Did Saint Thomas Aquinas reject the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

[Holly3278]

Hi everyone. The other day I read that Saint Thomas Aquinas rejected the Immaculate Conception of Mary. I don’t remember where I read this at. And yes, I do realize that this was not a dogma during his lifetime. So, is it true that he rejected the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Aquinas perceived a logical contradiction which he did not feel had been adequately addressed. Namely: If Mary was immaculately conceived, then she would have had no need for a savior (but everyone needs a savior).

Aquinas did not outright reject the idea of the Immaculate Conception, but he felt that the Church should be able to answer this question before dogmatically proclaiming this doctrine.

The Church (eventually) answered this question by teaching that the grace and merits of Our Lord’s Sacrifice on Calvary are not chronologically ordered, but could be applied to Our Lady in anticipation of her participation in the Divine Plan of redemption and salvation.

 

[tteddy619]

He rejected it based on the logic. He couldnt quite get his thoughts around her being without original sin. At the time of Aquinas it was not yet dogma and so was not heresy to play with the idea. He postulated that since Christ is the savior of all, including Mary, she had to be born with sin. There’s more to it but thats the gist.
But, Aquinas leaned toward philosophy…thats just how God had made him.

Mary was prophesied from the beginning to be the ark of the new covenant and this ark was to be made perfect. The incarnation cannot, could not, would never be conceived in a womb which was not without blemish. She had no sexual relations with anyone and remained a virgin even after delivering Christ. Christ would not be contained in a vessel which was with sin or any evil. Is it not grave sin to receive communion in the state of mortal sin? Same effect. We are brought to baptism every time we receive communion with only venial sins usually only forgotten about. Mary however, was made pure through and through since she brought life to the world not just consumed it as we do through the sacrament.

This is where Aquinas fell short but hey, he was a philosopher in the head! And a darn good one! He isnt the only saint to have this opinion. Most of them base it on logic. Which is a good thing but sometimes logic wont cut it. ie The existence of God. Theres more to it. BTW other saints believe that Mary felt pain when delivering Christ but this is only possible if she were subject to original sin. Which she was not. She felt no pain at all when she birthed Jesus. What Aquinas failed to touch on was “Hail Mary FULL of grace”. Not “almost full of grace” or “a lot of grace”, etc…but FULL. That is, to be void of anything which is not grace. She was in total complete grace just as Eve was until she sinned. Mary had free will! She however, in her nature, was totally and irrevocably connected with the divine through her Immaculate Heart so she would never sin.

 

[Della]

I haven’t read much of TA–he’s a bit too deep for me. But, I don’t think this question was uppermost in his mind at the time he lived because even Protestants held to the doctrines about Our Lady, such as her spotless virginity and her perpetual virginity. So, maybe it simply wasn’t that high on his list of priorities.

Also, not every theologian has insights into every theological issue. It seems God withholds some things from some only to give them to another, at another time and place, when it is most needed. St. Louis Marie de Montfort posited, for instance, that the NT writers wrote little about Mary because her place in salvation history was to be revealed more fully when there was greater need of it.

Anyway, not to get into too deep waters here, it was given to Bl. John Duns Scotus to see how God’s grace, gained for us by Christ’s redemption, could be applied to those before Christ’s birth, outside the constraints of time, since God is an eternal person and the offering of Christ’s sacrifice is an eternal one.

 

[MarcoPolo]

His writings contain both acceptance and rejection of the doctrine. (do bear in mind the Church had not articulated it as dogma in Aquinas’ lifetime). Here is something I got from another poster from a while back:

Here are the texts that Garrigou-Lagrange gives to support his thesis [that Aquinas took both positions on the Immaculate Conception]:

*In the first period, which was from 1253 to 1254, he affirmed the privilege, for he wrote: “Such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was exempt from both original and actual sin.” [Com. in I Sent, d. 44, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3]

In the second period, St. Thomas explicitely denies the Immaculate Conception: “The Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin.” [Summa theologiae IIIa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 2]

In the third period, “For she [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure because she incurred the stain neither of original sin nor of mortal sin nor of venial sin.”[Expositio super salutatione angelica]*

 

[Jehannette]

Here’s what Saint Thomas said:

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. This is what is signified (Job 3:9) where it is written of the night of original sin: “Let it expect light,” i.e. Christ, “and not see it”–(because “no defiled thing cometh into her,” as is written in Wisdom 7:25), “nor the rising of the dawning of the day,” that is of the Blessed Virgin, who in her birth was immune from original sin. (Summa Theologica, III, Q.27, A.2, ad 2)

Pretty close. It should be noted that Saint Thomas never belittled those who held to the Immaculate Conception as it was later defined. It was, as has been already said, an “open question” in Thomas’ day.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Aquinas perceived a logical contradiction which he did not feel had been adequately addressed. Namely: If Mary was immaculately conceived, then she would have had no need for a savior (but everyone needs a savior).

Aquinas did not outright reject the idea of the Immaculate Conception, but he felt that the Church should be able to answer this question before dogmatically proclaiming this doctrine.

The Church (eventually) answered this question by teaching that the grace and merits of Our Lord’s Sacrifice on Calvary are not chronologically ordered, but could be applied to Our Lady in anticipation of her participation in the Divine Plan of redemption and salvation.

Correct. I believe that it was Blessed John Duns Scotus who answered Aquinas’s objection to the Immaculate Conception.

[Googles it…]

Yep christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/scotus&immac.htm

Saint Thomas Aquinas, also in his Commentary of the Third Book of Sentences, wrote that Christ did not need to be redeemed, since he is the head of the human race, but all other human persons had to redeemed through him. Now this could not be possible if only one soul could be found which was not infected with original sin. Therefore neither the Blessed Virgin nor any other human person before Christ could have been given this privilege.

Scotus’s Response:
**
“We can therefore say that it was possible that the Blessed Virgin was not conceived in original sin. This assertion does not diminish in any way the universal redemption of her Son, as we have outlined above. We can furthermore confirm this, since the passion of Christ was immediately and principally ordered to delete original guilt as well as actual guilt, in such a way that all “We can therefore say that it was possible that the Blessed Virgin was not conceived in original sin. This assertion does not diminish in any way the universal redemption of her Son, as we have outlined above. We can furthermore confirm this, since the passion of Christ was immediately and principally ordered to delete original guilt as well as actual guilt, in such a way that all the Trinity, since it had the foresight of the merits of the passion of Christ, applied them to the Virgin and preserved her from all actual sin, and also from all original sin.” and preserved her from all actual sin, and also from all original sin.” **

So Thomas Aquinas said that for everybody to be redeemed through Christ then everybody needs to have the need to be redeemed, and thus everybody born before the Passion needs to inherit Original Sin. So Mary couldn’t be Immaculate from conception.

Soctus’s response hinged on this section of his quote: "…The Trinity, since it had the foresight of the merits of the passion of Christ, applied them to the Virgin…"

So basically what David said. The Trinity, since it (for lack of a better pronoun) is out of time, and so was able to give Mary the merits of Christ’s passion before he died withIN time. The grace of the Trinity is not bound by time. So Scotus solved that particular logical problem pointed out by Aquinas.

 

[thistle]

Hi everyone. The other day I read that Saint Thomas Aquinas rejected the Immaculate Conception of Mary. I don’t remember where I read this at. And yes, I do realize that this was not a dogma during his lifetime. So, is it true that he rejected the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

From The Catechetical Instructions Of St Thomas Aquinas:

“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.”

 

[Marc_Anthony]

From The Catechetical Instructions Of St Thomas Aquinas:

“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.”

So St. Thomas did indeed not believe in the Immaculate Conception. He merely believed in Mary’s Immaculate BIRTH.

 

[thistle]

So St. Thomas did indeed not believe in the Immaculate Conception. He merely believed in Mary’s Immaculate BIRTH.

Although I’m sure if he was around when the Church made the Immaculate Conception dogma he would have accepted that.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So St. Thomas did indeed not believe in the Immaculate Conception. He merely believed in Mary’s Immaculate BIRTH.

If I may point out a quote from above (my earlier post), at different times, St. Thomas’ view on the topic varied. There do seem to be citations from him explicitly stating that Mary did not incur original sin. I presume the scholar Garrigou-Lagrange’s citations are accurate.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

If I may point out a quote from above (my earlier post), at different times, St. Thomas’ view on the topic varied. There do seem to be citations from him explicitly stating that Mary did not incur original sin. I presume the scholar Garrigou-Lagrange’s citations are accurate.

Possibly. I remembered hearing a long time ago that it was Blessed John Duns Scotus who refuted Aquinas’s objections to the Immaculate Conception, so finding that document about him did seem to confirm that.

Perhaps after Blessed John Duns Scotus published his paper Aquinas came around.