The Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Teachings of Thomas
T he feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is celebrated in the Catholic Church on December 8, nine months before the Nativity of Mary on September 8. The term ‘Immaculate Conception of Mary’ was not free from controversies until it was defined as a dogma by the Catholic Church in 1854. ‘St. Thomas did not explain it, but denied’ was the reason why many theologians opposed it until the very last moment, because Thomas was considered as the authentic spokesperson of the Catholic doctrines.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The thirteenth century gave birth to a renewal in the field of learning under the patronage of the Church. At the same time there was a cultural infusion of the East and the West in the Universities and even in the religious circles. Nobody could stop this influx of ideas as well as certain traditions from the East. They were gradually becoming the part and parcel of the Western World.
The Feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary
The feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was originally celebrated in the East, under the name of the Conception (active) of St. Anne,[23] the mother of Mary as early as the seventh century,[24] but not in the Churches of the West. Later on it might have been spread to some of the Western Churches from the Greek Churches, but under the title of the Conception (passive) of Mary. St. Thomas attests this saying, “although the Church of Rome does not celebrate the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, yet it tolerates the custom of certain churches that do keep the feast.”[25] Since the See of Rome did not celebrate the feast, the Immaculate Conception was not found worthy to be believed among the majority of the Catholic scholastics such as Sts. Bonaventure, Albert the Great, Anselm and Bernard.
Problem regarding Jesus as the Universal Saviour
The arrival of the Arab philosophers like Averroës shook the very foundation of Christian faith in the European universities, especially the Paris University. Naturally, they denied Jesus as the Universal Saviour, because Jesus is considered as only a prophet in Islam. At the same time, the Christian theologians felt it was their duty to defend the Christian doctrine that the Christ was the Saviour of all men[26] counteracting the so called new philosophical movement ‘Latin Averroism’. Scholastics found the introduction of the feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary would complicate the situation, because already some of the theologians were holding the view that Mary was conceived immaculate, hence did not need a redeemer. If she were without any stain of sin, even the original sin (the stain of sin by which every human person is believed to be born with as an after-effect of the sin committed by Adam and Eve), she would not have needed a Saviour, and thus it would come that Christ was not the Saviour all men.[27] It has also to be noted that there was no concept of preservation of sin other than cleansing until it was explained by Dun Scotus (last quarter of the 13th cent.)[28]
TEACHINGS OF THOMAS
Even though it is said that Thomas was in favour of Immaculate Conception in his early works, following the path of other scholastics of his own time he at least hesitated to admit the Immaculate Conception for he could not find any logical solution to the controversy of the problem of Jesus as Universal Saviour, and also for this doctrine had not yet been infallibly defined as of the faith, but only a question for free discussion among the scholars.[29] His stand on this topic is very clear in his most celebrated work, the Summa Theologiae and in the Compendium Theologiae, which he composed when he was at the height of his power.[30]
In the Summa Theologiae
In his most venerated work, i.e. Summa Theologiae, Thomas denies the Immaculate Conception of Mary in order to affirm that Jesus is the universal Saviour of all.[31] The same idea can also be seen in another work, the Compendium Theologiae which he composed during his last years of his life, i.e. 1272-73 AD after writing Summa Contra Gentiles and most of the Summa Theologiae.[32] However, he upholds the unique sanctification or purification from every sin as the preparation to be the mother of Christ. “It was fitting that she should be adorned with the highest degree of purity that she might be made conformable to such a Son.”[33] According to Thomas, since we read in the Holy Scriptures about the sanctification of John the Baptist[34] and prophet Jeremiah,[35] we cannot suppose that the favour granted to them was denied to Christ’s own mother,[36] because Mary’s place was higher than theirs in God’s economy of redemption.
The sanctification of Mary as the act of the Holy Ghost, effected as a twofold purification in the Blessed Virgin, the first and the second,[37] i.e. when she was in the womb of her mother and when she conceived Jesus.
The first sanctification, which happened when Mary was in the womb of her mother, St. Anne, was a part of preparation to the conception of Christ[38] since Christ was to receive his flesh from her.[39] This first sanctification was, of course, before her birth, but only after animation (i.e. the infusion of soul).
Sanctification before Birth: Since the scholastic fathers, like some early Church Fathers and later theologians, believed that Prophet Jeremiah and John the Baptist were privileged to be sanctified in the womb, Thomas wrote that we could not suppose that the favour granted to them had been denied to the Mother of God.[40] Therefore, it is right to believe that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before her birth in the womb from original sin, as to the personal stain.[41]
Sanctification after Animation: According to Thomas, the sanctification of Blessed Virgin Mary could not have taken place before animation for two reasons. First, because the sanctification is the cleansing from original sin and the sin is taken only by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature alone, and secondly, because before the infusion of the rational soul, the offspring conceived is not liable to sin, since the rational creature alone can be the subject of sin.[42] In the second reason, Thomas bring forth the then reputed problem of Jesus as the universal redeemer of men.[43] If Mary would have been cleansed before animation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin, hence she would not have needed redemption that Christ gives and thus Christ could not have been rightly called the Saviour of all men.[44]
This part of Thomas’ explanation is very controversial, since he did assert that the flesh of the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin[45]. “She had, indeed, to be conceived with original sin, inasmuch as her conception resulted from the commingling of both sexes.”[46] She contracted the original sin, because she was conceived by way of fleshly concupiscence and the intercourse of man and woman even though her parents were already cleansed from the original sin.[47] Thus it is clear that Thomas emphasizes on a posteriority of time in her sanctification.
The sanctification effected in Mary by the Holy Spirit was means of the Conception of Jesus which itself is believed to be an operation of the same Spirit. Here she was purified entirely from ‘fomes’ which is nothing but the sinful inclination towards sensual impulses.[48] Therefore it was the most perfect sanctification a human being ever had on earth, even though Thomas attributes a higher perfection to her in her glorification in which she was also delivered from all afflictions whatever.[49]
Although Jeremiah and John the Baptist too were sanctified in the womb, Mary’s sanctification was preeminent and singular. Because, it was from her that Christ was to receive his flesh.
While dealing with the sanctification of Blessed Virgin Mary, he discusses in detail whether she was cleansed from the infection of the fomes.[50] “Fomes is nothing but a certain inordinate, but habitual, concupiscence of the sensitive appetite.”[51] Unlike the actual concupiscence which is a sinful motion, sensual concupiscence is inordinate but rebels against reason by inclining against reason or hindering from good. Though St. Thomas has admitted that there were various opinions about this issue in his time, he finds it better to say that the Virgin was not freed from the fomes in its essence by the sanctification in the womb, but it was fettered. Afterwards, at the Conception of Christ’s flesh, the entire freedom from the fomes redounded from the Child to the Mother, because it was at Christ’s Conception the immunity from sin was to be conspicuous, ‘without however delivering her from death and other penalties of that sort’[52]. Thus the Virgin was not cleansed from the stain of sin or fomes at the time of her first purification, but rather it gave her mind a unity of purpose and disengaged it from a multiplicity of things whereas she was purified entirely from the fomes during the second purification.[53]
Sanctification of Mary was so unique that she not only did not commit any mortal sin but also, unlike Jeremiah and John the Baptist, any venial sin. She was to be called as the Mother of God. If she had sinned, her shame would have reflected on her Son, Jesus Christ who is considered as God incarnate (precisely the incarnation of Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity) in Christianity.[54] And also, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ[55] as well as of the singular manner in which the Son of God who is the Divine Wisdom[56] dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb, she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned.[57] Thomas explains this that after her sanctification the fomes remained in Mary, but fettered lest she should go against reason.[58] She never experienced any inordinate motion of passion.[59] Thus he affirms that she was free from every stain of actual sin – not only of mortal sin but of venial sin as well.[60]
As the angel addressed,[61] Mary was indeed full of grace. Since she was closest to Christ, the source and author of grace (because she was his mother), in giving him his human nature, she rightly received from him the fullness of grace.[62] “It was due to her to receive a greater fullness of grace than others”.[63] Thomas explains, there was a threefold perfection of grace in the Blessed Virgin.[64] The first was a kind of disposition by which she was made worthy to be the Mother of God, i.e. the perfection of her sanctification. The second perfection of grace in Mary was through the presence of Son of God Incarnate in her womb. The third perfection is that which she has in glory (which she is believed to be enjoying now in heaven). The second perfection excels the first and the third the second, from the point of view of deliverance of evil and ordering of good.
In Other Works
The detailed study of all the works of Thomas is not easy. There were, however, several attempts to understand the mind of St. Thomas by a comprehensive study.[65] Scholars vary in their opinions whether he had ever pronounced the Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception, even though he seems to be in favour of the doctrine in his treatise on Sentences (I Sent. c 44, q 1, ad 3) which was written at the beginning of his career. In the latter stages of his career too, he seems to be in line with the doctrine, because he wrote, when he commented on the Angelic Salutation around 1272 or 1273, “For she was most pure in the matter of fault and incurred neither original nor mental nor venial sin”.[66] Therefore it can be said that Thomas was near to the doctrine at least, although not in the way the Church defines it today.
THE CHURCH DOGMA
When the Catholic Church declares a particular faith article as dogma, it is considered as infallible and all faithful are obliged to believe in it as the revealed truth. Once the dogma is defined, there is no room for doubt in the Church, though it could be hitherto a subject of criticism and speculation.
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined by Pope Pius IX in his bull Ineffabilis Deus on December 8, 1854 using his papal authority to teach infallibly: “We declare, pronounce and define the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by the singular grace and privilege of Almighty God and in the view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Saviour of human race, preserved immune from all the stain of original sin, is revealed by God and, therefore, firmly and constantly to be believed by all the faithful.”[67]
CONCLUSION
The fact that St. Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception in the Summa Theologiae and Compendium Theologiae does not mean that he never believed in her singular privilege. The main thing he wanted to emphasize was Mary too needed a Saviour for her salvation,[68] i.e. Jesus Christ, the Saviour of all mankind. Though some saints in the Church had favoured the doctrine, most of the best theologians of the 12th and 13th centuries including his master St. Albert the Great and his contemporary St. Bonaventure denied it. For Thomas, the opinions of these Doctors of the Church were more valuable than some isolated voices in favour of the Immaculate Conception. Even then, St. Thomas did not deny it completely, but he denied it for the theologians of his time who believed it in a heretical way, i.e. Mary did not need a redeemer.[69]