Immaculate Conception St. Bernard and Thomas Aquinas

[Ave Maria]

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

Mary's Immaculate Conception

I seriously doubt that they denied the Immaculate Conception which is a dogma. If they did, they wouldn't be saints. Here are some links concerning Mary's Immaculate Conception:

Immaculate Conception and Assumption | Catholic Answers

Without the Immaculate Conception, would Jesus have inherited his Mother's sinful nature? | Catholic Answers

How do we explain the necessity of Mary's immaculate conception? | Catholic Answers

Mary: "Full of Grace" | Catholic Answers

The Immaculate Conception

The Immaculate Conception of Mary

Why Catholics Believe in the Immaculate Conception

CUF.org :: Catholics United for the Faith

Mary's Conception in Sacred Scripture and Tradition

Catholic Apologetics - Dogmas Blessed Virgin Mary - Our Lady

MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

The Immaculate Conception of the Most Blessed Virgin

The Immaculate Conception

Scripture Catholic - THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Scripture Catholic - THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Scripture Catholic - THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

 

[OpenDoor]

I seriously doubt that they denied the Immaculate Conception which is a dogma. If they did, they wouldn't be saints. Here are some links concerning Mary's Immaculate Conception:

The Immaculate Conception was not Catholic dogma until 1854.

 

[pocohombre]

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]

Another sight says your final quote was forged mistranslated ,that "original sin ' is not in there. Earlier the saint wrote that Jesus was above Mary in not having original sin ,yet mary was free from mortal/venial sins.

 

[pocohombre]

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]

Another sight says your final quote was forged mistranslated ,that "original sin ' is not in there. Earlier the saint wrote that Jesus was above Mary in not having original sin ,yet mary was free from mortal/venial sins.

 

[Luvtosew]

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?

Who certified her vision?

 

[Luvtosew]

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.

Yes and he went with peer pressure and the flow of the church which has been teaching it forever.

I would love to know when Thomas Aqunas said in his last days everything he wrote seems like staw, what was it that he looked back on and saw, maybe what a waste of time trying to write about all these things we know little of. God is above any human knowledge.