Another point sometimes raised in objection to the Immaculate Conception is the question of why medieval Catholics like Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux did not preach it. The basic answer, as I discovered, is, “Because even Michael Jordan misses layups.” People like Bernard and Thomas were still hashing out the question, “How do we reconcile Mary’s sinlessness with original sin?” And they overlooked a few things in the process. It happens when people do pioneering works of discovery.
Evangelicals may be surprised to learn Sts. Thomas and Bernard believed Mary never sinned. How can they believe that, and yet not believe in an Immaculate Conception? Easy. The problem for Thomas and Bernard, as for virtually all Christians until well into the sixteenth century, was never, “Did Mary sin?” Both men, like all their contemporaries, answered that question with a firm negative. Thomas, for instance, writes:
I answer that, God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 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 (Lk. 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 Prov. 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 Cor. 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 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): “Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.”
We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Song of Songs 4:7) is fulfilled: “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee,” etc.( Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III:27:4)
The only puzzle for Thomas and others who pondered the matter was how—not whether—Mary was sinless. So we find Bernard of Clairvaux is also cold comfort for Evangelicals, since from an Evangelical perspective, Bernard’s issue is a minor quibble:
If Mary could not be sanctified before her conception itself, on account of the sin (concupiscence) involved therein, it follows she was sanctified in the womb after conception, which, since she was cleansed from sin, made her birth holy and not her conception.(Bernard of Clairvaux, Letter to the Canons of Lyons, 5, 7)
Bernard, like Thomas and the apostolic Tradition of the East and West, takes it for granted that Mary was born sinless and remained that way forever. The only issue for him, as for Thomas, is how she got that way. Of which more next time.
Comments
Post a Comment
Looking forward to “more next time” on this subject!
MARY was given a choice to accept a sinless life which she accepted. ADAM &EVE; had a smilar choice but they chose to deny God omipotence and sought knowledge and power to be free of restraint and live a life of their choosing
I am reminded of an old saying. When to non-catholic bishops disagree they are supposed to ask a theologian. When two catholic theologians disagree they are supposed to ask a bishop. As great as Thomas was he would have submitted to the decision by the Bishop of Rome. The same with the Bishop Bernard. Just because a great saint had trouble with a teaching or did not understand it at the time means nothing. This includes any argument by non-Catholics about Jerome and the cannon of the Bible or any of the saints that believed in millennium eschatology. I believe some author I read one time titled a book called By what Authority. It is by the teaching authority handed down through the office of bishop.
St. Thomas never denied the privilege of the Immaculate Conception as it was articulated by Pope Pius IX. During Thomas’ day there were no less than eight versions of the Immaculate Conception, all of which were indeed heretical, and he did deny these. Pope Pius IX posited the privilege in the person of Our Lady, at the moment of animation (the infusion of the rational soul).
The question concerns the distinction between “active conception” and “passive conception.” The former occurs when the egg is fertilized. In Thomas’ anthropology that reality was not the subject for the infusion of a rational soul. (The soul is the form of the body, so whatever exists at active conception the person per se does not.) Passive conception is the moment of infusion of a rational soul. The privilege of the Immaculate Conception must be posited in the person of the Blessed Virgin, i.e., at the moment of passive conception since it is only at that moment that the person per se exists. Thomas never denied this, though he did deny the privilege as occurring at active conception.
Another key distinction is the “priority of time” and the “priority of nature.” Something can occur and appear to be simultaneous with another event (priority of time) and yet, in the order of nature, there is a metaphysical dependence of one thing upon another. For example, a darkened room is illuminated as the shade is lifted and allows light to fill the room. In the order of time, the two events of raising the shade and filling the room with light are simultaneous. In the order of nature, however, the filling of the room with light is dependent upon and subsequent to the raising of the shade.
Apply this to Our Lady’s sanctification. In the order of nature, Our Lady’s sanctification follows upon her animation (passive conception), for only a person may be sanctified. In the order of time, however, the two events are simultaneous, as defined by Pius IX. In those passages from Thomas that appear to be a denial of the privilege they are either denying the privilege before passive conception (and therefore before the person per se exists) or they are a denial of sanctification in the order of nature. He never denied the privilege of the Immaculate Conception in the order of time or in the moment of passive conception.
If I am not mistaken, Aquinas supported the idea that Mary’s “fullness of grace” is what initially “fettered” concupiscence in Mary (which Aquinas believed was initially present in Mary’s nature) from the first moment of her existence until the time of the Incarnation. And, with the Incarnation, the wound of concupiscence was entirely healed because “that entire freedom from the fomes redounded from the Child to the Mother.”
Very interesting stuff… (see Summa, Part III, Question 27, Article 3)
God bless,
Deacon JR
The early argument was never over whether Mary committed actual sin. It was always over whether or not she was conceived with our without original sin. Blessed Jon Duns Scotus solved this issue in a brilliant theologic treatise which underpinned the eventual generation of the dogma of the immaculate conception. Scholars could not get their heads around the fact that Christ should be necessary for the salvation of all souls, but how could that be if Our Lady was not tainted by sin. Simply put, the argument was that Mary was PRESERVED from Original Sin through the virtues of Christ’s redemption, she was therefore never tainted by sin, original or otherwise, but Christ’s intervention was necessary for the preservative act. In simple terms, we would probably appreciate being prevented from falling in a puddle than by having to fall in it and then get pulled out and then getting washed clean afterwards!
Hello Mark,
Thanks for sharing your blogs. I was wondering what you think of Chrysostom’s position on the topic. I have not read all of his works, however I love his commentary on Romans and Hebrews has its perks so far. I remember reading how he thought Mary suffered from venial sins, things like vanity or something of the like. You have probably remember this being brought up before, so I wondered your take.
Plus, on the Aquinas issue, could it be possible that Aquinas got it right and assumed that she did in fact receive a sin nature just like all the rest of humanity, and Scotus in fact got in wrong? Perhaps (as in my view) the two really are irreconcilable (at list in this stage of my journey).
Isaac Fleming,
www.isaacfleming.com
Isaac:
A couple of Father speculate that Mary sinned through doubt. What is remarkable is how the rest of the Church simply ignores their speculation. And, of course, individual Father are not infallible. We look to them when they express a consensus because that gives us a mighty strong picture of the mind of the early Church. We approach them more cautiously when they are doing speculative theology that departs from the consensus.
The idea of a “sin nature” is not Catholic but Calvinist. Sin does not constitute our nature but is the thing that deforms and destroys it. Talking about a nature made of sin is like talking about a donut made of the hole. As to the question of who got it right, the Church is who makes that call and it eventually concluded that Duns Scotus got it right. Since the Church is pillar and bulwark of the truth, when it defines a matter, we are promised that the Holy Spirit will not let her define error as truth.
Thanks Mark for the answer,
On the nature thing, I should have chosen a different word, I agree that the image of God was not totally erased.
Second, Thanks your point on the consensus of the fathers as well. I thoroughly enjoy their work.
Isaac
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.