Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Immaculate Conception

  • Thread starter Thread starter LoyalViews
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LoyalViews

Guest
While reading a few things on St. Thomas Aquinas, I came across his “interpretation” on the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin Mary.
He said that she was concieved with sin, but freed from sin upon becoming “animated”. But, saying this, St. Thomas Aquinas did not reject the Immaculate Conception, but he set the base. Also, could it have been that he didn’t want people to deny another Dogma, the Redemption?

P.S., please don’t accuse me of denying the Immaculate Conception. I am a firm believer in the Immaculate Conception, always have, no exceptions. I am just asking a question about St. Thomas Aquinas. God Bless :signofcross::byzsoc:
 
It is my recollection that the Church has not adopted his explanation of the Immaculate Conception, but rather that of Duns Scotus. In short, St Thomas did not get it right.

Keep in mind that he was a theologian; certainly one of the brightest we have had. That does not mean that he was right in every last thing he wrote, nor that his explanation of every last thing he commented on was or is the best explanation; we sometimes get into an area that borders on considering his theological works as Magisterial. They are not; but he is right far, far more than he is wrong, and his explanations are highly worthy of study.
 
otjm said:
It is my recollection that the Church has not adopted his explanation of the Immaculate Conception, but rather that of Duns Scotus. In short, St Thomas did not get it right.

Keep in mind that he was a theologian; certainly one of the brightest we have had. That does not mean that he was right in every last thing he wrote, nor that his explanation of every last thing he commented on was or is the best explanation; we sometimes get into an area that borders on considering his theological works as Magisterial. They are not; but he is right far, far more than he is wrong, and his explanations are highly worthy of study.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, I know this. I also came across this interesting article about how he viewed it…
the-pope.com/stThomas.html
 
otjm said:
Did I misunderstand your question? As to the issue of Redemption, I don’t think it was a matter of conflict; it was a matter of how to explain what seemed at least to some to be unexplainable.
Click to expand...
No, you didn’t misunderstand :). I agree with you.
 
I could be completely wrong, because I can’t remember where I got this from, but I seem to remember that in St. Thomas’ time people didn’t believe the baby received a soul until he/she started moving (or was ‘animated’, I think they called it the Quickening?). That might explain his belief.
 
Rawb said:
I could be completely wrong, because I can’t remember where I got this from, but I seem to remember that in St. Thomas’ time people didn’t believe the baby received a soul until he/she started moving (or was ‘animated’, I think they called it the Quickening?). That might explain his belief.
Click to expand...
That could be very well possible, becuase since they didn’t have the medical knowledge and technology we do today, maybe they even though conception began when the baby was animated, too.

But, atleast, today, we know that life begins at conception, and so on.
 
LoyalViews said:
While reading a few things on St. Thomas Aquinas, I came across his “interpretation” on the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin Mary.
He said that she was concieved with sin, but freed from sin upon becoming “animated”. But, saying this, St. Thomas Aquinas did not reject the Immaculate Conception, but he set the base. Also, could it have been that he didn’t want people to deny another Dogma, the Redemption?

P.S., please don’t accuse me of denying the Immaculate Conception. I am a firm believer in the Immaculate Conception, always have, no exceptions. I am just asking a question about St. Thomas Aquinas. God Bless :signofcross::byzsoc:
Click to expand...
St Thomas Aquinas did NOT believe in the Immaculate Conception but in his day it was not dogma anyway so his opinion was not contrary to Church teaching then.

From The Catechetical Instructions of St Thomas Aquinas in the section Virtues of the Blessed Virgin the following are the words of 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.”
 
thistle said:
St Thomas Aquinas did NOT believe in the Immaculate Conception but in his day it was not dogma anyway so his opinion was not contrary to Church teaching then.
Click to expand...
otjm said:
It is my recollection that the Church has not adopted his explanation of the Immaculate Conception, but rather that of Duns Scotus. In short, St Thomas did not get it right.

Keep in mind that he was a theologian; certainly one of the brightest we have had. That does not mean that he was right in every last thing he wrote, nor that his explanation of every last thing he commented on was or is the best explanation; we sometimes get into an area that borders on considering his theological works as Magisterial. They are not; but he is right far, far more than he is wrong, and his explanations are highly worthy of study.
Click to expand...
Well said, both of you.
 
LoyalViews said:
Oh yes, I know this. I also came across this interesting article about how he viewed it…
the-pope.com/stThomas.html
Click to expand...
------------------------ Be up to date and check your references ------------------------
The article was written in 1998, some years after the 1917 Code was abrogated by the 1983 Code of Canon Law: Can. 6, §1. “When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: 1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917. …”

In the 1983 Code there is only one mention of Thomas: Can. 252, §3. “There are to be classes in dogmatic theology, always grounded in the written word of God together with sacred tradition; through these, students are to learn to penetrate more intimately the mysteries of salvation, especially with St. Thomas as a teacher. There are also to be classes in moral and pastoral theology, canon law, liturgy, ecclesiastical history, and other auxiliary and special disciplines, according to the norm of the prescripts of the program of priestly formation.”

So ------------------ blind, mandated adherance to St Thomas is NOT required. You must pray, study, understand, and then accept the Dogma taught by Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. Nothing good comes easily. There really are theological opinion and speculation and development that take place, but are not (yet?) accepted explanations of Dogma.

Hit any key! :manvspc:
 
thistle said:
St Thomas Aquinas did NOT believe in the Immaculate Conception but in his day it was not dogma anyway so his opinion was not contrary to Church teaching then.

From The Catechetical Instructions of St Thomas Aquinas in the section Virtues of the Blessed Virgin the following are the words of 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.”
Click to expand...
Does that mean that, for example, someone who was Arian and died before the Synod of Nicea is not a heretic? Of course, assuming the IC is a dogma on the same level as the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union.

Just asking.
 
Wisely said:
Does that mean that, for example, someone who was Arian and died before the Synod of Nicea is not a heretic? Of course, assuming the IC is a dogma on the same level as the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union.

Just asking.
Click to expand...
You raise a good point. St Thomas was wrong on this point, plain and simple, but he could not necessarily be faulted as the Church had not yet definitively clarified the point. As other posters have pointed out, a big part of this was probably his lack of understanding about when ensoulment occurs.
 
Wisely said:
Does that mean that, for example, someone who was Arian and died before the Synod of Nicea is not a heretic? Of course, assuming the IC is a dogma on the same level as the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union.

Just asking.
Click to expand...
Until something is declared a heresy one is not a heretic. The reasons behind declaring something a heresy is to give those who hold to it a chance to correct their beliefs.

So I think the answer is yes.

As to the “dogma on the same level” comment, dogma is dogma. So yes they are on the same level.

One other note, that should be Ecumenical Council, not Synod.
 
ByzCath said:
Until something is declared a heresy one is not a heretic. The reasons behind declaring something a heresy is to give those who hold to it a chance to correct their beliefs.

So I think the answer is yes.

As to the “dogma on the same level” comment, dogma is dogma. So yes they are on the same level.

One other note, that should be Ecumenical Council, not Synod.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but I think a hierarchy of dogmas could be argued. All must be held by the faithful as de fide, of course, but the dogma of the Trinity, for example, is so foundational to the faith that to reject it invalidates even the baptism of those communities that reject it (eg. Mormonism), while denying other dogmas, such as the IC, does not. The implications of rejecting certain dogmas are graver than others…

Ecumenical councils have also been called general synods - I assume that’s what Wisely meant.
 
Remember St. Thomas’ words towards the end of his life:

“If through ignorance I have done otherwise, I revoke everything of that kind, and submit all my writings to the judgment of the holy Roman Church.”

The Holy Doctor became increasingly mystical towards the end of his life, and before he died, he submitted ALL his works to the authority of the church.

There was a recent thread on it, I made a similar post in it

Here

St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us
 
twf said:
I could be wrong, but I think a hierarchy of dogmas could be argued. All must be held by the faithful as de fide, of course, but the dogma of the Trinity, for example, is so foundational to the faith that to reject it invalidates even the baptism of those communities that reject it (eg. Mormonism), while denying other dogmas, such as the IC, does not. The implications of rejecting certain dogmas are graver than others…

Ecumenical councils have also been called general synods - I assume that’s what Wisely meant.
Click to expand...
Denial of any dogma separates one from communion with the Church.

While we might judge such things as baptism by groups outside of the Church by their adherence to certain dogmas that does not lessen any of the dogmas for a Catholic.

If they must be held as de fide then they must be held as de fide.

As I said, dogma is dogma. Talking about “levels” is like asking how many angels may dance on the head of a pin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top