St. Thomas never denied the Immaculate Conception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dolezal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, but he does not state that her rational soul contracted original sin, which is necessary for the claim that he denied the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. His statements are perfectly consistent if you keep in mind that he distinguishes between between her (bodily) conception and animation (infusion of the rational soul) because of the medieval view that conception precedes animation. (This is why he cannot say of Mary that her “flesh assumed the nature without sin” as he did of Christ (because Christ “is at once flesh, and at the same time flesh of God the Word, and likewise flesh animated, possessing both reason and thought” (An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3.2)).)
Dolegal, aren’t you taking on the role of teaching Catholics what they need to believe, and setting aside the dogma from the Vatican to promote your own ideas here? Did you read my post that stated clearly, “in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul’s infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin.”

Your argument borders on heresy, to infer that God first created her body, and then afterwards infused her soul. This is nonsense, even from what we know today about medical science and the teaching about conception. Maybe in Thomas’s day, little was known, and theologians speculated upon it. But there is no excuse to hold these old ideas now that the Church has spoken in our time.
 
If he had denied the Immaculate Conception, then he would not be Catholic, and neither a Saint and doctor of the Church. Of course he never denied the Immaculate Conception.
St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary sinned and he is a doctor of the Church.
Whether they denied it or misunderstood it is a moot question. Theologians today do not hash over that debate any longer. What’s the use?

We know that it was a point of contention between East and West, between Dominicans and Franciscans, between this Father and that Father.

We can come up with 3,000 citations for either side of the argument. It’s the kind of headache that few theologians want to grapple with, since it’s resolved.

My suggestion always is the same. “If the Church has defined it, forget who said what and stick with what the Church says. Don’t complicate your life. Life has complications of its own.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
The best manuscript is that issued by the Pope on her Immaculate Conception
LOL! 😉

I was, of course, asking about the best manuscripts of the Devotissima expositio super salutatione angelica…!
I would much prefer the teaching of the Church, rather than speculation about the reputed “stages” of St. Thomas grappling with faith concerning the I.C.
perhaps… yet, the subject at hand here is Thomas’ understanding of the Immaculate Conception, not the Church’s subsequent teaching on the matter…!
 
Yes, but he does not state that her rational soul contracted original sin, which is necessary for the claim that he denied the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. His statements are perfectly consistent if you keep in mind that he distinguishes between between her (bodily) conception and animation (infusion of the rational soul) because of the medieval view that conception precedes animation. (This is why he cannot say of Mary that her “flesh assumed the nature without sin” as he did of Christ (because Christ “is at once flesh, and at the same time flesh of God the Word, and likewise flesh animated, possessing both reason and thought” (An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3.2)).)
Thanks for pointing this out, brother. According to St. Thomas, the uniqueness of Christ’s conception was that, unlike all other humans (including Mary), his spiritual conception occurred at the same exact instance as his physical conception.

Now (well, for a few centuries now), the Latin Church generally understands that this is the case for ALL humans - i.e., that spiritual conception (or the moment that God creates the soul and infuses it into the body) occurs at the same exact instance as the physical conception.

Of course, this does not detract from the utter uniqueness of Christ’s own physical conception, which is different from Mary’s (who was conceived naturally from a human father and mother).

I think this whole discussion just lays stress (properly) on the fact that the dogma of the CC refers only to the spiritual conception of Mary, not her physical conception.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
I think this whole discussion just lays stress (properly) on the fact that the dogma of the CC refers only to the spiritual conception of Mary, not her physical conception.

Blessings,
Marduk
What does this mean? The Immaculate Conception is an event at which Mary comes into existence, body and soul, redeemed from original sin. It’s that simple.

When Mary refers to herself as “I am the Immaculate Conception,” she’s more than just a person, she’s a divine event made possible through the cross of her son.

There is no more to be said about this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
What does this mean?
That the object of the dogma is about the SPIRITUAL purity of her SOUL at conception, and is not a statement about the physical conception.

That fact refutes the claims of non-Catholics that the dogma means:
(1) that she did not have a natural human conception;
(2) that she did not suffer the effects of mortality.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
That the object of the dogma is about the SPIRITUAL purity of her SOUL at conception, and is not a statement about the physical conception.

That fact refutes the claims of non-Catholics that the dogma means:
(1) that she did not have a natural human conception;
(2) that she did not suffer the effects of mortality.

Blessings,
Marduk
She had a normal biological conception. She had a biological mother and father. Aside from that, she did not suffer the effects of illness and natural death, which are the products of Original Sin. That’s the reason that the Eastern Christians refer to her Dormition and Latin Catholics to her Assumption. No one refers to her death.

There was nothing sinful in her conception. We can’t separate her body and soul. They come into existence at the same moment in time.

I’m still not sure what it’s important to rehash this, since the Church has already spoken on it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Aside from that, she did not suffer the effects of illness and natural death, which are the products of Original Sin.
Yes, she did suffer illness and natural death, and everything that comes with that. She had natural fears and concerns because of the foibles of this fallen world, but she never wavered in her Faith and trust in God.
No one refers to her death.
Munificentimus Deus does. As do many Latin Catholics, Oriental Catholics and Orthodox, and Eastern Catholics and Orthodox.
We can’t separate her body and soul. They come into existence at the same moment in time.
Yes, but the parents don’t make her soul. God does that directly, so a distinction can be made.
I’m still not sure what it’s important to rehash this, since the Church has already spoken on it.
It’s for the sake of those readers who might have questions and want to get a little more detail on the matter, in order for them to accept the teaching of the Church, especially if they are not currently Catholic. Do you suppose no one else reads these threads except participants in the discussion?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Yes, she did suffer illness and natural death, and everything that comes with that. She had natural fears and concerns because of the foibles of this fallen world, but she never wavered in her Faith and trust in God.
This is not the faith of the Catholic Church.
Yes, but the parents don’t make her soul. God does that directly, so a distinction can be made.
There is a difference between body and soul, but the Church does not separate the moment of conception of the two. They happen at the same precise moment.
It’s for the sake of those readers who might have questions and want to get a little more detail on the matter, in order for them to accept the teaching of the Church, especially if they are not currently Catholic. Do you suppose no one else reads these threads except participants in the discussion?
Blessings,
Marduk
Then give them what the Catholic Church teaches. The best place to refer them to is the CCC or the Catholic Catechism for Adults published by the USCCB. It’s excellent.
**
2853 Victory over the “prince of this world” was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life. This is the judgment of this world, and the prince of this world is “cast out.” “He pursued the woman” but had no hold on her: the new Eve, “full of grace” of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from sin and the corruption of death (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Holy Mother of God, Mary, ever virgin).**
**
491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.**

Those preserve from Original Sin are also preserved from the consequences of Original Sin. That is the faith of the Catholic Church.

974 The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she already shares in the glory of her Son’s Resurrection, anticipating the resurrection of all members of his Body.

As we pray, so we believe. These are the words in the mass for the feast of the Assumption. The Church never mentions that Mary died. Nor does the Church teach that she rose from the dead or that Jesus raised her from the dead.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
This is not the faith of the Catholic Church.
Perhaps how you understand it.
There is a difference between body and soul, but the Church does not separate the moment of conception of the two. They happen at the same precise moment.
Distinction is not separation.
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.
Those preserve from Original Sin are also preserved from the consequences of Original Sin. That is the faith of the Catholic Church.
The Council of Trent taught that the STAIN of Original Sin is what is cleansed at Baptism. Are you claiming you or I are immortal and not subject to death because of our Baptism? The “stain of Original Sin” is not equivalent to “Original Sin.” The “STAIN of Original Sin” is a specific theological term that refers only to the SPIRITUAL consequences of Original Sin, not the physical consequences (i.e., death, corruption, illness, etc.).

catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/f/Did-The-Virgin-Mary-Die.htm

Blessings,
Marduk
 
What does this mean? The Immaculate Conception is an event at which Mary comes into existence, body and soul, redeemed from original sin. It’s that simple.

When Mary refers to herself as “I am the Immaculate Conception,” she’s more than just a person, she’s a divine event made possible through the cross of her son.

There is no more to be said about this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Br.Jr…

Please explain what u mean ." She’s a divine event" …vis-a-vis what John the Baptizer received, in the womb ?
 
She had a normal biological conception. She had a biological mother and father. Aside from that, she did not suffer the effects of illness and natural death, which are the products of Original Sin. That’s the reason that the Eastern Christians refer to her Dormition and Latin Catholics to her Assumption. No one refers to her death.

There was nothing sinful in her conception. We can’t separate her body and soul. They come into existence at the same moment in time.

I’m still not sure what it’s important to rehash this, since the Church has already spoken on it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Proof that she didn’t die ? Also brother, we know she aged …so how can u make those claims above ?
 
Br. JR…

Does the Church teach Mary’s redemption, apart from its very early timing, ANY DIFFERENT from ours ?

Also, did Mary need or, like Christ, undergo water baptism ?
 
The teachings and traditions associated with the Dormition are very clear that the Theotokos died.
 
The teachings and traditions associated with the Dormition are very clear that the Theotokos died.
The Dormition is particularly an Eastern belief. The Church does not teach that you have to believe that Mary died before being assumed into heaven. The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, “after the completion of her earthly life” (note the silence regarding her death), “was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.”

more can be found here
catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
 
Br. JR…

Does the Church teach Mary’s redemption, apart from its very early timing, ANY DIFFERENT from ours ?

Also, did Mary need or, like Christ, undergo water baptism ?
The fact of the Immaculate Conception means that Mary was born without original sin. So it would follow she would not need to undergo water baptism for the forgiveness of original sin.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (CCC 492).
 
The fact of the Immaculate Conception means that Mary was born without original sin.
No. All you can conclude from the dogma, even expressed with its Latin theological presuppositions, is that Mary was born without the STAIN of Original Sin. The STAIN of Original Sin from which she was preserved/saved is the same STAIN of Original Sin that is removed from us at Baptism.
So it would follow she would not need to undergo water baptism for the forgiveness of original sin.
What it is that Mary was preserved from is the same thing that is removed from us at Baptism. Mary was potentially under the same curse as the rest of the humanity. Just like us, she NEEDED the direct intervention of God for her to be redeemed.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (CCC 492).
Amen. Just like us, she needed redemption through the merits her Son, our Lord, obtained from the Cross.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
No. All you can conclude from the dogma, even expressed with its Latin theological presuppositions, is that Mary was born without the STAIN of Original Sin. The STAIN of Original Sin from which she was preserved/saved is the same STAIN of Original Sin that is removed from us at Baptism.
OK Mary was a human being. Nothing is ours but through the Grace of God. That is true for Mary as well. But we are taught she was, by the grace of God, from the beginning of her existance without sin.

There is more to it than her simply being without something. For we have the angel Gabriel proclaiming her “full of grace.” Indeed, "the Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”. (CCC 491)

Also note that we are taught: " By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long." (CCC 493)

And the Catechism goes on to teach:
494 At the announcement that she would give birth to “the Son of the Most High” without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that “with God nothing will be impossible”: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word.” Thus, giving her consent to God’s word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God’s grace:
As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary “the Mother of the living” and frequently claim: “Death through Eve, life through Mary.”
​
 
Br.Jr…

Please explain what u mean ." She’s a divine event" …vis-a-vis what John the Baptizer received, in the womb ?
The Divine Event is what God did. He created Mary without Original Sin. She was never stained by Original Sin. Mary was redeemed by her son’s cross, before her conception. This is the divine event.

We do not say that she was born without Original Sin. We say that she was conceived without it, meaning that she came into existence without Original Sin. In this regard, the event is divine. Mary could not do this for herself. She could not conceive herself, nor could she redeem herself before her conception. This is only possible through divine intervention. The event of her conception is a Divine Event.

We, on the other hand, are conceived and born with Original Sin. Baptism removes the stain of original sin from us, but not the natural consequences of Original Sin.
Proof that she didn’t die ? Also brother, we know she aged …so how can u make those claims above ?
For example, we know that Mary lived about 70 years, give or take, since the calendar cannot be trusted. But that does not mean that she suffered any of the consequences that are the result of Original Sin. Aging and illness are not the same.

The Church has never said that Mary died, nor that she did not die. To affirm this with such confidence is to speak out of turn, as such a statement can only be made by the Magisterium. There is the proof. The silence of the Magisterium is the proof that there is no proof that she died.

If we follow the law of prayer is the law of belief, the liturgy makes no reference to her death. It only speaks about the course of her earthly life coming to an end. This was deliberately written this way so as to avoid saying that she died. There is nothing in the faith of the early Church that speaks authoritatively to the question of death.
Br. JR…

Does the Church teach Mary’s redemption, apart from its very early timing, ANY DIFFERENT from ours ?

Also, did Mary need or, like Christ, undergo water baptism ?
Neither Mary nor Christ needed baptism of water. Christ’s baptism by John foreshadows the Sacrament of Baptism. John himself said that it was not a sacramental baptism. It was a sign of conversion. Sacramental Baptism is more than a sign of conversion. It literally washes away the stain of Original Sin. Jesus and Mary did not have Original Sin; therefore, they did not need sacramental baptism.

The Church teaches us that Mary’s redemption is different from our own in several respects and the same in others.

Let’s begin with the same. She too must be redeemed by the cross. She cannot redeem herself. She was redeemed by the cross.

Let’s go to the difference. The cross is timeless. Therefore, Mary was redeemed before she was conceived, unlike us. We are redeemed after our conception. Mary is the only person who is redeemed before conception, making it possible to be conceived without Original Sin. This is the faith of the Church.

There is another difference between us and Mary. Mary’s Immaculate Conception is the Father’s gift to the Son. She is the first tabernacle. She is the Virgin made Church. The Second Person of the Trinity is spared from all contact with sin prior to his conception by being conceived in the womb of a perfect mother. We are not created perfect. Mary was created perfect, because she had a redemptive mission to fulfill.

Since Jesus takes his human nature from his mother, it was necessary that he have the perfect mother in order to have perfect human nature. Thus the Church teaches us that she is the New Eve and he is the New Adam. Originally, Adam and Eve were given perfect human nature, which they damaged through sin. Jesus and Mary also have been given the same perfect human nature, which both preserve through fidelity to the Father. Mary receives the grace necessary for this, graces beyond what we receive.

The words of Gabriel are very important. In Luke, the angel refers to Mary as “filled with grace”. This is a very Greek expression. To be filled with grace is to be filled with divine life. In other words, Mary had what the rest of us are working for. She had union with the Divine. In Lukan language, to have found favor with the Lord means to have earned the Lord’s predilection. We don’t enjoy such predilection. There is another difference between her and us.

On the one hand, she is redeemed through the timeless sacrifice of the cross just as we are.

On the other hand, she is redeemed before she is conceived, unlike us who are redeemed through Baptism and so forth.

Like us, she strives toward union with the divine, of which the mystics speak. Unlike us, she is conceived united to the divine by a special act of grace.

Like us, God favors her over other creatures (dogs, cats, etc). Unlike us, God favors her over all other human beings.

Like us, she is a mother. Unlike us, she transmits to her son a perfect human nature through the grace of God granted to her at the moment of her conception.

Like her son, she is like us in all things, but sin. Therefore, she is the perfect disciple, unlike us.

As Bl. John Duns Scotus said, God shows his love for his Son through the favors that he grants to the mother from her conception, favors not granted to any other mother.

Her redemption is really a statement about Christ. The eternal Logos, deserved nothing less than a mother who had never known sin. The only possible way is to redeem her before she is conceived, so that she has no contact with sin.

All of this can be found in the Catholic Catechism for Adults published by the USCCB. It’s an excellent book. It uses the CCC as a guide, but is more specific.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:
 
The Church has never said that Mary died, nor that she did not die. To affirm this with such confidence is to speak out of turn, as such a statement can only be made by the Magisterium. There is the proof. The silence of the Magisterium is the proof that there is no proof that she died.
Then neither should you have the perfect confidence to assert, “Aside from that, she did not suffer the effects of illness and natural death, which are the products of Original Sin.”

On the other hand, if you believe you have the right and confidence to assert your claim, then we (non-Latins, and some Latins) have just as much right and confidence to assert our claim that Mary did indeed die, but that death could not hold her.

I hope you can see how your statement can be viewed as mere Latin triumphalism. Remember, we (non-Latins) are not the ones who accused you of “speaking out of turn.”

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top