Immaculate Conception St. Bernard and Thomas Aquinas

[OpenDoor]

Does the RCC recognize that St. Bernard and Thomas Aquinas denied the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?

Mary's Immaculate Conception

 

[QuantaCura]

St. Bernard opposed the feast of the Immaculate Conception because he believed she was sanctified immediately after the moment of conception. His problem with her being sanctified a split second earlier at the actual moment of conception, is that he saw the transmission of original sin as linked to the necessity that, because of concupiscence, some at least venial sin of lust was committed during sexual intercouse (St. Jerome, for example, held a similar opinion regarding intercourse). For him, the act of conception itself was tainted. Because of this, he saw the feast of the Immaculate Conception as implying that Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit, like Christ, rather than through the normal means. [cf. Epistle 174] That's why he opposed it. His premise was wrong, which is why his conclusion ended up being wrong.

St. Thomas Aquinas went back and forth and ultimately affirmed it--unfortunately, he argued against it in his most famous work, the Summa (although, in his period of denial, like St. Bernard, he still believed her to be sanctified in the womb immediately after conception).

First, he affirmed it: "Such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was exempt from both original and actual sin." [Com. in I Sent, d. 44, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3]

Later, in the Summa, he explicitely denies it: "The Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin." [Summa theologiae IIIa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 2]

Ultimately, though, he accepted it: "For she was most pure because she incurred the stain neither of original sin nor of mortal sin nor of venial sin."[Expositio super salutatione angelica]

 

[OpenDoor]

It doesn't look like St. Bernard believed that she was immaculate after her conception either.

It looks like we agree that Thomas Aquinas denied it, but you seem to argue that he later changed his mind. I will have to investigate this some more.

 

[Mark_Sam]

St. Bernard opposed the feast of the Immaculate Conception because he believed she was sanctified immediately after the moment of conception. His problem with her being sanctified a split second earlier at the actual moment of conception, is that he saw the transmission of original sin as linked to the necessity that, because of concupiscence, some at least venial sin of lust was committed during sexual intercouse (St. Jerome, for example, held a similar opinion regarding intercourse). For him, the act of conception itself was tainted. Because of this, he saw the feast of the Immaculate Conception as implying that Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit, like Christ, rather than through the normal means. [cf. Epistle 174] That's why he opposed it. His premise was wrong, which is why his conclusion ended up being wrong.

St. Thomas Aquinas went back and forth and ultimately affirmed it--unfortunately, he argued against it in his most famous work, the Summa (although, in his period of denial, like St. Bernard, he still believed her to be sanctified in the womb immediately after conception).

First, he affirmed it: "Such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was exempt from both original and actual sin." [Com. in I Sent, d. 44, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3]

Later, in the Summa, he explicitely denies it: "The Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin." [Summa theologiae IIIa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 2]

Ultimately, though, he accepted it: "For she was most pure because she incurred the stain neither of original sin nor of mortal sin nor of venial sin."[Expositio super salutatione angelica]

So the belief that Mary was purified from all sin prior to the virginal conception of Christ (either at or after her own conception) was universal?

 

[Rhamiel]

So the belief that Mary was purified from all sin prior to the virginal conception of Christ (either at or after her own conception) was universal?

seems to be

 

[Zeek]

People might like to think it was Universal to accomdate their own beliefs...but Scripture is quite clear that Mary was not sinless. I think man in his wisdom seems to wrestle with the idea that the sinless Son of Man can be conceived in the body of a person who by their very nature is a sinner.

Universal acceptance of something always has its genesis in the historic elements of Scripture...that is our foundational instruction to which we are to look....not in what came later if it deviates from what was already taught and obeyed.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Does the RCC recognize that St. Bernard and Thomas Aquinas denied the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?

Mary's Immaculate Conception

Interesting.

Thanks for posting!




.

 

[garysibio]

Also, Catherine of Sienna, a Doctor of the Church, stated that Mary appeared to her in a vision and told her that she (Mary) was not immaculately conceived.

 

[narnia59]

Also, Catherine of Sienna, a Doctor of the Church, stated that Mary appeared to her in a vision and told her that she (Mary) was not immaculately conceived.

And she used the title of the Immaculate Conception when appearing to St. Bernadette.

Which is why doctrine is not established via private revelation.

 

[bbbbbbb]

And she used the title of the Immaculate Conception when appearing to St. Bernadette.

Which is why doctrine is not established via private revelation.

Oh well, So much for being a Doctor of the Church and having a certified vision. I suppose we can toss out Lourds and Fatima, as well?

 

[narnia59]

Oh well, So much for being a Doctor of the Church and having a certified vision. I suppose we can toss out Lourds and Fatima, as well?

You can if you want to; as with all private revelation neither has anything to do with doctrine and have no requirement on the faithful to believe.

 

[garysibio]

Oh well, So much for being a Doctor of the Church and having a certified vision. I suppose we can toss out Lourds and Fatima, as well?

Catholic doctrine is founded on public revelation which is binding on all Catholics; apparitions and similar events are considered to be private revelation and can be rejected by an individual even if they are approved by the Church.

CCC 67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

 

[xfisherman]

Oh well, So much for being a Doctor of the Church and having a certified vision. I suppose we can toss out Lourds and Fatima, as well?

Anything not required for salvation can be dump into the trashcan.

 

[Rhamiel]

Anything not required for salvation can be dump into the trashcan.

why get rid of stuff that is true?
like that is a very shallow way to think of thngs...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


While I'm not a minimalist (only what is MANDATED for faith is to be professed), I also don't agree that DOGMA should be made of the moot. Christian unity should not be fractured over an issue that totally doesn't matter.

One denomination (out of the 50,000 Catholics often insist exist) insists that it's DOGMA that Mary was conceived immaculately - all with ZERO (absolutely ZERO) biblical support or from the earliest Church Fathers. Does it matter? Not that ANY of my Catholic teachers or my Catholic Deacon or Catholic priest could explain. I frankly have no "problem" with someone holding to this (or how often Mary did or did not have sex after Jesus was born or if Mary was or was not assumed into Heaven upon Her death or was it undeath?), nor with whether their is life on some other planet or if Jesus had half-brothers or whether Mary ever took a bath or whether meat should be eaten on Fridays or if there are 2,3,5,7, or hundreds of "Sacaments" - but I do have an issue declaring such DOGMA.


In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend speaking of a certain large denomination, "My biggest problem with the ____________ is that it has never learned how to shut up."





.

 

[Rhamiel]

.


While I'm not a minimalist (only what is MANDATED for faith is to be professed), I also don't agree that DOGMA should be made of the moot. Christian unity should not be fractured over an issue that totally doesn't matter.

One denomination (out of the 50,000 Catholics often insist exist) insists that it's DOGMA that Mary was conceived immaculately - all with ZERO (absolutely ZERO) biblical support or from the earliest Church Fathers. Does it matter? Not that ANY of my Catholic teachers or my Catholic Deacon or Catholic priest could explain. I frankly have no "problem" with someone holding to this (or how often Mary did or did not have sex after Jesus was born or if Mary was or was not assumed into Heaven upon Her death or was it undeath?), nor with whether their is life on some other planet or if Jesus had half-brothers or whether Mary ever took a bath or whether meat should be eaten on Fridays or if there are 2,3,5,7, or hundreds of "Sacaments" - but I do have an issue declaring such DOGMA.


In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend speaking of a certain large denomination, "My biggest problem with the ____________ is that it has never learned how to shut up."





.

I would not expect man made denominations to support the Dogmas of the Catholic Church, since the cause of heresy and schism is the pride of fallen man and the temptations of demons I would expect more and more hate of the true Church

 

[lionroar0]

Itsf funny how ppl look at one or two things that are contrary to Catholic faith and say HA Victory!!

With that kind of logic we can dump Christianity, because most of the apostles left Jesus except for John.

I mean really who wants to be christian when all his followers left him except for one?

Not a good track record.

 

[justinangel]

Does the RCC recognize that St. Bernard and Thomas Aquinas denied the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?

St. Thomas Aquinas had his doubts, but he never denied the Immaculate Conception. He was well aware that the question had to be settled once and for all by the Magisterium of the Church. He said that he would accept the determination of the Church for or against this doctrine.

Pax Christu
J.A.

 

[justinangel]

.

While I'm not a minimalist (only what is MANDATED for faith is to be professed), I also don't agree that DOGMA should be made of the moot. Christian unity should not be fractured over an issue that totally doesn't matter.

The early Church Father St. Hippolytus would certainly differ with you if he were alive today. He appears to have believed that Mary had contracted no stain of sin upon her conception for the reason that she was chosen to conceive and bear the holy Divine Word made flesh, who himself had contracted no stain of sin upon his incarnation in the womb.

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this it is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from putridity and corruption."
Orations inillud, Dominus pascit me {ante A.D. 235)

Putridity and corruption are effects of original sin. Hippolytus appears to liken Mary to Jesus in the purity and undefilement of his humanity. Like Son like Mother.

He would probably say that Christian unity shouldn't be fractured over an issue that does matter. It's a question of whether one wants to believe that the All-Holy God would desire to enter the womb of a soul tainted by the stain of sin.

One denomination (out of the 50,000 Catholics often insist exist) insists that it's DOGMA that Mary was conceived immaculately - all with ZERO (absolutely ZERO) biblical support or from the earliest Church Fathers.

One who reads Scripture divorced from the Apostolic Tradition of the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ - not Martin Luther, John Calvin, or Zwingli, to name a few heresiarchs - and in a purely literal sense will naturally find "absolutely zero biblical support". The Immaculate Conception certainly isn't explicitly revealed in Scripture, but it definitely is implicitly revealed. Luke typifies Mary as the pure and undefiled ark of the covenant. In 1:35, the angel Gabriel says to Mary: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." The Greek word for "overshadow" is episkiasei, which denotes the bright cloud of glory (shekinah): the visible presence of YHWH. It is the glory cloud that appeared at our Lord's transfiguration and which dwelt in the Holy of Holies upon "overshadowing" the ark of the covenant (Ex 24:15-16; 40:34-38; 1 Kgs 8:4-11). In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the same word episkaisei is used in Exodus 40 as it is in Luke's gospel. The ark of the Covenant was made pure and undefiled from the first instant of its creation, just as Mary was at the first instant of her creation upon the infusion of her sanctified soul at her conception. Luke may not have understood the full theological implications in what he wrote, but neither did Isaiah or any of the prophets concerning the Messiah. The interpretation and determination of any form of biblical prophecy rests with the authentic teaching authority (Magisterium) of the One Apostolic Catholic Church.

Further, the Immaculate Conception is implicitly revealed in the words of the angel Gabriel when he greets Mary. We read in Luke 1:28: "Hail, favored one" (Chaire kecharitomene). The Greek expression kecharitomene is the passive present perfect participle of the verb "to endow with grace" (charis) in the feminine gender vocative case. The Greek syntax indicates that Mary had been fully graced (not simply favoured) by the time the angel appeared to her and continued to be after she conceived Jesus. Since Luke typifies Mary as the ark of the Covenant, it is safe to assume that she was sanctified before she was even born, probably at the precise moment when God fashioned her soul upon her conception; since she was predestined to bear the Son of God.

Suffice it to say, this Marian dogma does not contradict Scripture to begin with. It can't, for Scripture is the result of Apostolic Tradition, which belongs to the deposit of faith together with the written word and serves as a medium of divine revelation made explicit in the form of dogma (1 Tim 3:15).

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain [of sin] in thy Mother."
St. Ephraem of Syria, Nisibene Hymns 27:8 {A.D. 370}

The Greek Father may have simply regarded Mary as having led a sinless life and being without personal sin. But his understanding depends on his view on original sin. In the first four centuries there were three prevalent theories between the East and West. The Council of Orange (530 A.D.) embraced Augustine's view. In any event, the teachings of several early Church Fathers anticipate Pope Pius' definition in 1854. No Church Father ever taught Mary was sinful or a sinner.

In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend speaking of a certain large denomination, "My biggest problem with the ____________ is that it has never learned how to shut up."

The Eastern Greek Orthodox reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception because they embrace a faulty doctrine of original sin. Please find my posts on this subject.

Pax Christu
J.A.

 

[OpenDoor]

I have been thinking about this topic

One thing that I have discovered is that St. Bernard believed (as did many others at his time) that having natural intercourse (even as a married couple) was a sin.

So since Marys parents conceived Mary naturally. From Bernards understanding she must have been born with sin.

Now I understand that natural intercourse in married couple is no longer considered a sin in RC, but still Benard (who is a RC Saint) believed that Mary was conceived with sin. Even if his reason for believing that was wrong.

St. Bernard did not believe the Immaculate Conception was possible.