the moment of her SPIRITUAL conception? He certainly did. And that is all that the dogma teaches. It does not matter WHEN the spiritual conception occurs, only that it is the spiritual conception that effected the sanctification. Hence. St. Thomas believed in the Immaculate Conception.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[tdgesq]

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.

And possible that she lived without personal or actual sin throughout her life - correct? That is part of what I asked after all.

newadvent.org/fathers/310117.htm

John of Damascus seems to say the same thing.

newadvent.org/fathers/33043.htm

So then you believe that the testimony of these Fathers is that original sin was removed from Mary at the time of the Incarnation. Correct?

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

Great. Then you also believe it possible Aquinas was incorrect and that it is possible Mary was indeed conceived without original sin.

 

[SyCarl]

I believe that is what I’ve been saying all along.

Let me restate this again:

Many during St. Thomas’ era (including himself and St. Bernard) believed that:

1. The physical conception occured at a different moment than the spiritual conception (i.e., ensoulment).
2. The difference in time between physical conception (which occurred first) and spiritual conception was 40 days (more for a woman, IIRC)
3. Mary’s embryo was sanctified - i.e., freed from the spiritual effects of original sin - at the moment of her SPIRITUAL conception.

TODAY, we believe that the physical conception and spiritual conception occur AT THE SAME TIME. Hence, the sanctificiation is regarded, according to the dogma, from the first moment of her physical conception.

But you MUST understand that the dogma of the IC primarily refers to the SPIRITUAL conception of Mary, NOT her physical conception.

Did St. Thomas believe that Mary was sanctified (i.e., freed from the spiritual effects of original sin) from the moment of her SPIRITUAL conception? He certainly did. And that is all that the dogma teaches. It does not matter WHEN the spiritual conception occurs, only that it is the spiritual conception that effected the sanctification. Hence. St. Thomas believed in the Immaculate Conception.

Blessings,
Marduk

I disagree. It appears quite clear that Aquinas does not believe that something can be cleansed unless that from which it is being cleansed is already there. Now Aquinas did not believe that the sensitive soul could be subject to sin, it was incorruptible. Only the sensitive and intellectual soul could be affected by sin. This is why Aquinas says that she was not sanctified before the infusion of the rational soul or animation. It occurred after animation. That is why he says:

Therefore also the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified until after all in her was perfected, viz. her body and soul.

By perfected he means having her complete soul, both sensitive and intellectual, not that she was cleansed because the sanctification, or cleansing took place after that.

But I must take my leave for bed now. God bless.

 

[mardukm]

I disagree. It appears quite clear that Aquinas does not believe that something can be cleansed unless that from which it is being cleansed is already there. Now Aquinas did not believe that the sensitive soul could be subject to sin, it was incorruptible. Only the sensitive and intellectual soul could be affected by sin. This is why Aquinas says that she was not sanctified before the infusion of the rational soul or animation. It occurred after animation. That is why he says:

By perfected he means having her complete soul, both sensitive and intellectual, not that she was cleansed because the sanctification, or cleansing took place after that.

But I must take my leave for bed now. God bless.

I don’t see how your quotes or your rationale contradicts the dogma of the IC. I see your rhetoric depends on the phrase “was not sanctified until after all in her was perfected.”

This phrasing by St. Thomas comes about ONLY because he believed the physical and spiritual conceptions were two separate occasions. Thus, it is natural that he would have to await for the act of “perfection” - i.e., when the whole person of Mary was completed by the union of body and spirit - before assuming that she was sanctified (i.e., freed from the spiritual effects of original sin). HOWEVER, if one understands that the physical and spiritual conceptions occur SIMULTANEOUSLY, then there is no need to await for a separate act of union to occur until sanctification can occur. Thus, there is no practical difference between St. Thomas’ teaching, and the dogma of the IC.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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

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:

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.

The Fathers we know of course are not infallible in their writings, yes even Aquinas, Augustine and other great Doctors could contain some errors, and people of course were free to accept or not this matter until it was dogmatically defined by the Magisterium of the Church, in an extraordinary manner.

 

[thistle]

I wonder where our friend una fides is? He asked me to open the thread on this topic because he believes Aquinas did accept that Mary was born without original sin. However, nothing I have read would support that view.

 

[MDK]

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.

Important to keep in mind… does the Catholic Church built by Christ claim that Aquinas has the charism of infallibility, or is it perhaps the Pope? Did Christ tell us that upon Aquinas He will build His Church, or was it Kepha to whom He gave this dynastic office, along with Peter’s successors? I hold no hope that you’ll get these answers completely correct without reservation, but those who seek the truth above all, will know and believe this important distinction.

 

[thistle]

Bump for the benefit of una fides.

 

[una_fides]

I wonder where our friend una fides is? He asked me to open the thread on this topic because he believes Aquinas did accept that Mary was born without original sin. However, nothing I have read would support that view.

Don’t worry. Here I am. It took me a while to find this thread.

I think mardukm provided an interesting defense earlier. No doubt there are other plausible explanations that Aquinas did believe in the Immaculate Conception, despite its not being infallibly defined as a dogma at that time.

In your citation from the ewtn library, there is a footnote on the quote you referenced and it reads as follows:
12. St. Thomas wrote before the solemn definition of the Immaculate conception by the Church and at a time when the subject was still a matter of controversy among theologians. In an earlier work, however, he pronounced in favor of the doctrine (I Sent., c. 44 Q. i, ad. 3), although he seemingly concluded against it in the “Summa Theologica.” “Yet much discussion has arisen as to whether St. Thomas did or did not deny that the Blessed virgin was immaculate at the instant of her animation (“Catholic Encyclopedia.” art. “Immaculate Conception”).”

The issue cannot be settled since we do not have Aquinas here to question. We can formulate our opinions on the topic, but apart from a papal declaration concerning such, I don’t think we are going to have agreement. (more to come…)

(btw, you made a typo above. I believe you meant to say “was conceived” rather than “was born,” since your own quote in the OP clearly says that the blessed Virgin was born without original sin.)

 

[una_fides]

…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.

The Fathers we know of course are not infallible in their writings, yes even Aquinas, Augustine and other great Doctors could contain some errors, and people of course were free to accept or not this matter until it was dogmatically defined by the Magisterium of the Church, in an extraordinary manner.

I agree with these posts but would like to clarify. The reason this conversation came about in the first place is actually due to the degree of magisterial approval that the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas have gained. Though the writings themselves are not imbued with the charism of infallibility, they nevertheless have been given the approval and authority of the ordinary magisterium and are elevated above any other writing of any other theologian of the Church. Here are a few papal declarations concerning the teachings of Aquinas:

From the encyclical Aeterni Patris by Pope Leo XIII. A couple quick gems:

Innocent VI: “His [Aquinas’] teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.”
22. The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers…
We exhort you, venerable brethren, in all earnestness to restore the golden wisdom of St. Thomas, and to spread it far and wide for the defense and beauty of the Catholic faith, for the good of society, and for the advantage of all the sciences… Let carefully selected teachers endeavor to implant the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in the minds of students, and set forth clearly his solidity and excellence over others. papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13cph.htm

Now even if one were to conclude that St. Thomas was somehow defective in his teachings on this one particular instance concerning the immaculate conception, this theory (even if it were fact) would not in any way discredit the other teachings of Aquinas. Though Aquinas is not infallible, to hold to his teachings unless otherwise proscribed by the magisterium is IMHO and is according to the promulgation of other popes to “never be found serving from the path of truth.”

 

[thistle]

I agree with these posts but would like to clarify. The reason this conversation came about in the first place is actually due to the degree of magisterial approval that the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas have gained. Though the writings themselves are not imbued with the charism of infallibility, they nevertheless have been given the approval and authority of the ordinary magisterium and are elevated above any other writing of any other theologian of the Church. Here are a few papal declarations concerning the teachings of Aquinas:

From the encyclical Aeterni Patris by Pope Leo XIII. A couple quick gems:

Innocent VI: “His [Aquinas’] teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.”
22. The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers…
We exhort you, venerable brethren, in all earnestness to restore the golden wisdom of St. Thomas, and to spread it far and wide for the defense and beauty of the Catholic faith, for the good of society, and for the advantage of all the sciences… Let carefully selected teachers endeavor to implant the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in the minds of students, and set forth clearly his solidity and excellence over others. papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13cph.htm

Now even if one were to conclude that St. Thomas was somehow defective in his teachings on this one particular instance concerning the immaculate conception, this theory (even if it were fact) would not in any way discredit the other teachings of Aquinas. Though Aquinas is not infallible, to hold to his teachings unless otherwise proscribed by the magisterium is IMHO and is according to the promulgation of other popes to “never be found serving from the path of truth.”

In my earlier post you are right. It was a typo.

I agree with you that just because it seems clear (well to me) that he did not believe in the immaculate conception that in no diminishes Aquinas and his other teachings.
We should, however, be careful not to think that we must agree with all his views. As you point out he is not infallible and the Church has not said we must hold to the same views as Aquinas even though I can’t think offhand of anything else I disagree with.

Remember “who dare assail it will always be suspected of error” does not mean they will be in error.

 

[Eucharisted]

Yes, Aquinas didn’t believe Mary was conceived without original sin, but he did believe she was purified from original sin at birth and lived a sinless life. So he kind of understood the Immaculate Conception. But the Church grows in her understanding, so I see no problem at all.