Thomas Aquinas and the Immaculate Conception

[Eucharisted]

During my September 3 dialogue with Timothy George at Wheaton College, we briefly discussed St. Thomas Aquinas’ denial of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, which later became a dogma of the Catholic Church. One of the points I made was that St. Thomas’ understanding of Mary’s holiness was far from the Protestant view. In fact, for St. Thomas, Mary, though not conceived without original sin, it was removed by God after she was conceived (technically, after she was “animated”). She was also was the recipient of an abundance of grace so that she may be protected from all actual sin. So, St. Thomas’ view, though not the view currently held by the Church as dogma, contained within it some of the same logic on which the Church’s dogma is based. Here is St. Thomas from Summa Theologica, III, q. 27:

…The Church celebrates the feast of our Lady’s Nativity. Now the Church does not celebrate feasts except of those who are holy. Therefore even in her birth the Blessed Virgin was holy. Therefore she was sanctified in the womb.

… Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth. But as Augustine, in his tractate on the Assumption of the Virgin, argues with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven, and yet Scripture does not relate this; so it may be reasonably argued that she was sanctified in the womb. For it is reasonable to believe that she, who brought forth “the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and truth,” received greater privileges of grace than all others: hence we read (Luke 1:28) that the angel addressed her in the words: “Hail full of grace!”

Moreover, it is to be observed that it was granted, by way of privilege, to others, to be sanctified in the womb; for instance, to Jeremias, to whom it was said (Jeremiah 1:5): “Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee”; and again, to John the Baptist, of whom it is written (Luke 1:15): “He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb.” It is therefore with reason that we believe theBlessed Virgin to have been sanctified before her birth from the womb.

… Even in the Blessed Virgin, first was that which is natural, and afterwards that which is spiritual: for she was first conceived in the flesh, and afterwards sanctified in the spirit.

… Augustine speaks according to the common law, by reason of which no one is regenerated by the sacraments, save those who are previously born. But God did not so limit His power to the law of the sacraments, but that He can bestow His grace, by special privilege, on some before they are born from the womb.

… The Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb from original sin, as to the personal stain; but she was not freed from the guilt to which the whole nature is subject, so as to enter into Paradise otherwise than through the Sacrifice of Christ; the same also is to be said of the Holy Fathers who lived before Christ.

… Original sin is transmitted through the origin, inasmuch as through the origin the human nature is transmitted, and original sin, properly speaking, affects the nature. And this takes place when the off-spring conceived is animated. Wherefore nothing hinders the offspring conceived from being sanctified after animation: for after this it remains in the mother’s womb not for the purpose of receiving human nature, but for a certain perfecting of that which it has already received…

… Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xxxvi): “In the matter of sin, it is my wish to exclude absolutely all questions concerning the holy Virgin Mary, on account of the honor due to Christ. For since she conceived and brought forth Him who most certainly was guilty of no sin, we know that an abundance of grace was given her that she might be in every way the conqueror of sin.”

… God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Corinthians 3:6: “(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament.” Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the angel (Luke 1:30-31): “Thou hast found grace with God: behold thou shalt conceive,” etc. But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Proverbs 17:6: “The glory of children are their fathers”: and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother’s shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Corinthians 6:15): “What concord hath Christ with Belial?” Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the “Divine Wisdom” (1 Corinthians 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wisdom 1:4): “Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.”

romereturn.blogspot.com/2009/09/st-thomas-aquinas-on-immaculate.html

 

[SyCarl]

It should be noted that what was attributed to Augustine on the Assumption of Mary has been found to be spurious. This is taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious.

newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

In addition to what you quoted from Augustine, he also wrote:

This being the case, ever since the time when by one man sin thus entered into this world and death by sin, and so it passed through to all men, up to the end of this carnal generation and perishing world, the children of which beget and are begotten, there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins.

(On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book 2 Chapter 47)
newadvent.org/fathers/15012.htm

In fact, Augustine actually seems to indicate that at one point Mary hindered Christ.

But He rather admonishes us to understand that, in respect of His being God, there was no mother for Him, the part of whose personal majesty He was preparing to show forth in the turning of water into wine….Nor, again, should we be moved by the fact that, when the presence of His mother and His brethren was announced to Him, He replied, “Who is my mother, or who my brethren?” etc. But rather let it teach us, that when parents hinder our ministry wherein we minister the word of God to our brethren, they ought not to be recognized by us.

(A Treatise on Faith and the Creed, Chapter 4, Paragraph 9)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.iv.v.html

On the matter of the Immaculate Conception, a couple of church fathers seem to indicate that Mary was cleansed at the time Jesus was conceived.

Cyril of Jerusalem

1. This is the Holy Ghost, who came upon the Holy Virgin Mary; for since He who was conceived was Christ the Only begotten, the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and the Holy Ghost came upon her, and sanctified her, that she might be able to receive Him, by whom all things were made.

(Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 17, Paragraph 6)
newadvent.org/fathers/310117.htm

John of Damascus

So then, after the assent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit descended on her, according to the word of the Lord which the angel spoke, purifying her, and granting her power to receive the divinity of the Word, and likewise power to bring forth.

(Exposition of the Faith, Book 3, Chapter 2)
newadvent.org/fathers/33043.htm

John Chrysostom would have Mary committing actual sin.

And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him.

(Homilies on Matthew, Homily 44, 12:46-49)
newadvent.org/fathers/200144.htm

Tertullian suggests there was a time that Mary did not believe in Jesus.

But there is some ground for thinking that Christ’s answer denies His mother and brethren for the present, as even Apelles might learn. “The Lord’s brethren had not yet believed in Him.” So is it contained in the Gospel which was published before Marcion’s time; whilst there is at the same time a want of evidence of His mother’s adherence to Him, although the Marthas and the other Marys were in constant attendance on Him. In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, whilst strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent. By and by they turn up, and keep outside; but they do not go in, because, forsooth, they set small store on that which was doing within; nor do they even wait, as if they had something which they could contribute more necessary than that which He was so earnestly doing; but they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work. Now, I ask you, Apelles, or will you Marcion, please (to tell me), if you happened to be at a stage play, or had laid a wager on a foot race or a chariot race, and were called away by such a message, would you not have exclaimed, “What are mother and brothers to me?” And did not Christ, whilst preaching and manifesting God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, and scattering the darkness of the long preceding age, justly employ this same form of words, in order to strike the unbelief of those who stood outside, or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work?... When denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. Besides, He gave others the preference; and since He shows their title to this favour—even because they listened to the word (of God)—He points out in what sense He denied His mother and His brethren. For in whatever sense He adopted as His own those who adhered to Him, in that did He deny as His those who kept aloof from Him

(On the Flesh of Christ, Chapter 7)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.vii.html

It seems that the church fathers had various views with respect to Mary.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Thinking about this, if Mary was conceived, and born, without sin, the effects of original sin, and lived a totally and completely and fully sinless life, then why did she need a Redeemer?

 

[Nita]

It seems that the church fathers had various views with respect to Mary.

Also shows that they are not the ones who are infallible.

 

[Nita]

Thinking about this, if Mary was conceived, and born, without sin, the effects of original sin, and lived a totally and completely and fully sinless life, then why did she need a Redeemer?

She needed a Redeemer to effect and merit her immaculate conception; a Redeemer to prevent her from contracting original sin.

 

[John_Larocque]

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia noted that Cardinal Newman had problems with what some of the early Church fathers said on the Virgin Mary, including a reference to St. John Chrysostom.

newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm

It is true that Chrysostom has some strange passages on our Blessed Lady (see Newman, “Certain difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teachings”, London, 1876, pp. 130 sqq.), that he seems to ignore private confession to a priest, that there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of the pope.

There’s about 15 pages of material such as the following:

Thus on the whole, all three Fathers, St. Basil and St. Cyril explicitly, and St. Chrysostom by implication, consider that on occasions she was, or might be, exposed to violent temptation to doubt; but two Fathers consider that she actually did sin, though she sinned lightly; the sin being doubt, and on one occasion, according to St. Basil; and on two occasions, the sin being vainglory, according to St. Chrysostom. However, the strong language of these fathers is not directed against our Lady’s person, so much as against her nature. They seem to have participated with Ambrose, Jerome, and other Fathers, in that low estimation of woman’s nature which was general in their times

Sure enough the text of his book can be found online. There’s also a bit more here

 

[Eucharisted]

Thinking about this, if Mary was conceived, and born, without sin, the effects of original sin, and lived a totally and completely and fully sinless life, then why did she need a Redeemer?

Jesus, by His Death, won graces for mankind. One of those graces was the Immaculate Conception of Mary. As Mary said: “My soul rejoices in God my Savior.”

John the Baptism was born without original sin, as Jesus had healed him while he was still in the womb when He (in Mary’s womb) visited him (in Elizabeth’s womb). If God could heal John, why not Mary? If God could make Elizabeth pregnant, why not Mary? There is no limit to His Power. He can make the aged and the virgin both have children and He can make the young and the unborn sinless.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

She needed a Redeemer to make her cleansed at the moment of conception; a Redeemer to prevent her from contracting original sin.

Why does it follow though that if Jesus is conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, that He would in any way be tainted by her personal sin or original sin?

I dont have a particular objection to the Immaculate Conception - I just dont understand the hoops catholicism goes through to somehow intellectually prove a premis that doesnt seem to me to be all that important.

God became man, and redeemed us from our ultimate fate - that’s what’s important isnt it, not the hoopla about whether Mary was conceived without original sin?

 

[Eucharisted]

Why does it follow though that if Jesus is conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, that He would in any way be tainted by her personal sin or original sin?

I dont have a particular objection to the Immaculate Conception - I just dont understand the hoops catholicism goes through to somehow intellectually prove a premis that doesnt seem to me to be all that important.

God became man, and redeemed us from our ultimate fate - that’s what’s important isnt it, not the hoopla about whether Mary was conceived without original sin?

It’s not hoops, it’s historical signifence. You gotta understand the Jews’ understanding of the Ark of the Covenant and how it will reappear when the Messiah comes. Mary is the Ark, the untainted box which contains the Law, because she bore in her womb the Law Incarnate: Jesus.

 

[mardukm]

I dont have a particular objection to the Immaculate Conception - I just dont understand the hoops catholicism goes through to somehow intellectually prove a premis that doesnt seem to me to be all that important.

As brother Eucharisted noted, everyone (including the Easterns and Orientals) believe that St. John the Baptist was sanctified from sin in the womb. How do you suppose this happened if the Sacrifice had not yet occurred? Certain prophets in the OT are also regarded as “sinless from the womb” by the Easterns and Orientals.

Where does the Grace for sinlessness come from if not from the Cross?

I guess all of apostolic Christianity is jumping through “hoops?”

Blessings

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As brother Eucharisted noted, everyone (including the Easterns and Orientals) believe that St. John the Baptist was sanctified from sin in the womb. How do you suppose this happened if the Sacrifice had not yet occurred? Certain prophets in the OT are also regarded as “sinless from the womb” by the Easterns and Orientals.

Where does the Grace for sinlessness come from if not from the Cross?

I guess all of apostolic Christianity is jumping through “hoops?”

Blessings

Define “everyone”

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Certain prophets in the OT are also regarded as “sinless from the womb” by the Easterns and Orientals.

Where does the Grace for sinlessness come from if not from the Cross?

Blessings

Where did their grace come from if the sacrafice of the cross hadnt happened yet?

 

[Nita]

Why does it follow though that if Jesus is conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, that He would in any way be tainted by her personal sin or original sin?

The Church doesn’t teach that Jesus would have been tainted if Mary had not been free of original sin or personal sin.

I dont have a particular objection to the Immaculate Conception - I just dont understand the hoops catholicism goes through to somehow intellectually prove a premis that doesnt seem to me to be all that important.

God became man, and redeemed us from our ultimate fate - that’s what’s important isnt it, not the hoopla about whether Mary was conceived without original sin?

There are two very core truths – the Trinity and the Incarnation. But God hasn’t limited His revelations to man, or His relations with man, to just those two areas. It is a joy to discover more and more about Him and what He has done.

When there is more to be learned, why would you want to limit yourself to just pondering His incarnation and redemption?

 

[mardukm]

Where did their grace come from if the sacrafice of the cross hadnt happened yet?

Thank you for asking the question.

Though the Sacrifice happened in time, the power of the Sacrifice is Eternal (as evident from the book of Revelation, wherein John saw the Sacrifice in Heaven) - i.e., it is effective, by God’s will, at all times. He granted the Grace of sinlessness at unique moments in mankind’s history to certain unique people according to His unfathomable Plan for Mankind’s salvation.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

The Church doesn’t teach that Jesus would have been tainted if Mary had not been free of original sin or personal sin.

Not dogmatically. But ever since the Fifth century, there have been Eastern Fathers who taught that Mary’s Immaculateness is intimately connected to Jesus’ Immaculateness.

For example, St. Gregory Palamas of the Eastern Church taught:
For this purpose, He had to assume a flesh that was both new and ours, that He might refashion us from out of ourselves. Now He finds a Handmaiden perfectly suited to these needs, the supplier of Her own unsullied nature, the Ever-Virgin now hymned by us, and Whose miraculous Entrance into the Temple, into the Holy of Holies, we now celebrate. God predestined Her before the ages for the salvation and reclaiming of our kind. She was chosen, not just from the crowd, but from the ranks of the chosen of all ages, renowned for piety and understanding, and for their God-pleasing words and deeds.

I personally do not believe in such a necessary connection. I just wanted to point out that it is indeed contained in the Tradition of the Eastern Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Thank you for asking the question.

Though the Sacrifice happened in time, the power of the Sacrifice is Eternal (as evident from the book of Revelation, wherein John saw the Sacrifice in Heaven) - i.e., it is effective, by God’s will, at all times. He granted the Grace of sinlessness at unique moments in mankind’s history to certain unique people according to His unfathomable Plan for Mankind’s salvation.

Blessings

Right,

I need to think about that one.

Thanks for the answer.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins (412) was written 3 years PRIOR to Nature and Grace (415), Nature and Grace says The Holy Virgin is a possible exception to all having sin. Then you said Sycarl “In fact, Augustine actually seems to indicate that at one point Mary hindered Christ.” But I don’t see how that quote of St Augustine presents Mary as sinning.

Sycarl’s statement by St John Chrysostom is explained here catholic-legate.com/articles/heosfn.html which states:

Chrysostom’s true position - that is, his presentation of Mary, not as a sinner, but as a mere human being - is hammered home all the more when we realize that, when he accuses her of a “lack of virtue,” the Greek word used here is “arete” - meaning, not moral virture, but excellence. In other words, Chrysostom is not accusing her of lacking moral virtue at all, but merely of operating at a human level, as any mother would toward her son, rather than (supposedly) being concerned with the Gospel. This mentality is also at play via his use of the word “vanity” - emptiness. …Meaning that Mary was (supposedly)concerned with unimportant things (as was Lazarus’ sister Martha in Luke 10:40-42 …but no one would suggest that Martha was “sinning”). Now, more difficult to explain away is Chrysostom’s comment: “…she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach.” Now, read on its own, this statement appears to imply that Mary did not realize that her Son was the Messiah, etc. Yet, if that’s really how we should read it, then Chrysostom is guilty of contradicting himself in the very same Homily address. For, he also writes:

... "For wondrous indeed was that Virgin, and Luke points out her excellency, saying, that when she heard the salutation, she did not straightway pour herself out, neither did she accept the saying, but "was troubled," seeking "what manner of salutation this might be." Now she who was of such perfect delicacy would even have been distracted with dismay at the thought of her shame, not expecting, by whatever she might say, to convince any one who should hear of it, but that what had happened was adultery. Therefore to prevent these things, the angel came before the conception. Besides that, it was meet that womb should be free from trouble which the Maker of all things entered; and the soul rid of all perturbation, which was thought worthy to become the minister of such mysteries. For these reasons He speaks to the Virgin before the conception, but to Joseph at the time of travail." (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew IV).

So, from the quote above, it is very clear that, no only did Chrysostom acknowledge and believe that Mary knew and understood that she was giving birth to the Messiah even prior to His conception, but Chrysostom also speak of her “excellency” (using that same Greek word for “excellence” or “virtue” --“arete”), and he also makes mention of her “perfect (note the word perfect) delicacy” --here, applied to a complete and total resistance to committing any sin whatsoever (e.g. ‘she wanted to make sure that the conception would not amount to adultery’).

Yet, as for what Chrysostom says about Mary “imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him,” … If we take Chrysostom in overall context (granting that he’s not contradicting himself), we can only assume that it refers to expecting something great from Jesus on that particular event. …Not that she lacked knowledge as to who He was, etc.

When Calvinists (since it usually is them) use St John to show Mary sinned they go too far.

The Immaculate Conception seems to have always been debated by the Church Fathers, partly from what I understand because of when Conception was understood. St Thomas from why New Advent says flip flopped on the teaching.

What was far less contested was Mary’s sinlessness, which was largely accepted cin.org/users/jgallegos/immac.htm

John Damascene in his homilies on the Assumption of the Virgin many times refers to her as being sinless, immaculate, all holy etc.

Here is one piece:

In the fulness of time, as the divine apostle says, the angel Gabriel was sent to this true child of God, and saluted her in the words, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.” Beautiful is the angel’s salutation to her who is greater than an angel. He is the bearer of joy to the whole world. She was troubled at his words, not being used to speak with men, for she had resolved to keep her virginity unsullied. She pondered in herself what this greeting might be. Then the angel said to her: “Fear not, Mary. Thou hast found grace before God.” In very deed, she who was worthy of grace had found it. She found [158] grace who had done the deeds of race, and had reaped its fulness. She found grace who brought forth the source of grace, and was a rich harvest of grace. She found an abyss of grace who kept undefiled her double virginity, her virginal soul no less spotless than her body; hence her perfect virginity. "–SERMON I: ON THE ASSUMPTION (koimhsiV)

In the same link you will also see where he says “serpent never entered that Paradise”.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/johndamascus-komesis.html#SERMON II

“O blessed loins of Joachim, whence the all-pure seed was poured out! O glorious womb of Anna, in which the most holy fetus grew and was formed, silently increasing! O womb in which was conceived the living heaven, wider than the wideness of the heavens…This heaven is clearly much more divine and awesome than the first. Indeed he who created the sun in the first heaven would himself be born of this second heaven, as the Sun of Justice…She is all beautiful, all near to God. For she, surpassing the cherubim, exalted beyond the seraphim, is placed near to God.” (Homily on the Nativity 2, 3, 9 PG 96:664,676)

From what I have read about St John Damascene, he did believe in the Immaculate Conception.

How the words “sanctified” and “purified” are used personally is confusing to me since the bible uses the word in different meanings, for instance the victim in the bible was “sanctified” Jesus at one point says He has been “sanctified”, the bible says God “sanctified” or "made holy " the Sabbath (Gen 2), then theres mention in Exodus 40 of sanctifying the Tabernacle and Altar etc.

 

[Nita]

Not dogmatically. But ever since the Fifth century, there have been Eastern Fathers who taught that Mary’s Immaculateness is intimately connected to Jesus’ Immaculateness.

For example, St. Gregory Palamas of the Eastern Church taught:
For this purpose, He had to assume a flesh that was both new and ours, that He might refashion us from out of ourselves. Now He finds a Handmaiden perfectly suited to these needs, the supplier of Her own unsullied nature, the Ever-Virgin now hymned by us, and Whose miraculous Entrance into the Temple, into the Holy of Holies, we now celebrate. God predestined Her before the ages for the salvation and reclaiming of our kind. She was chosen, not just from the crowd, but from the ranks of the chosen of all ages, renowned for piety and understanding, and for their God-pleasing words and deeds.

I personally do not believe in such a necessary connection. I just wanted to point out that it is indeed contained in the Tradition of the Eastern Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks Marduk.

The Church does teach also that Mary was free from concupiscence and personal sin, but as I understand it, that is not part of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

For those who are not aware, the Immaculate Conception dogma teaches that from the moment of her conception, Mary’s soul was filled with sanctifying grace. (When Catholics speak of being in the state of original sin, they are referring to the absence of sanctifying grace in the soul. We believe this grace is infused in our soul at Baptism.)

Since the human soul is directly created by God (not generated at all by human parents) it would seem fairly clear that the state of Jesus’ human soul would not be reliant in any necessary way on the state of Mary’s soul.

Nita