Did St. Thomas Aquinas believe in the Immaculate Conception?

[FuzzyBunny116]

And could he have been canonized if he didn’t?

 

[Contarini]

And could he have been canonized if he didn’t?

1. He didn’t believe in it.
2. He was canonized; so
3. The answer to your second question is obviously “yes”!

And I am quite aware that he believed that the BVM was cleansed from all sin immediately after conception. I incline toward some such view myself.

Edwin

 

[Janet_S]

And could he have been canonized if he didn’t?

Did St Thomas believe in the IC? The answer is not that clear. This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

“St. Thomas at first pronounced in favour of the doctrine in his treatise on the “Sentences” (in I. Sent. c. 44, q. I ad 3), yet in his “Summa Theologica” he concluded against it. 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, and learned books have been written to vindicate him from having actually drawn the negative conclusion. Yet it is hard to say that St. Thomas did not require an instant at least, after the animation of Mary, before her sanctification. His great difficulty appears to have arisen from the doubt as to how she could have been redeemed if she had not sinned. This difficulty he raised in no fewer than ten passages in his writings (see, e. g., Summa III:27:2, ad 2). But while St. Thomas thus held back from the essential point of the doctrine, he himself laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together and worked out, enabled other minds to furnish the true solution of this difficulty from his own premises.”

Later, Blessed John Duns Scotus brought resolution to the issue of how Mary was conceived without sin:
campus.udayton.edu/mary/meditations/samaha10.htm

 

[thistle]

Did St Thomas believe in the IC? The answer is not that clear. This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

“St. Thomas at first pronounced in favour of the doctrine in his treatise on the “Sentences” (in I. Sent. c. 44, q. I ad 3), yet in his “Summa Theologica” he concluded against it. 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, and learned books have been written to vindicate him from having actually drawn the negative conclusion. Yet it is hard to say that St. Thomas did not require an instant at least, after the animation of Mary, before her sanctification. His great difficulty appears to have arisen from the doubt as to how she could have been redeemed if she had not sinned. This difficulty he raised in no fewer than ten passages in his writings (see, e. g., Summa III:27:2, ad 2). But while St. Thomas thus held back from the essential point of the doctrine, he himself laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together and worked out, enabled other minds to furnish the true solution of this difficulty from his own premises.”

Later, Blessed John Duns Scotus brought resolution to the issue of how Mary was conceived without sin:
campus.udayton.edu/mary/meditations/samaha10.htm

Actually it is clear that he did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. If you read The Catechetical Instructions of St Thomas Aquinas and his Expanation of the Hail Mary, section on Virtues of the Blessed Virgin he states "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."

That’s very clear.

 

[mlchance]

That’s very clear.

Quite clear. It’s also important to note:

1. Aquinas did not deny that the Blessed Virgin lived a sinless life.
2. During Aquinas’s time, Aquinas’s opinion was a matter a legitimate theological speculation. Now, however, that the Church has defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the matter is closed.
3. One isn’t canonized because his theological opinions are entirely free of error.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[thistle]

Quite clear. It’s also important to note:

1. Aquinas did not deny that the Blessed Virgin lived a sinless life.
2. During Aquinas’s time, Aquinas’s opinion was a matter a legitimate theological speculation. Now, however, that the Church has defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the matter is closed.
3. One isn’t canonized because his theological opinions are entirely free of error.

– Mark L. Chance.

I agree.

 

[Genesis315]

I believe St. Thomas argued that she was cleansed from original sin just after her conception, rather than before.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

1. He didn’t believe in it.
2. He was canonized; so
3. The answer to your second question is obviously “yes”!

And I am quite aware that he believed that the BVM was cleansed from all sin immediately after conception. I incline toward some such view myself.

Edwin

The reason he didn’t believe in it is because he held to the non-doctrinal view of ensoulment which comes from the pre-Christian Greek philisophical school of thought. This view held that a male fetus was ensouled passed 40 days gestation; and a female after 80.

 

[Contarini]

The reason he didn’t believe in it is because he held to the non-doctrinal view of ensoulment which comes from the pre-Christian Greek philisophical school of thought. This view held that a male fetus was ensouled passed 40 days gestation; and a female after 80.

You are right that this was part of his argument, but not the whole of it:

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.

(ST III, Qu. 17, Art. 2, reply to objection 2)

You’re right that he thought she was sanctified after 80 days and not (as I mistakenly said earlier) immediately after conception. But his reasoning was not solely based on his mistaken science.

If you’re willing to make that argument, are you also willing (in another thread) to explain why similarly mistaken science does not relativize the tradition that only men should be ordained to the priesthood? In my view a much stronger case could be made that in *that *case the mistaken science is the root of the tradition, which is not the case here.

Edwin

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

You’re right that he thought she was sanctified after 80 days and not (as I mistakenly said earlier) immediately after conception. But his reasoning was not solely based on his mistaken science.

We must read into this what St. Thomas Aquinas does not say here. Since he believed that male souls came into the fetus after the 40 day gestation period, he is saying that Jesus’ soul was present from the very moment of His conception. It wasn’t until later that the church corrected this view which was based on Pagan philosophy. By his saying “before her birth in the womb”, this is his paraphrasing the BVM’s ensoulment and contrasting it to the Lord’s.

 

[mark_a]

1. He didn’t believe in it.
2. He was canonized; so
3. The answer to your second question is obviously “yes”!

And I am quite aware that he believed that the BVM was cleansed from all sin immediately after conception. I incline toward some such view myself.

Edwin

Hello Edwin,

This is a sincere question.

How would being cleansed from all sin immediately after conception (assuming you’re speaking of her, instead of His, conception) affect one differently than being concieved without sin?

Seems like splitting hairs to me.

Thanks.

 

[RedDeathsMask]

If you’re willing to make that argument, are you also willing (in another thread) to explain why similarly mistaken science does not relativize the tradition that only men should be ordained to the priesthood? In my view a much stronger case could be made that in *that *case the mistaken science is the root of the tradition, which is not the case here.

For a sacrament to validly take place form and mater must be present. With womans ordination the form is there, but not the mater and so no sacramental graces will be presnent, thus no ordination took place. This is why women cannot be priests. This is an issue of theology not “T” tradition.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Hello Edwin,

This is a sincere question.

How would being cleansed from all sin immediately after conception (assuming you’re speaking of her, instead of His, conception) affect one differently than being concieved without sin?

Seems like splitting hairs to me.

Thanks.

Dear Mark,

Original sin is not personal sin. Original sin is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as:
CCC 407:

The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social and morals.

Personal sin cannot be committed until someone has reached the the age of reason. Personal sin is the only sin which we must answer to on Judgement day, and only personal sin after baptism. Temporal punishments and purification may be required to enter the Kingdom for personal sin committed prior to baptism and this is what we call purgatory.

God bless!

 

[RedDeathsMask]

In St. Thomas’ day the Immaculate Conception was a theological speculation. Just like how in the early church there was speculation on the incarnation and Jesus’ two natures. St. Athanansius took a view that the Coptic Church followed after Jesus’ nature had been declared. Disagreeing with a theological speculation prior to when it was declared dogmatic does not invalidate them being a Saint, it was not a dogma at that time. Just like how Mary being co-redemptrix and mediatrix of all graces are not dogmas, they are theological speculations. Maybe they might be declared dogmas, maybe not. Let’s say in the future they are, someone at present does not believe in them and dies, this person is delcared a Saint, 30 years later these two speculations are declared dogmas. It does not invalidate this person’s sainthood, at the time of the person no one was required to believe in them.

 

[Contarini]

Hello Edwin,

This is a sincere question.

How would being cleansed from all sin immediately after conception (assuming you’re speaking of her, instead of His, conception) affect one differently than being concieved without sin?

Seems like splitting hairs to me.

Thanks.

It’s not splitting hairs, because you maintain the uniqueness of Christ that way and you don’t have to go into convoluted explanations about preventive salvation in order to make it clear that the BVM needed Christ as much as anyone.

I do not have strong opinions about the Immaculate Conception. I think that St. Thomas’s position was more reasonable than that of Duns Scotus, and as an Anglican I have the freedom to hold that view. But of course Catholics accept the declaration of Pope Pius on this, and you are right to do so.

Edwin

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I do not have strong opinions about the Immaculate Conception. I think that St. Thomas’s position was more reasonable than that of Duns Scotus, and as an Anglican I have the freedom to hold that view. But of course Catholics accept the declaration of Pope Pius on this, and you are right to do so.

Could you comment on my opinion in #10? Would love to hear your thoughts as a Ph.D.

 

[Contarini]

Could you comment on my opinion in #10? Would love to hear your thoughts as a Ph.D.

I didn’t really understand what you were saying. I see that you’re right about Aquinas thinking Christ was an exception in being ensouled at the moment of conception, but I don’t quite understand how this affects the IC issue. “Before her birth in the womb” clearly refers to animation as opposed to conception–I’m with you there. But the fact remains that the argument from Christ’s unique sinlessness is independent of the ensoulment issue.

I also note that Aquinas thinks that the BVM was not wholly delivered from the “fomes peccati” (the tendency toward sin) until she conceived Christ, although the fomes was “fettered” and she had been cleansed from the stain of original sin.

Edwin

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I also note that Aquinas thinks that the BVM was not wholly delivered from the “fomes peccati” (the tendency toward sin) until she conceived Christ, although the fomes was “fettered” and she had been cleansed from the stain of original sin.

I would agree wit St. Thomas Aquinas here, and I believe that is the mainstream Catholic position (I could be wrong though). She had the capacity to sin because she had free will, however she chose God instead, of her own free will.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Even the saints are not perfect in their understanding of God–the magisterium and the Deposit of Faith is bigger than any saint.

St. Thomas was right 99% of the time. How many of us can say that?

 

[Contarini]

I would agree wit St. Thomas Aquinas here, and I believe that is the mainstream Catholic position (I could be wrong though). She had the capacity to sin because she had free will, however she chose God instead, of her own free will.

The “fomes peccati” is more than the “capacity” to sin (which Adam and Eve had, obviously, though they did not have the fomes). It’s a tendency toward sinning though it is not itself necessarily sinful.

If it is still Catholic teaching that the BVM possessed this until the coming of Christ, then that needs to be promulgated more widely, because it would do something toward reconciling Protestants to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Edwin