Immaculate Conception St. Bernard and Thomas Aquinas

OpenDoor said:

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

Mary's Immaculate Conception

Click to expand...

QuantaCura said:

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]

Click to expand...

QuantaCura said:

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]

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

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?

Click to expand...

justinangel said:

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.

Click to expand...