St Thomas and the most perfect creature?

[Blue_Horizon]

I am interested in Thomistic comment on the below thoughts - they arose from the Thomas and the Immaculate Conception debate recently.

In the order of nature (essence) Lucifer before his fall was probably the most perfect creature - and probably afterwards as well if his nature wasn’t wounded like ours was (is that possible?).

However various Popes appear to have stated Mary was the most perfect creature.
No doubt we are talking about the order of Grace (divinisation?) but Iam not exactly sure how this pans out…

If Michael was next off the rank after Lucifer (who fell) then wouldn’t Michael, now sanctified and divinised and fully cooperating with God according to the limits of his great nature,be the most perfect creature? Obviously not.

Can someone explain in Thomistic terms exactly how Mary is the most perfect creature?

Finally, in some sense we could say the human Jesus was “a creature” (I believe his human soul is created) - which means he would be in the running too I suppose.
Obviously the Person of Jesus existed prior to the incarnation but does that deny the appelation “creature” to him? In other words, is the appelation “creature” properly applied to nature or person?

 

[Rosinante]

From St. Thomas’ Catechism:

…

“HAIL MARY”

We must now consider concerning the first part of this prayer that in ancient times it was no small event when Angels appeared to men; and that man should show them reverence was especially praiseworthy. Thus, it is written to the praise of Abraham that he received the Angels with all courtesy and showed them reverence. ***But that an Angel should show reverence to a man was never heard of until the Angel reverently greeted the Blessed Virgin saying: “Hail.” ***

THE ANGEL’S DIGNITY

In olden time an Angel would not show reverence to a man, but a man would deeply revere an Angel. This is because Angels are greater than men, and indeed in three ways. First, they are greater than men in dignity. This is because the Angel is of a spiritual nature: “Who makest Thy angels spirits.”[4] But, on the other hand, man is of a corruptible nature, for Abraham said: "I

will speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes."[5] It was not fitting, therefore, that a spiritual and incorruptible creature should show reverence to one that is corruptible as is a man. Secondly, an Angel is closer to God. The Angel, indeed, is of the family of God, and as it were stands ever by Him: “Thousands of thousands ministered to Him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before Him.”[6] Man, on the other hand, is rather a stranger and afar off from God because of sin: “I have gone afar off.”[7] Therefore, it is fitting that man should reverence an Angel who is an intimate and one of the household of the King.

Then, thirdly, the Angels far exceed men in the fullness of the splendor of divine grace. For Angels participate in the highest degree in the divine light: “Is there any numbering of His soldiers? And upon whom shall not His light arise?”[8] Hence, the Angels always appear among men clothed in light, hut men on the contrary, although they partake somewhat of the light of grace, nevertheless do so in a much slighter degree and with a certain obscurity. It was, therefore, not fitting that an Angel should show reverence to a man until it should come to pass that one would be found in human nature who exceeded the Angels in these three points in which we have seen that they excel over men–and this was the Blessed Virgin. To show that she excelled the Angels in these, the Angel desired to show her reverence, and so he said: "Ave (Hail)."

…

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[Dolezal]

Whenever I say the Hail Mary, I also say in my mind the following:

Hail Mary; Mary is honored by the angels
Full of Grace; Mary is superior to the angels in the fullness of grace
The lord is with thee; Mary excels the angels in her closeness to God
Blessed art thou among women; Mary exceeds the angels in purity
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus; Far more blessed than Mary is Jesus

This is of course what St. Thomas taught. Since the Blessed Virgin is closer to God and exceeds the angels in the fullness of grace, it seems that she is the most perfect creature.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Thanks guys, I was not aware Aquinas wrote this - though I felt he must have addressed the question somewhere!

He got a few things “wrong” of course (Mary was conceived in original sin which distinguishes Jesus from her) and I am not too sure that, being free from original sin necessitated she “bore her Child in comfort.”

As others have pointed out she presumably got wrinkles as she aged and eventually died (“sleep” or dormition appears to be a euphemism for death in the Eastern Church but Westerns for some reason took it literally from my research). Death appears to be inherent of man’s natural state even before the Fall.

 

[Timawa]

Blue Horizon, no, Mary was free from Original Sin at the moment of her conception, and if you are a Catholic, you are required to believe so. As writen in Ineffabilis Deus by Pope Pius IX:

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

What distinguishes Mary from Jesus is that Mary is a creature, while Jesus is God, the Creator.

Yes, God did not need Mary to be immaculately conceived for Him to be made flesh pure, but here’s the thing about God: He hates corruption; the Ark of the Old Covenant was made of the finest materials, including incorruptible wood, and only then did His Presence reside inside it. In other words, although God does not need it, He wants to, and that’s enough reason for Him to grant Mary a fullness of grace, and thus her Immaculate Conception.

And yes, you are correct when you say that it is natural for Man, a corporeal being, to wear out over time. Before the Fall, Man wasn’t just in a usual state of grace as we know it now; he was, more so, in a state of original justice, a state wherein God invested on Man a Preternatural State which, besides other benefits, made us immune from bodily corruptions.

NOTE: below is a hypothesis which I would really love and appreciate others to correct if wrong, and there’s a very high probability that I’m indeed wrong on this one, hehehe

Mary, although free from Original Sin, wasn’t gifted a preternatural state (during her earthly life), or at least most of the benefits of it (Mary was graced enough to be free from Concupiscence),** and this implies thus:**

That just because one is immaculately conceived (and thus free from the stains of original sin), it does not necessarily follow that he shall be in a preternatural state or be given the benefits that goes along with it; although I think freedom from sin, original or actual, is prerequisite for it. It is, again, due to God’s Grace that Man was in such a state before the Fall. In other words, He just wants to give it to Man out of His superabundant Goodness; it was, in a sense, an additional gift to Man, which he (Man) eventually rejected by disobedience.

---

Deo Gratias!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon, no, Mary was free from Original Sin at the moment of her conception…

Timawa, yes I am aware of this - you misunderstood me above: I was summarising Aquinas’s error not my belief

…

What distinguishes Mary from Jesus is that Mary is a creature, while Jesus is God, the Creator. …

Note quite… in so far as Jesus’s human nature required the creation of both body and soul to that extent Jesus may perhaps be called a “creature” (I think Aquinas says as much somewhere but someone may be able to correct me if this view is erroneous). As I asked above, it depends on whether the appelation “creature” can be applied to Nature or Person.

Of course what, it seems, most properly distinguishes Jesus from other humans is his eternally pre-existent Divine hypostasis.