ever, did not convince St. Thomas of the Immaculate Con- ception, for in the same article 5, in his answer to the next objection, St. Thomas expressly states that “in her
sanctification she was delivered from original sin.”2
As to the second quotation: “It is great in any saint when he has so much that it suffices for his own salva¬
tion, but it is greater when he has so much that it suffices to him for the salvation of many; but when he would have
so much that it would suffice for the salvation of all men of the world, this would be the greatest, and this is in Christ and in the Blessed Virgin.” (Expositio in Ave Maria Caput I.) Even this praise did not move St.
Thomas to assert the Immaculate Conception, for he says in his explanation on the Angelic Salutation—“Christ sur¬
passes the Blessed Virgin in this, that He was conceived
■
and born without original sin, but the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original (sin) but not born.”8
As to the third quotation: “After Christ, Who as the universal Savior of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place.” Sum. Th., p. Ill, q. 27, a. 2, ad 2m. This again did not convince
St. Thomas of the Immaculate Conception, for he says in the same number—“If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Savior of all. Consequently after Christ, Who as the universal Savior of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin
2 In Sua sane tificati one fuit liberata a culpa originali.
8 Christus excellit B. Virginem in hoc quod sine originali con- ceptus et natus est; beata antem Virgo in originali est concepta.
sed non nata.
16
Digitized by
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
in any way whatever, but was holy in his very Conception, according to Luke 1:35—‘The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God/ But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb/*4 These state¬
ments of St. Thomas are surely not to the praise of Mary that could be called “improved .”
As to the statement on page 254: “We can find in the Fathers and in the ancient Doctors some phrases to which St. Thomas felt constrained to give a mild, gentle and Catholic interpretation”; it is to be said that in the ques¬
tion 27, article 4, Sum. Th., p. Ill, given as a proof,
St. Thomas only proves that “the Blessed Virgin com- t mitted no actual sin neither mortal nor venial.”5 The
quotations, therefore, from qu. 27, art. 4, can refer only to actual sin, but not to original sin. One not well acquainted
with the real meaning of the quotation might think that the quotation applies also to original sin.
As to the statement on page 254: “It is not St. Thomas alone we plead for, when we plead for St. Thomas”;
it could be said that this pleading would be just and proper, if the doctrine and position of St. Thomas and of the others who sided with him or with whom he sided in
this question were really in accord with the definition of the Church, otherwise, due credit should be given to the
one who clearly taught the Immaculate Conception and solved its theological difficulties.
On page 254, it is said: “It may be apropos to discuss
4 Beata Virgo contraxit quidem originate peccatum sed ab eo fuit mundata antequam ex utero nasceretur.
5 Beata Virgo nullum actuate peccatum commisit nec mortale nec veniale.
-■•ef 17
Digitized by
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
the claim of his opposition to the dogma of the Immacu¬
late Conception.”
Reply: It would be more accurate to say—his opposi¬
tion to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, because at the time of St. Thomas it was considered a disputed question.
On page 254, the Rev. author says: “The claim of his opposition to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is a claim most widespread, most easily granted, and still most superficial of all claims. Such a claim is the most superficial, we say.”
A foot-note to prove this assertion says: “Nothing is more frequently heard and nothing is more easily believed, because superficially considered, there appears nothing more clear than that the Angelic Doctor in several places, both generally and particularly, has taught that original sin had been contracted by the Blessed Virgin.” (Piazza,
S. J., cited by Fr. Norbertus del Prado, O. P.)
Reply: The statement that the claim is most superficial contains a serious accusation which it seems is really unjust. The Rev. author’s statement would be just, if he would prove that St. Thomas only apparently taught that Mary contracted original sin, or that St. Thomas under¬
stood it in a different sense and in a sense which is really compatible with the doctrine of the Definition.
As the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception can not be well understood without having a clear and correct idea of original sin and original justice, let us now con¬
sider the doctrine of original sin and original justice—
1, according to the explanation of the Rev. author; 2, according to St. Thomas; 3, according to Bl. Scotus.
Digitized by
Goode
Original fromUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA