ST. THOMAS
AQUINAS
AND
THE IMMACULATE
CONCEPTION
THESIS:
Contrary to the claims of the
Modernists and liberals, St. Thomas Aquinas is not held universally to have
rejected the Immaculate Conception.
n fact, the principles of St. Thomas
Aquinas provided the basis for the definition of the dogma, when it finally
came in 1854. Often men dig deep, really deep, to find an excuse to not follow
the Angelic Doctor. One of the biggest excuses used and one that is
intellectually dishonest and has been hyped-up throughout the years is the
Angelic Doctor’s stance on the Immaculate Conception.
As Fr. Terence Quinn, O.P. so
adequately put it:
“It is usually about the time of his second year in High
School that the student’s belief in Papal Infallibility meets head on with the
celebrated Galileo episode. Not many years later, a newly acquired appreciation
of St. Thomas’ eminent position in Theology is put to a similar test with the
question “How about his denial of the Immaculate Conception?” Once a clear idea
of the true meaning of Papal Infallibility is had and Galileo’s difficulty with
the Inquisitors is put into its proper historical framework, the first problem
is easily settled. The
second one, however, is not dispelled so readily. Yet a consideration of these
same points, the exact meaning of the doctrine and its historical background,
will help to remove many of the false notions about the Angelic Doctor’s
teachings on the Immaculate Conception.”
There is a great benefit to looking at
the whole of St. Thomas’s career in order to try and discern a development in
the thought of the Angelic Doctor from his youth to his maturity. This
historical approach can yield great insight — for example, Fr. Reginald
Garrigou-Lagrange’s defense of St. Thomas’s belief in the Immaculate Conception
depends upon not only reading the Summa
Theologiæ, but also his Commentary on the Sentences, and other works, particularly St.
Thomas’ Academic Sermon on the Angelic
Salutation written towards the end of his theological career.
It is a fact that St. Thomas Aquinas
has magisterial authority in philosophy and theology as dictated by the
Ordinary Magisterium of the Church,
Canon Law,
and the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Studies.
According to the theologian Fr. Salaverri, St. Thomas Aquinas’ authority is
intrinsic, extrinsic, and canonical.
St. Thomas Aquinas holds a unique place among the Doctors of the Church.
He has become the official theologian of Christ’s Mystical Spouse, her
Universal Doctor. She has canonized his teaching, making it her own in all its
essential elements. And so
this would beg the question,
how can a Saint and Doctor
of the Church miss something so fundamental? And the short answer is the
Angelic Doctor did not miss anything. But the adversaries ignore St. Thomas’
magisterial authority and for the sake of argument and making our point stand
out all the more, we will not bring the magisterial authority of the Angelic
Doctor into consideration. The thesis stated above can be proved merely with
the teaching of theologians.
ADVERSARIES:
Adversaries to this thesis generally
include modernists, liberals, other heretics, academics who willfully remain ignorant
and obstinate, and those untrained in the theological sciences and history. The
former (modernists, liberals, and other heretics) need the Angelic Doctor to be
defamed in order to bolster their positions of error. In addition to those already
cited, there are other opponents to this thesis which include the Neo-Platonists,
theosophists, and Gnostics who also need to make St. Thomas Aquinas appear
lesser in the eyes of faithful Catholics and theologians. This section on the
adversaries does not include those men and women,
who have fallen victim to the decade’s long contribution of misinformation
against St. Thomas Aquinas on whether he denied the Immaculate Conception. The
two main errors that the modernists, liberals, Neo-Platonists, theosophists,
and Gnostics like to employ is:
1) Solely relying on the Summa Theologica instead of
taking into account the entire opera omnia or entire career “arc” of the
Angelic Doctor. This is an unfortunate tactic and one that is not given equally
to other theologians and Doctors of the Church. It defies common sense. And
2) They seek to make synonymous the words ‘uncommitted’ and
‘denied.’ It will be shown that the common opinion of theologians states that
St. Thomas Aquinas was either a) uncommitted to the doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception or b) that he embraced the doctrine at the end of
his theological career, which can be seen in his sermon on the Angelic
Salutation. The option of St. Thomas Aquinas denying the Immaculate
Conception does not even enter the debate amongst most theologians. The tactics of 1) using the word
‘denied’ instead of ‘uncommitted’ or 2) loosely interpreting the word
‘uncommitted’ to mean ‘denied,’ is very cunning and intellectually dishonest
and to a great extent has been unfortunately successful.
In refutation of the enemies of the
Angelic Doctor, we will see what Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, and other theologians
have to say in an attempt to show a common opinion amongst the theologians on
the matter, thereby, one day, designating this thesis ‘Probabilis.’
ARGUMENTUM I.
THE OPINION OF FR. REGINALD GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE, O.P.
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange teaches in his
Treatise, “Christ the Savior,” Ch. 40:
“It seems that we must distinguish
between three periods in the life of St. Thomas as to his teaching on this
subject.
In the first period, which was from
1253 to 1254, he affirmed the privilege, for he wrote: “Such was the purity of
the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was exempt from both original and actual sin.”
In the second period, St. Thomas sees
more clearly the difficulties of the problem, and, because some theologians
said that Mary had no need of redemption, the holy Doctor affirms that,
according to revelation,
Christ is the Redeemer of the human race, and that nobody is saved without him.
But giving no thought to preservative redemption, St. Thomas seems to deny the
privilege of the Immaculate Conception, saying: “It remains, therefore, that
the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation,”
St. Thomas fails to distinguish, as he often does in other questions, between
posteriority of nature, which is compatible with the privilege, and
posteriority of time, which is incompatible with it. He says: “The Blessed
Virgin did indeed, contract original sin,”
not sufficiently distinguishing between the debt of incurring original sin and
the fact of incurring it.
Concerning the question as to the
precise moment when the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb, St. Thomas
does not come to any conclusion. He only says: “This sanctification took place
immediately after her animation,”
and “it is not known when she was sanctified.”
It must be observed with Fathers del
Prado, O.P.,
Mandonnet, O.P., and
Hugon, O.P., that
the principles invoked by St. Thomas do not contradict the privilege and remain
intact if preservative redemption be admitted. But St. Thomas, at least in this
second period of his life as teacher, does not seem to have thought of this
most perfect mode of redemption. Moreover, it must be noticed that the feast of
the Conception of the Blessed Virgin was not as yet celebrated in Rome;
but what is not done in Rome, does not appear to be in conformity with
tradition.
In the last period of his life,
however, from 1272 until 1273, St. Thomas wrote a work that is certainly
authentic. In a
recent critical edition of this small work made by J.F. Rossi, CM, we read: “For
she [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure because she incurred the stain neither
of original sin nor of mortal sin nor of venial sin.”
If it be so, then St. Thomas at the end of his life, after mature reflection,
and in accordance with his devotion toward the Blessed Virgin, again affirmed
what he had said in the first period of his life.
We must note other passages indicative
of this happy return to his first opinion.
A similar change of opinion is often enough to be found in great theologians
concerning very difficult questions that belong to Mariology.
First something of the privilege is
affirmed in accordance with tradition and devotion; afterward difficulties
become more apparent which give rise to doubts, and finally upon more mature
reflection, enlightened by the gifts of the Holy Ghost, the theologian returns
to his first opinion, considering that God’s gifts are more fruitful than we
think and there must be good reasons for restricting their scope. But the
principles of St. Thomas, as we have observed, do not decide against the
privilege, they even lead to it, at the same time as the mind is acquiring an
explicit notion of preservative redemption. Thus St. Thomas probably at the end
of life reaffirmed the privilege of the Immaculate Conception. Father Mandonnet
and Father J. M. Voste
thought so.”
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange also teaches in “Reality:
A Synthesis in Thomistic Thought,” Ch. 37:
“Was St. Thomas in favor of granting to
Mary the privilege of the Immaculate Conception? Many theologians, including
Dominicans and
Jesuits, say
Yes. Many others say No.
We hold, as solidly probable, the position that St. Thomas hesitated on this
question. This view, already proposed by many Thomists, is defended by
Mandonnet, and by
N. del Prado, E. Hugon, G. Frietoff, and J. M. Voste.
This view we here briefly expound.
At the beginning of his theological
career
St. Thomas
explicitly affirms this privilege: The Blessed Virgin, he says, was immune,
both from original sin and from actual sin. But then he saw that many
theologians understood this privilege in a sense that withdrew the Virgin from
redemption by Christ, contrary to St. Paul’s
principle that, just as all men are condemned by the crime of one man (Adam):
so all men are justified by the just deed of one man (Christ, the second Adam):
and that therefore, just as there is but one God, so there is also only one
mediator, Christ, between God and men. Hence St. Thomas showed that Mary, too,
was redeemed by the merits of her Son, and this doctrine is now part and parcel
of the definition of the Immaculate Conception. But that Mary might be
redeemed, St. Thomas thought that she must have the debt of guilt,
incurred by her carnal descent from Adam. Hence, from this time on, he said
that Mary was not sanctified before her animation, leaving her body, conceived
in the ordinary way, to be the instrumental cause in transmitting the debitum
culpæ. We must note that, in his view,
conception, fecundation, precedes, by an interval of time, the moment of
animation, by which the person is constituted. The only exception he allowed
was for Christ, whose conception, virginal and miraculous, was simultaneous
with the moment of animation.
Hence, when we find St. Thomas
repeating that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in original sin, we know
that he is thinking of the conception of her body, which precedes in time her
animation.
At what exact moment, then, was Mary
sanctified in her mother’s womb? To this question he gives no precise answer,
except perhaps at the end of his life, when he seems to return to his original
view, to a positive affirmation of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Before this
last period, he declares
that we do not know the precise moment, but that it was soon after animation.
Hence he does not pronounce on the question whether the Virgin Mary was
sanctified at the very moment of her animation. St. Bonaventure had posed that question
and like many others had answered in the negative. St. Thomas preferred to
leave the question open and did not answer it.
To maintain his original position in
favor of the privilege, he might have introduced the distinction, familiar in
his works, between priority of nature and priority of time. He might thus have
explained his phrase “soon after” (cito post) to mean that the creation of
Mary’s soul preceded her sanctification only by a priority of nature. But, as
John of St. Thomas
remarks, he was impressed by the reserved attitude of the Roman Church, which
did not celebrate the feast of Mary’s Conception, by the silence of Scripture,
and by the negative position of a great number of theologians. Hence he would
not pronounce on this precise point. Such, in substance, is the interpretation
given by N. del Prado and P. Hugon.
The latter notes further the insistence of St. Thomas on the principle,
recognized in the bull Ineffabilis Deus, that Mary’s sanctification is
due to the future merits of her Son as Redeemer of the human race. But did this
redemption preserve her from original sin, or did it remit that sin? On this
question St. Thomas did not pronounce.
In opposition to this interpretation
two texts of the saint are often cited. In the Summa
he says: The Blessed Virgin did indeed incur original sin, but was cleansed
therefrom before she was born. Writing on the Sentences,
he says: The Virgin’s sanctification cannot properly be conceived either as
preceding the infusion of her soul, since she was not thus capable of receiving
grace, or as taking place at the very moment of the soul’s infusion, by a grace
simultaneously infused to preserve her from incurring original sin.
How do the theologians cited above
explain these texts? They
answer thus: If we recall the saint’s original position, and the peremptoriness
of the principle that Mary was redeemed by Christ, these two texts are to be
understood rather as a debitum culpæ originalis than the actual
incurring of the sin itself. Thus animation would precede sanctification by a
priority of nature only, not of time.
Here we must remark, with Merkelbach,
that these opportune distinctions were not yet formulated by St. Thomas. The
saint wrote “she incurred original sin,” and not “she should have incurred it,”
or “she would have incurred it, had she not been preserved.” Further, the saint
wrote: “We believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was sanctified soon after her
conception and the infusion of her soul.”
And he does not here distinguish priority of nature from priority of time.
But we must add, with Voste,
that St. Thomas, at the end of his life, seems to return to the original view,
which he had expressed as follows:
Mary was immune from all sin, original and actual. Thus, in December 1272, he
writes:
Neither in Christ nor in Mary was there any stain. Again, on the verse
which calls the sun God’s tent, he writes: Christ put His tent, i.e.: His body,
in the sun, i.e.: in the Blessed Virgin who was obscured by no sin and to whom
it is said: “Thou
art all beautiful, my friend, and in thee there is no stain.” In a third text
he writes: Not only from actual sin was Mary free, but she was by a special
privilege cleansed from original sin. This special privilege distinguishes her
from Jeremias and John the Baptist. A fourth text,
written in his last year of life,
has the following words: Mary excels the angels in purity, because she is not
only in herself pure, but begets purity in others. She was herself most pure,
because she incurred no sin, either original or actual, not even any venial
sin. And he adds that she incurred no penalty, and in particular, was immune
from corruption in the grave.
Now it is true that in that same
context, some lines earlier, the saint writes this sentence: The Blessed Virgin
though conceived in original sin, was not born in original sin. But, unless we
are willing to find in his supreme mind an open contradiction in one and the
same context, we must see in the word, “She was conceived in original sin,” not
original sin itself, which is in the soul, but the debt of original sin which
antecedently to animation was in her body conceived by the ordinary road of
generation.
We conclude with Father Voste:
“Approaching the end of his life here below, the Angelic Doctor gradually
returned to his first
affirmation: the Blessed Virgin was immune from all sin, original and actual.”
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange continues to defend
our thesis by explaining the ‘arc’ in a theologian’s career, and in this
instance, the career of St. Thomas Aquinas, from his book, “The Mother of the
Savior and Our Interior Life,” Preface:
“This book is intended to be an
exposition of the principal theses of Mariology in their bearing on our
interior life. While writing it I have noticed more than once how often it has
happened that a theologian admitted some prerogative of Our Lady in his earlier
years under the influence of piety and admiration of her dignity. A second
period then followed when the doctrinal difficulties came home to him
more forcefully, and he was much more reserved in his judgement. Finally there
was the third period, when, having had time to study the question
in its positive and speculative aspects, he returned to his first position, not
now because of his sentiment of piety and admiration, but because his more
profound understanding of Tradition and theology revealed to him that the
measure of the things of God — and in a special way those things of God which
affect Mary — is more overflowing than is commonly understood. If the
masterpieces of human art contain unsuspected treasures, the same must be said,
with even more reason, of God’s masterpieces in the orders of nature and grace,
especially when they bear an immediate relation to the Hypostatic Order, which
is constituted by the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word. I have
endeavoured to show how these three periods may be found exemplified in the
process of St Thomas’ teaching on the Immaculate Conception.
These periods bear a striking analogy
to three others in the affective order. It has often been noticed that a soul’s
first affective stage may be one of sense-perceptible devotion,
for example to the Sacred Heart or the Blessed Virgin. This is followed by a stage
of aridity. Then comes the final stage of perfect spiritual
devotion, overflowing on the sensibility. May the Good God help the
readers of this book who wish to learn of the greatness of the Mother of God
and men to understand in what this spiritual progress consists.”
To make this point by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange,
O.P. clear, I give his authoritative theological opinion below in detail (adapted
and based on the chart given by A. Aversa):
|
PHASE 1
CLEAR SUPPORT
OF IT
St. Thomas’ clearest support of the
Immaculate Conception is in his Commentary
(1252-1256) on Peter Lombard’s
Sentences (Super Sent., lib. 1 d. 44 q. 1 a. 3 ad 3):
“puritas intenditur per recessum a
contrario: et ideo potest aliquid creatum inveniri quo nihil purius esse
potest in rebus creatis, si nulla contagione peccati inquinatum sit; et talis
fuit puritas beatæ virginis, quæ a peccato originali et actuali immunis
fuit.”
Purity is increased by withdrawing
from its opposite: hence there can be a creature than whom no more pure is
possible in creation, if it be free from all contagion of sin: and such was
the purity of the Blessed Virgin who was immune from original and actual sin.
|
PHASE 2
GRAPPLING
WITH IT
Summa
Theologica III,
written in 1272-1273, contains the famous question
27 on the Sanctification of the Blessed Virgin, in which he seems
to deny the Immaculate Conception:
“On the contrary, 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. I answer that, 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 the Blessed Virgin to have been sanctified before her birth from the womb. Reply
to Objection 1. 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. Reply
to Objection 2. 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. Reply to Objection 3. 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. Reply to Objection 4. 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.
|
PHASE 3
RETURN TO HIS
ORIGINAL POSITION
EXPLANATION OF THE LORD’S PRAYER,
petition 5 (Lent 1273):
“...beatæ virgini, quæ fuit plena
gratiæ, in qua nullum peccatum fuit.”
...the Blessed Virgin, who was full
of grace, in whom there was no sin.
COMMENTARY ON PSALM 18 (1272-3):
“...beata virgine, quæ nullam habuit
obscuritatem peccati.”
...the Blessed Virgin, who had no
darkness of sin.
He preached, at Rome during Lent, his
Sermon ON THE ANGELIC SALUTATION (Lent 1273):
“Ipsa (Virgo) omne peccatum vitavit
magis quam alius sanctus, præter Christum. Peccatum enim aut est originale,
et de isto fuit mundata in utero; aut mortale aut veniale, et de istis libera
fuit. ... Sed Christus excellit beatam virginem in hoc quod sine originali
conceptus et natus est. Beata autem virgo in originali est concepta, sed non
nata.”
He says that the Blessed Virgin is
full of grace with respect to three things. First, with respect to soul,
which has every fullness of grace. For the grace of God is given for two
reasons, namely, in order to act well, and to avoid evil. And with respect to
these two the Blessed Virgin had most perfect grace. For more than any other
holy person save Christ alone she avoided all sin.
For sin is either original, and of
this she was cleansed in the womb;
or mortal or venial, and of these she was free. Hence the Canticle of
Canticles 4:7: “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in
thee.” Augustine in “On Nature and Grace” writes: “The holy virgin Mary
excepted, if all the holy men and women were here before us and were asked if
they were without sin, they would cry out with one voice: ‘If we should say
we have no sin, we would delude ourselves and the truth is not in us.’
|
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange concludes Article
II of his chapter on the Immaculate Conception from his book, “The Mother of
the Savior and Our Interior Life,” with the following section. A section which
defends the Angelic Doctor’s stance on the Immaculate Conception at the end of
his career:
“As certain commentators have
suggested, three periods may be distinguished in St. Thomas’s teaching.
In the first – that of 1253-1254, the
beginning of his theological career – he supports the privilege, probably
because of the liturgical tradition which favoured it, as well as because of
his pious admiration for the perfect holiness of the Mother of God. It is in
this period that he wrote (I Sent., d. 44, q. I, a. 3, ad 3): ‘Purity is
increased by withdrawing from its opposite: hence there can be a creature than
whom no more pure is possible in creation, if it be free from all contagion of
sin: and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin who was immune from Original
and actual sin.’ This text states therefore that Mary was so pure as to be
exempt from all Original and actual sin.
During the second period St. Thomas,
seeing better the difficulties in the question – for the theologians of his
time held that Mary was immaculate independently of Christ’s merits –
hesitated, and refused to commit himself. He, of course, held that all men
without exception are redeemed by one Saviour (Rom. 3: 23; 5: 12, 19; Gal. 3:
22; 2 Cor. 5: 14; 1 Tim. 2: 6). Hence we find him proposing the question thus
in IIIa, q. 27, a. 2: Was the Blessed Virgin sanctified in the conception of
her body before its animation? For, according to him and many other
theologians, the conception of the body was to be distinguished from the
animation, or creation of the soul. This latter [called today the consummated
passive conception] was thought to be about a month later in time than the
initial conception.
The holy doctor mentions certain arguments
at the beginning of the article which favour the Immaculate Conception – even
taking conception to be that which precedes animation. He then answers them as
follows: ‘There are two reasons why the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin
cannot have taken place before her animation: 1st – the
sanctification in question is cleansing from Original Sin…but the guilt of sin
can be removed only by grace [which has as object the soul itself]…2nd
– if the Blessed Virgin had been sanctified before animation she would have
have incurred the stain of Original Sin and would therefore never have stood in
need of redemption by Christ…But this may not be admitted, since Christ is Head
of all men (1 Tim. 2: 6).’
Even had he written after the
definition of 1854 St. Thomas could have said that Mary was not sanctified
before animation. However, he goes further than that here, for he adds at the
end of the article: ‘Hence it follows that the sanctification of the Blessed
Virgin took place after her animation.’ Nor does he distinguish, as he does in
many other contexts, between posteriority in nature and posteriority in time.
In the answer to the second objection he even states that the Blessed Virgin
‘contracted Original Sin.’
However, it must be recognized that the whole point of his argument is to show
that Mary incurred the debt of Original Sin since she descended from Adam by
way of natural generation. Unfortunately he did not distinguish sufficiently
the debt from actually incurring the stain.
Regarding the question of the exact
moment at which Mary was sanctified in the womb of her mother, St. Thomas does
not make any definite pronouncement. He states that it followed close on
animation – cito post are his words in Quodl. VI, a. 7. But he believes that
nothing more precise can be said: ‘the time of her sanctification is unknown’
(IIIa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 3).
St. Thomas does not consider in the
Summa if Mary was sanctified in the very instant of animation. St. Bonaventure
had put himself that question and had answered it in the negative. It is
possible that St. Thomas’s silence was inspired by the reserved attitude of the
Roman Church which, unlike so many other Churches, did not celebrate the Feast
of the Conception (cf. ibid., ad 3). This is the explanation proposed by Fr. N.
del Prado, O.P., in Santo Tomas y la lmmaculada, Vergara, 1909, by Fr.
Mandonnet, O.P., Dict. Theol. Cath., art. Freres Precheurs, col. 899, and by
Fr. Hugon, O.P., Tractatus Dogmatici, t. II, ed. 5, 1927, p. 749. For these
authors the thought of the holy doctor in this second period of his
professional career was that expressed long afterwards by Gregory XV in his
letters of July 4th, 1622: ‘Spiritus Sanctus nondum tanti mysterii
arcanum Ecclesiæ suæ patefecit.’
The texts we have considered so far do
not therefore imply any contradiction of the dogma of the Immaculate
Conception. They could even be retained if the idea of preservative redemption
were introduced. There is however one text which cannot be so easily explained
away. In III Sent., dist. III, q. 1, a. 1, ad 2am qm, we read: ‘Nor (did it
happen) even in the instant of infusion of the soul, namely, by grace being
then given her so as to preserve her from incurring the original fault. Christ
alone among men has the privilege of not needing redemption.’ Frs. del Prado
and Hugon explain this text as follows: The meaning of St. Thomas’s words may
be that the Blessed Virgin was not preserved from Original Sin in such a way as
not to incur its debt, as that would mean not to stand in need of redemption. However,
one could have expected to find in the text itself the explicit distinction
between the debt and the fact of incurring the stain.
In the final period of his career, when
writing the Exposito super salutatione angelica – which is certainly authentic
– in 1272 or 1273, St. Thomas expressed himself thus: ‘For she [the Blessed
Virgin] was most pure in the matter of fault (quantum ad culpam) and incurred
neither Original nor mental nor venial sin.’
ARGUMENTUM II.
THE OPINION OF OTHER THEOLOGIANS AND DIVERSE SOURCES.
Here is Fr. Terence Quinn, O.P., again,
who sums up the teaching of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and other prominent
theologians:
“Some say outright that he opposed what
in his day was not a defined dogma, but add that in the principles he laid down
he virtually admitted it. A few claim he expressly defended the doctrine.
Between these two extreme opinions there are those who say he was undecided;
and others who merely maintain it is impossible to prove that he opposed the
doctrine. A final thesis contends that he changed his position twice in the
course of his writings.
At this point we can safely say that
the student who at the start of our investigation was asked, “How about his
denial of the Immaculate Conception?” has a handsome piece of work before him
if he wants to give an adequate answer!
However, two of the above-mentioned
opinions have been set forth strongly in recent times and, though opposed, do
shed much light on the difficulty.
One is that of the late Fr. Norbert Del
Prado, O.P. In a lengthy and profound work he stoutly maintains St. Thomas
defended the doctrine in his very words and in the principles he laid down.
Fr. Peter Lumbreras, O.P., followed this opinion in a brief pamphlet of a much
lighter treatment.
The latter shows there are nine possible ways the term “Immaculate Conception”
may be employed. St. Thomas denies eight of these, all of which are out of
harmony with the subsequent definition of Pope Pius IX. The only one he does
not deny is the only one possible to reconcile with the definition.
In their opinion St. Thomas taught that
a personal sanctification by the merits of Christ is required; that Mary should
have all the purity possible to be granted by God; and that a priority of
nature within a single instant of time is sufficient to safeguard the doctrine.
They refrain from giving the noted
Franciscan, Scotus, the praise he customarily receives for his espousal of the
Immaculate Conception. Scotus did first popularize the important notion of a
preservative redemption, but these two Dominicans disparage this since his
conclusion to the appropriateness of the Immaculate Conception is based upon
faulty principles. That this is not a unanimous persuasion among Dominicans we
learn from another’s observation that, “Thomists should consider it a point of
honor to admit that their adversary was right in this matter.”
In those passages where it would seem
St. Thomas does expressly oppose the doctrine, they maintain that his
statements such as “she incurred original sin” and “incurred the infection”
mean only that she “incurred the debt.”
Such a brief presentation of their
position makes it sound arbitrary and high-handed, which is untrue. Del Prado’s
thesis, in particular, is logical and well-documented. The points upon which he
founds his position are acknowledged by another eminent theologian, Fr. Hugon;
though he is content to say “it has not been demonstrated ... that the Angelic
Doctor erred expressly,”
and doesn’t go so far as to indicate that he actually upheld the doctrine as
defined.
The other prominent opinion has Fr.
Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., as its leading spokesman.
He maintains that St. Thomas originally supported the privilege out of
admiration for the perfect holiness of Mary. Later, seeing the difficulties
better, he hesitated and appears to deny it. Theologians of his time who upheld
the doctrine said she was immaculate, independent of Christ’s merits. Thus
Aquinas’ temporary apparent denial flowed from his insistence that all
creatures, including the Blessed Virgin, had to be redeemed through Christ. In
his last years, however, he returned to his original opinion and wrote, “She
incurred neither original nor mortal nor venial sin.”
Both of these opinions, as indeed do
all on this subject, have difficulties which must be explained before they can
demand assent. Yet, even those least prone to accept such theories must admit
that if, according to their understanding of St. Thomas, he did deny this
privilege to Mary, it was not because he overlooked her dignity and holiness;
but simply because he deemed it derogatory to the universal mediatorship of
Christ that any creature should not be redeemed by Him. All must agree also,
that “he laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together,
and worked out through a longer course of thought, enabled other minds to
furnish the solution of this difficulty from his own premises.”
Since St. Thomas himself said, “We
ought to abide by the authority of the Church, more than that ... of any
doctor,” whatever was the true mind of the Angelic Doctor is now merely an
historical problem; for the Church has declared in infallible language that
Mary was indeed Immaculate.”
We also present a quotation from the Catholic
Encyclopedia which will stand as the basis for the rest of the opinions
given by subsequent theologians in this thesis:
“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. For this controversy see: Cornoldi, “Sententia S. Thomæ
etc.,” (2nd ed., Naples, 1870); Ronard de Card, “L’ordre des
Freres-precheurs et l’immaculee Conception” (Brussels, 1864), Pesch, “Præl.
dogm.” III (Freiburg, 1895), 170; Heinrich-Gutberlet, “Dogmat. Theol.,” VII
(Mainz, 1896), 436; Tobbe, “Die Stellung des hl. Thomas zu der unbefl.
Empfangnis” (Munster, 1892); C. M. Schneider, “Die unbefl. Empfangnis
und die Erbsunde” (Ratisbon, 1892); Pohle, “Lehrbuch d. Dogmatik,”
II (Paderborn, 1903), 254. 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
Theol.,” III, Q. xxvii, a. 2, ad Sum). 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.”
Here is another son of St. Dominic, Fr.
Lumbreras, O.P., who was cited previously in this thesis by Fr. Terence Quinn.
Fr. Lumbreras explains another salient point, which was mentioned at the
beginning of this thesis, that St. Thomas Aquinas provided the basis for the
definition of the dogma, when it finally came in 1854:
“There are nine different ways in which
one can understand the term “immaculate conception.” St. Thomas denied the
first eight of these meanings, and concerning the ninth one he did not speak at
all. It was, however, the immaculate conception in the ninth sense that was
defined as dogma by Pius IX. In other words, Aquinas only denied all erroneous
definitions of “immaculate conception” and simply never considered as a
possibility the one that was eventually proclaimed a dogma.”
Fr. Lumbreras enumerates nine different
ways someone can be immaculately conceived. He shows St. Thomas denied the
first eight possibilities and Ineffabilis Deus of Pope Bl. Pius IX affirmed
the ninth and last way. He argues that St. Thomas’ work on the Immaculate
Conception led directly to the formulation of the dogma in Ineffabilis Deus.
He also shows in his treatise that St. Thomas (not Scotus) was responsible for
the distinction between priority in nature vs. priority in time.
Fr. Lumbreras’s article provoked a Franciscan (Fr. Hugolinus Storff, O.F.M.) to
write a whole book in response. A. Aversa says Fr. Storff’s “book is a fairly
rambling, redundant attempt at refuting” Fr. Lumbreras and his points. A.
Aversa continues:
“Yes, Fr. Storff, O.F.M., argues that
St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, and the majority of theologians at the time
“denied” the Immaculate Conception. I wouldn’t go so far as to say they denied
it,
but would argue more like Fr. Lumbreras, O.P., that there are several ways in
which there can be an “immaculate conception” and that St. Thomas did not deny
the sense of “immaculate conception” of Ineffabilis Deus.”
Another son of St. Dominic, Fr. Placid
Conway, O.P. contributes to the common opinion of theologians and gives an
extraordinary rendering of St. Thomas Aquinas in his book, “Saint Thomas
Aquinas, of the Order of Preachers.” We give here the segment pertaining to
the matter at hand:
“His devotion to the Blessed Virgin
Mary was tender and deep, as evinced by his writings, and by this prayer: ...
A complete Mariology has been compiled
from his works, drawing out Mary’s singular graces. [The work of Rev. Dr.
Morgott, Ratisbon.] He upheld the privilege of her exemption from original sin.
It is an old-established saying, that, “with St. Thomas a man can never be
wrong, nor can he be right without him.” That he upheld Mary’s sinless
conception can be established from extrinsic and intrinsic
evidences. It is the verdict of his weightiest exponents, such as Capponi de
Porrecta, Joannes a Sancto Thoma, Natalis Alexander, John Bromeyard of
Oxford, and many more. At the Council of Basle, John of Segobia upheld
the Immaculate Conception from St. Thomas’s writings. Theologians of
first rank have held the same view, such as Vega, Eichof, Nieremberg, Sylveira,
Thyrsus Gonzalez, Stefano Chiesa, Plazza, Spada, Cornoldi, Cardinal Sfondrato,
Cardinal Lambruschini, etc.
If we open his writings we have the
intrinsic evidences of various passages. In his “Opusculum,” LXI, de Dilectione
Dei, et Proximi, we meet this passage: “For the more complete manifestation
of His power, the Creator made a mirror which is brightest of the most bright,
more polished and more pure than the Seraphim, and of such great purity that
there can not be imagined one more pure, except it were God: and this mirror is
the person of the most glorious Virgin.”
In his “Commentary on the First Book of
the “Sentences,”” he twice makes use of this sentence: “The Blessed Virgin
Mary shone with a purity greater than which under God cannot be comprehended.”
(Dist. XVII, Quest. II, art. 4, 3m). Here is his proof: “Increase of purity
is to be measured according to withdrawal from its opposite, and since in the
Blessed Virgin there was ‘depuratia’ from all sin, she consequently attained
the summit of purity; but yet under God, in Whom there is no capability of
defect as is in every creature of itself.” And again he writes in Dist.
XLIV, Quest. I, art 3 “Purity is increased by withdrawal from its opposite,
and consequently some created being can be found purer than which nothing can
be found in creatures, if never sullied by defilement of sin, and such was the
purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was exempt from original and actual sin.”
Some think that the expression “depuration” argues cleansing from stain;
but such was not the meaning which St. Thomas attached to the word. The Holy
Fathers frequently use this word with regard to God Himself. St. Augustine,
Peter Lombard, Fulgentius, Ferrandus, Hugh of St. Victor, also use it of God,
while a whole host of writers employ it when speaking of Christ: St. Thomas
uses it twice in his treatise on the Incarnation, and Dionysius makes use of it
with regard to the heavenly Hierarchies. So then, “depuratio ab omni peccato”
does not mean “cleansing from all sin,” but “exemption from all sin.”
The Angelic Doctor knew the scientific value of the term used, and his critics
do not. The expression used above “immunis a peccato” is the one
employed by Pope Pius IX in proclaiming the dogma.
There is no need to expatiate on the
fact that St. Thomas was a consummate logician, and consequently not likely to
teach in one part of his writings the contrary to what he lays down in another.
In the First Part of the “Summa Theologica,” Question XXV, art. 6, ad. 4, he
writes: “The Blessed Virgin, in that she is the Mother of God, has a kind of
infinite dignity from the Infinite Good, which is God, and on this account
nothing better than her can be made, just as there ~is nothing better than God.”
Again in the Third Part, Question XXVII, art. 3, he says: “The closer a
thing approaches to its principle in any order, the more it partakes of the
effect of such principle. Hence Dionysius states in the fourth chapter of the ‘Heavenly
Hierarchies,’ that ‘the angels being nearer to God, share more fully of the
Divine perfections than men do.’ But Christ is the principle of grace
authoritatively according to His Divinity and instrumentally in His humanity,
as St. John declares in the first chapter (of the Gospel). ‘Grace and truth are
made through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ But the Blessed Virgin was closest to
Christ in His humanity, since He drew His human nature from her, and therefore
she ought beyond all others to receive the fullness of grace from Christ.”
From these two passages we gather St.
Thomas’s teaching as to Mary’s prerogatives. 1. She possessed an almost
infinite dignity from her closeness to God, in this surpassing the angels. 2.
She ought, that is, she had the right, to receive the fullness of Divine grace
beyond all other creatures. Since then it is the work of grace to purify the
soul by imparting to it the Divine beauty, it follows necessarily that grace
wrought absolute sinlessness in her soul, and created boundless holiness. In
this dual capacity of closest union with God, and being the appointed
instrument of Christ’s humanity, she surpassed the angels, who never knew sin:
she had a kind of infinitude in merit which none of them ever could have. How
then can such teaching of St. Thomas be reconciled with the idea that Mary had
ever been sullied for an instant with original sin? Let the theory be once
admitted that Mary had been so defiled, then his two principles given above
fall to the ground; admit his principles, and the Immaculate Conception is the
logical result. The holy Doctor was well aware of the grace bestowed on those
pre-eminent saints, Jeremiah and John the Baptist, yet he does not hesitate to
place Mary incomparably beyond them, and attributes their sanctification to her
as well as to her son. She must then, logically speaking, have received a
greater grace than cleansing after conception.
In his exposition of the “Hail Mary” he
distinctly declares the doctrine. “Thirdly, she exceeds even the angels in
purity: because the Blessed Virgin was not only pure in herself, but even
procured purity for others. She was most clean from fault, because she incurred
neither original, nor mortal, nor venial sin.”
In his “Commentary on the Epistle to
Galatians,” III, lect. VI, the original text runs thus: “Of all women I have
found none who was altogether exempt from sin, at least from original sin, or
venial, except the most pure, and most worthy of all praise, the Virgin Mary.”
Again in his “Commentary on the Epistle
to Romans:” “All men have sinned in Adam, excepting only the most Blessed
Virgin, who contracted no stain of Original Sin.”
Such are the readings of the first MS.
Codices and early printed versions. In a marginal note written by St. Vincent
Ferrer in his copy of the “Summa,” Part III, Question XXVII, art. 2, ad. 2m,
are these words: “The Blessed Virgin was exempt from original and actual sin.”
It was these original texts of early manuscript Codices which early defenders
of the Immaculate Conception quoted for their opinion, such as St. Leonard of
Port Maurice, Bernardine de Bustis, B. Peter Canisius, Cardinal Sfondrato, Salmeron,
and many more. Weighty theologians such as Velasquez, Peter of Alva, Eusebius
Nieremberg, Frassen, Lambruschini, Gual, and Palmieri, following the critical
method of Hermeneutics, have held and shown that many passages of St. Thomas
have been changed or interpolated. Let it suffice to adduce three apologetic
writers who denounce such practices, and vindicate the purity of his text.
Bishop Vialmo, a Friar Preacher: “Pro defensione Sancti Thomæ;” Egidius
Romanus, a disciple of St. Thomas “Castigatorium: in corruptorem librorum S.
Thomae Aquinatis;” Cardinal Sfondrato: “Innocentia Vindicata;”
besides seven more apologists.” (Emphasis and bold added by the author of
the paper).
I would also like to add to the common
opinion of theologians one of the most eminent theologians from the 17th
century and beyond – John of St. Thomas. The Encyclopedia of Christian
Theology, by Jean-Yves Lacoste, in agreement with Fr. Placid Conway, O.P., says
that John of St. Thomas, “asserted that Aquinas had not rejected the notion of
the Immaculate Conception.”
Further proof that it is not assumed by
theologians that St. Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception, is found
in the following survey of the opinions of theologians on this question, from
Volume VI, “Mariology,” of Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology Manual (12
volumes) Herder 1953, page 67:
5. The
Teaching of St. Thomas.
Theologians are divided in their
opinion as to what was the mind of St. Thomas in regard to the Immaculate
Conception. Some frankly
admit that he opposed what in his day was not yet a defined dogma, but insist
that he virtually admitted what he formally denied. Others
claim that the Angelic Doctor expressly defended the Immaculate Conception and
that the (about fifteen) adverse passages quoted from his writings must be
regarded as later interpolations. Between these extremes stand two other groups
of theologians, one of which
holds that St. Thomas was undecided in his attitude towards the Immaculate
Conception, while the other
merely maintains the impossibility of proving that he opposed the doctrine.
a) In order to arrive at a just and impartial idea of St.
Thomas’ position we shall have to study his teaching in connection with what
may be called its theological environment. Influenced by the attitude of St.
Bernard, who was otherwise an ardent devotee of the Blessed Virgin, all the
predecessors and contemporaries of the Angelic Doctor — with the exception
perhaps of his fellow Dominican Vincent of Beauvais (d. 1264) — opposed the
Immaculate Conception. Of St. Anselm of Canterbury, the “Father of
Scholasticism,” it has been truly said that, like Aquinas, he virtually
asserted the Immaculate Conception in his premises and denied it formally in
his conclusions. It is
to Anselm that Scholasticism owes the oft-quoted Mariological principle: “It
was meet that the Blessed Virgin should shine in a splendor of purity than
which none greater can be conceived under God, that virgin to whom God the
Father had determined to give His Son, whom He had begotten as His equal, and
whom He loved like Himself, — and He gave Him in such wise that He would be the
Son of both God the Father and the Virgin.”
Peter Lombard (d. 1164) taught that “the
Blessed Virgin bore the taint of original sin, but was entirely cleansed before
she conceived Christ.”
This was the common teaching in the Franciscan Order. No wonder that the most
eminent theologians of that Order, up to the time of Duns Scotus (d. 1308),
battled side by side with the Dominicans.
Not to mention Alexander of Hales (d. 1245), St. Bonaventure, who was one of
the greatest lights among the Minorites, while admitting that the doctrine of
the Immaculate Conception might be defended as probable on the strength of
certain considerations of fitness,
openly espoused the opposite view.
b) Placed in a theological environment in which the true
solution of the problem was not yet attainable, St. Thomas, in common with the
most eminent and saintly doctors of his time, had a perfect right to defend a
thesis which was by no means regarded as scandalous but open to discussion. The
dogma of the Immaculate Conception was still in process of clarification. The
Angelic Doctor nowhere expressly teaches the Immaculate Conception of the
Blessed Virgin Mary in the sense in which it has since been defined as an
article of faith. True, he says with St. Anselm : “Purity is constituted by a
recession from impurity, and therefore it is possible to find some creature
purer than all the rest, namely one not contaminated by any taint of sin; such
was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual
sin, yet under God, inasmuch as there was in her the potentiality of sin.”
But the “immunity from original sin” which St. Thomas ascribes to our Lady is
not synonymous with “immaculate conception,” as can be seen from the third part
of the famous Summa Theologica, qu. 27, art. 2, ad 2. Consequently, it is not
fair to charge the Angelic Doctor with inconsistency because in numerous other
passages, where he treats the question ex professo, he denies the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. He did not hold that God could not
create a perfectly spotless creature, — his objections are mainly based on the
privileged character of the Redeemer and the absolute necessity of redemption
for all human beings without exception. The following passage from the Summa
Theologica shows that its author consistently adhered to his standpoint up
to the time of his death. "If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never
been defiled by original sin, this would derogate from the dignity of Christ as
the Redeemer of all mankind. It may be said, therefore, that under Christ, who as
the universal Saviour needed not to be saved Himself, the Blessed Virgin
enjoyed the highest measure of purity. For Christ in no wise contracted
original sin, but was holy in His very conception... The Blessed Virgin,
however, did contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her
birth.”
This is the uniform teaching of Aquinas
in all his writings, viz.: that the birth of our Lady was holy and
immaculate, but not her conception.
Frs. Pohle and Preuss were not aware of
the scholarship of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, and Fr. Garrigou’s teaching on the
career arc of a theologian and how is that applies to St. Thomas and the
Immaculate Conception. But it is plain to see, as John Lane relates, in regards
to this article in Frs. Pohle and Preuss’ ‘Mariology’ Manual:
“Pohle gives examples of each type of
theologian – about four or five names for each group. So, we see from this that
the ‘worst case’ we can assert is that St. Thomas proved the Immaculate
Conception with his principles, and yet failed to clearly formulate the
conclusion, which of course later theologians did. Indeed the definition of
1854 was based entirely on his principles.”
Any layman then, who says blankly that “St.
Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception,” is not only rash, but demonstrates
his ignorance of the opinions of theologians, the majority of whom cannot
assert this but indeed at a minimum say that he was uncommitted.
Again, as stated above, “a similar
change of opinion is often enough to be found in great theologians concerning
very difficult questions that belong to Mariology. First something of the
privilege is affirmed in accordance with tradition and devotion; afterward
difficulties become more apparent which give rise to doubts, and finally upon
more mature reflection, enlightened by the gifts of the Holy Ghost, the
theologian returns to his first opinion, considering that God’s gifts are more
fruitful than we think and there must be good reasons for restricting their
scope. But the principles of St. Thomas, as we have observed, do not decide
against the privilege, they even lead to it, at the same time as the mind is
acquiring an explicit notion of preservative redemption.”
Like the theologians Frs. Pohle and
Preuss, the great American theologian Fr. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R. also
commits to the same line of thought in his article on the “Historical
Development of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception:”
“Similarly, if the words of St. Thomas
Aquinas (1225-74) be taken at their face value, he was an opponent of the
doctrine of Mary’s sinless conception, although there have been capable
scholars who believed that the Angelic Doctor in reality held the doctrine. At
any rate, if St. Thomas denied this privilege to Our Lady, it was not through
any failure on his part to recognize the dignity and the holiness of the Mother
of God; it was simply because he deemed it derogatory to the universal
mediatorship of Christ that any mere creature should not be redeemed by Him
from the stain of original sin, actually contracted.
Here we see Fr. Connell solely relying
on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas instead of taking into
consideration the entire opera omnia of the Angelic Doctor within his
career arc as a theologian.
And finally, we have from the
theologian, Fr. J.A. de Aldama, S.J., a solid consensus of modern scholars and theologians
on the matter at hand being much debated:
“There is much debate about the true
doctrine of St. Thomas. See Alastruey, 1, 232-240; N. del Prado, Santa Tomas
y la Inmaculada Conception (Barcelona 1909); Id., Divus Thomas et Bulla
dogmatica “Ineffabilis Deus” (Friurg 1919); P. Lumbreras, Saint Thomas
and the Immaculate Conception (Indiana 1924); P. Renaudin, La Pensee de
Saint Thomas sur l’Immaculee Conception (Avignon 1926); Michel Ange, O.F.M.
Cap., Saint Thomas et l’Immaculee Conception Or 11 (1927) 300-307; S.
Schmutz, War der hl. Thomas Gegner der unbeflecten Empfangnis:
BenedMschr 2 (1929) 523-527. More recently, Friethoff, Quomodo caro B.M.
Virginis in originali concepta fuerit: Ang 10 (1933) 321-324. A historical
solution according to which St. Thomas at the beginning and at the end admitted
the Immaculate Conception, by P. Mandonnet (BullThom 1933, 164-167) proposed
and later opposed by P. Voste (De mysteriis vitæ Christi2 13-20),
and now defended by P. Garrigou-Lagrange, La Madre del Salvador 53-58,
having supposed the critical edition of the minor work made by J.F. Rossi, S.
Thomæ Aquinatis exposition salutationis angelicæ Div Thom (Pi) 34 (1931)
445-479; however on this see J. de Blic, Saint Thomas et l’Immaculee
Conception: RevApol 56 (1933) 25-36. On this solution see Roschini in
Marian 3 (19412) 81-83, and G. de Rosa, Importante problema di esegesi
tomistica nella soluzione di due studios contemporanei: Marian 10 (1948)
133-159. See moreover S. Euzipi, Il pensiero di Tommaso de’Aquino reguardo
al dogma dell Immacolata Concezione (Rome 1941), who holds that St. Thomas
de facto taught nothing either for the Marian privilege or against it. On this
book, see Roschini in Marian 3 (1941) 294-297, and the response of the author
in Marian 4 (1942) 62-70. For this whole controversy see also C. Gutierrez,
O.P., Immaculata Conceptio et Angelicus Doctor: DivThom (Pi) 57 (1954)
181-219; G. Fr. Rossi, A proposito de testi di San Tommasso relative all
dottrina “De B.M. Virginis Coneptione:” ibid., 280-285: Quid senserit
Angelicus Doctor S. Thomas de Immaculata Virginis conceptione: ibid.
333-392; L’autenticita dei testi di San Tommasso d’Aquino: “B. Virgo
a peccato originali et actuali immunis fuit,” “B. Virgo nex originale…peccatum
incurrit,” respectivamente degli anni 1254 e 1273; ibid., 442-466; M.
Cuervo, Por que Santo Tomas no afirmo la Inmaculada: Virgo Immaculata 6,
11-68, or Salm 1 (1954) 622-674; R. Verardo, De concupiscentia in
transmissione peccati originalis iuxta S. Thomam, ac de eius doctrinæ memento
relate ad progressum dogmatis Immaculatæ Conceptionis B. Mariæ V.: Virgo
Immaculata 6, 69-107.
Based on the opinion of the eminent
theologian – Fr. J.A. Aldama, S.J., one can hardly call a theory, a theory which
is “much debated,” as conclusive proof that the Angelic Doctor denied the
Immaculate Conception. The argument against those who accuse the Angelic Doctor
of flatly denying the Immaculate Conception, instead of merely stating he was
uncommitted or assented to it at the end of his career, are maintaining a
position which is intellectually dishonest and disrespectful towards the
Angelic Doctor and the position of this thesis becomes more favorable.
CONCLUSION.
Therefore, the position that St. Thomas
denied the Immaculate Conception, is not only poorly developed, but is
untenable because the majority of theologians did not assert this at all, but at
a minimum, say that the Angelic Doctor was uncommitted. The original enemies of
St. Thomas have been so successful in spreading the accusation that St. Thomas
Aquinas outright denied the Immaculate Conception that today so many faithful
Catholics, philosophers, and theologians adhere to this untenable notion
without realizing where it comes from, and that the theologians had a definite
opinion on the matter. And so, the words of Pope Pius XI ring true today as
they did in 1923:
“It is...clear why Modernists are so
amply justified in fearing no Doctor of the Church so much as Thomas Aquinas.””
“The lengths to which the enemies of
St. Thomas are prepared to go, in vain, in an attempt to undermine his
authority are but genuine proofs of the fact mentioned by Pope Pius XI.”
Moreover, the one-sided view that it
was the Franciscans contra mundum in regards to the defense of the
Immaculate Conception also contributes to St. Thomas’ unfair, nay, slanderous
treatment. Yes, the Franciscans played a major role and have a deserved and
prestigious history in the development of the Immaculate Conception eventually
being pronounced a dogma by Pope Pius IX. But the Dominicans were also present
at all the theological sessions preparing the declaration of the dogma and
contributing marvelous theological insights during the sessions. And in
history, it was not only the Franciscans upholding the doctrine of Immaculate
Conception in days past. Spain’s royalty and peoples called for the
proclamation of the dogma. The Dominican Inquisitors & Confessors of the
Spanish Court did not prohibit the Spanish Royals from taking oaths in
defending the Immaculate Conception at all costs, and at the Council of Trent twenty-five
Dominican Bishops called for the Council to proclaim the doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception a dogma. True, “many theologians of the Thomistic School,
especially before the Council of Trent, opposed the doctrine of Mary’s
Immaculate Conception, claiming that in this they were following
St. Thomas. This, however, has not been the opinion either of the entire school
or of the Dominican Order as a body. Father Rouard de Card, in his book “L’ordre
des freres precheurs et l’Immaculée Conception” (Brussels, 1864), called
attention to the fact that ten-thousand professors of the order defended Mary’s
great privilege.”
In the same book, Father Rouard heavily cites how the number of Dominican
theologians defending the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady far outnumbered the
Dominican theologians who attacked it.
We also have the anecdote from the
theologian Fr. de Aldama, that in the 17th century “from the Order
of Preachers at this time one must cite as being for the privilege Catarinus,
Campanella, Gulielmus Pepin, St. Louis Bertran Vincent I. Antist and eight
Spanish Dominicans who, in the year 1618, petitioned the Holy Father to command
the Fathers of their Order to preach publicly in favor of the Immaculate
Conception and to recite her office of the day.”
In conclusion, it is important to keep
in mind that a theologian has a progression during his career and it is
important to not misapply certain periods of their thought to what they held at
the end. Also, one cannot draw an adequate and complete conclusion of 1)
an argument which was still being debated by competent and eminent theologians
before the time of the IInd Vatican Council, 2) an argument
debated amongst them which seems to have been going in the direction of being
in favor of the Angelic Doctor adhering to the Immaculate Conception at the end
of his theological career. One would then be contributing to the misinformation
if one chooses to maintain a view in which flat-out denial of the Immaculate
Conception is the same as being either (a) uncommitted to it when
it was still up for debate amongst the Schools
or (b) was assented to at the end of the Angelic Doctor’s theological
career.
So, refrain from unknowingly enabling the enemies of St. Thomas Aquinas. The
fact that St. Thomas Aquinas has magisterial authority in philosophy and
theology, an authority which is extrinsic, intrinsic, and canonical, will not
be diminished by these enemies of this
glorious Saint, who is a Doctor five times over,
because of their attempts to denigrate him. Especially over an issue amongst
theologians which is still debated, while leaning in the Angelic Doctor’s
favor, and which requires accuracy, adequate training in matters theological
and historical, as well as a desire for truth.
