St. Thomas Aquinas

on

Immaculate Conception

of

Mary

By

Angelo George

Copyright © 2017 Angelo George

All rights reserved.

ISBN-13: 9781521886762

Contents

Introduction

St. Thomas and the Concept of Soul in Thirteenth Century

The Immaculate Conception of Mary                                                and the Teachings of Thomas

Epilogue

Bibliography

introduction

C atholics venerate Mary, the mother of Jesus in a very special way. She is called as the Mother of God by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and considered as the most blessed woman in the history. Among various attributions to her is the Catholic one: the Immaculate Conception. The Church teaches that Mary was conceived in her mother’s womb immaculate and therefore, she was free of sin unlike other human beings.

The members of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans) who are considered to be the doctrinal watchdogs of the Catholic Church throughout the history had opposed the concept of Immaculate Conception of Mary until it was defined as a Dogma, in the name of defending the teachings of one of their own, St. Thomas Aquinas renowned as the Angelic Doctor. But one would wonder how Thomas could do such a doctrinal mistake being a teacher and defender of the Catholic faith as well as an ardent lover and devotee of the blessed Virgin. In this book, I would like to investigate whether the later Dominicans and other Thomists, had failed to understand correctly what Thomas had intended to teach in accordance with the understanding of his own time and thus to find answers to the out-of-context arguments against his thoughts inasmuch as I can.

To speak of Thomas, he is considered as the foremost theologian and philosopher in the Catholic Church and the crowning glory of Scholasticism. He was born in AD 1225 in the kingdom of Sicily to a noble family. Against the wishes of his family, he joined the mendicant order of Dominicans and later was ordained a priest. He dedicated his love for the search of truth studying theology and philosophy. He, together with his master, St. Albert the Great, introduced the philosophy of Aristotle to the Christian faith. He wrote volumes of books in both disciplines among which the most celebrated work is Summa Theologiae. He died on March 7, 1274 at Fassanova. He was canonized on July 18, 1274 and was declared a Doctor of the Church. Eventually, the Church made his teachings her own and came to consider him as a model teacher for students. The so called Western thought is still being influenced by his thoughts and his contributions to the developments of the modern philosophy is immense as it developed by either opposing or developing the ideas of this great teacher.

ST. THOMAS

AND

THE CONCEPT OF SOUL

IN THIRTEENTH CENTURY

S t. Thomas Aquinas lived in the golden ages of the mediaeval period which includes the long historical period from the fall of the Roman Empire until the beginning of modern times.[1] Since the mediaeval philosophy focused mainly to explain the Christian faith in a rational way, Thomas too, being a Christian philosopher,[2] dedicated his life at the service of the Church. Therefore, he like any other Church fathers tried his best to explain and defend the doctrines of the Church on human soul, but not free from the influence of the early Greek thinkers.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

With the rise of Christianity in the history, Western Philosophy developed more as a part of Theology than as an independent branch of enquiry.[3] Independent thought was extremely rare even in theology, because the theology itself remained under the long shadow of St. Augustine.[4] Since Augustinian philosophy was based on that of Plato, all the Church fathers of the early Middle Ages alienated other philosophical ideas, including Aristotelian philosophy from the realm of Christian thinking. From about 1100 to 1400, it was scholasticism, a system of thought, which dominated the mediaeval philosophy.[5]  During this period, the increasing contact with the Arab and Byzantine civilizations brought back much learning that had been lost to Europe since the end of Roman Empire and the scholars translated Greek and Arabic writings from these civilizations into Latin and studied their meanings.[6] Most of these came through the works of the Arabic philosophers Avicenna and Averroës. It is rightly said, therefore, if Aristotle entered the West as the Philosopher, Averroës followed him as his Commentator,[7] but his commentaries often altered the meaning of the original ideas.[8] The scholars argued whether Aristotle’s teachings opposed those of the Church, and it was from these discussions and writings the Scholasticism grew.[9]

St. Thomas too came into came into contact with the ideas of Aristotle especially through his master St. Albert the Great,[10] another Dominican Doctor of the Church. For Thomas, the greatest among the scholastics, Aristotelianism was an instrument of theological and philosophical analysis and synthesis.[11]  Thus Thomas preferred to choose the Aristotelian principles to explain the doctrines of the Church, without denying the Augustinian explanations of the dogmas. Therefore, Thomas’ philosophical position was the doctrine of Aristotle rethought by a powerful mind in the service of Christian theology.[12] He found Aristotelian principles better to explain the nature of human soul and human person than Platonic views.

CONCEPT OF SOUL AND ITS DEGREES

Platonic school taught soul as a separate substance, as something other than the body and that it animates and thus as something that lives on after bodily death.[13] Following Plato, Augustine had defined man as a rational animal which makes use of a mortal body whereas Thomas found the autonomy of soul from the body unacceptable.[14] Thomas taught that the soul and the body make up one single being and that they have not each a distinct being,[15] the teaching which was similar to that of Aristotle.[16]

According to Aristotle, there were three degrees of souls: vegetative soul, sensitive soul and rational soul. Vegetative soul present in the plants has vegetative powers which include life, growth and reproduction, and the sensitive soul of the animals has the sensory powers such as self motion, sensation, memory and various emotions, whereas the rational soul of man, the highest degree of soul, has the intellect and the will; higher forms of soul possess not only the specific powers distinctive of their own level of being but also the powers that lower order souls possess, yet they possess them in their own distinctive way.[17]

ENSOULMENT

Many of the early philosophers believed that the soul was not infused into the body at the very moment of Conception, but later on. This idea was still prevalent in the thirteenth century that the human soul was not infused into the foetus until 40 or 80 days after its conception.[18] At least in one place Aquinas follows it saying that the rational soul is infused at 40 days for males and at 90 days for females. The main basis for this concept was in the Aristotelian view that the menstrual blood provided by the female is nonliving and relatively lacking in organization or differentiation.[19]

For St. Thomas, the soul is either created by God directly (which is the current position of Catholic Church) or, if it were produced by transplanting, it would be derived from the father rather than from the mother, following the teaching of Aristotle that the male gives the soul and the female the body.[20] The main question he faced was that of how the male causes the generative process which occurs in the body of the female. For this, he follows the Aristotle’s solution that the male is the principle active cause of the generative process, but this cause acts through a medium, the semen, which is the instrumental cause. There is a (vital) spirit in the semen which is frothy, as is attested by its whiteness.[21] “And after the sensitive soul, by the power of the active principle in the semen, has been produced in one of the principle parts of the thing generated, then it is that the sensitive soul of the offspring begins to work towards the perfection of its own body, by nourishment and growth.”[22]

CONCLUSION

The teachings of Aristotle had influenced Thomas to a great extent that he always referred him ‘the Philosopher.’ In some matters like the embryonic science and Ensoulment Thomas had no other choice than to depend upon ‘the Philosopher’ who had written on the matter, since, for Thomas, he was more scientific than Plato. These ideas were there behind the philosophical ideas of Thomas.

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.

I. The Two Stages of Sanctification of Mary

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.

1. The First Sanctification

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.

2. The Second 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]

II. The Uniqueness of the Sanctification of Mary

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.

1. Purification of Fomes

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]

2. Preservation from All Actual Sin

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]

III. Fullness of Grace

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]

Epilogue

S t. Thomas, one of the greatest Doctors of the Church, like any other doctors of his time, denied the Immaculate Conception of Mary which was then explained in a heretical way to the Christian faith, that Mary did not need a Saviour. Thomas was sure that Mary too needed a Saviour like any other individual. However he seems to have failed to connect the two ideas: Jesus as the Universal Saviour and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Since the former was very clear in the light of the Scriptures, Thomas defended it at the cost of the latter. His ideas were further complicated by the Aristotelian concept of gradual Ensoulment.

Even then, it is very clear that he never denied the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, because it was not defined yet as a dogma until 1854. It was a matter of open discussion, without any sort of binding force. If it were a dogma, then Thomas would have, no doubt, defended it as a faithful Catholic at the service of the Church. However it is true that his objections led to serious discussions in the Church whereupon we have the dogma understood and explained in a far better way. And also, when the dogma was defined it upheld the position of Thomas that Mary too needed a Saviour.

Therefore, even though Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception of Mary, it was purely at the service of the Church in order to protect her teachings. At the same time, it will be absolutely incorrect to say that he denied the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, because it was not a dogma then.

bibliography

THE BIBLE

The Holy Bible. The New American Bible. Muringoor: Divine Printers and Publishers, 2005.

The Holy Bible. The New Revised Standard Version. Catholic Edition for India. Bangalore: TPI, 2003.

BOOKS

Aquinas, Thomas. On Being and Essence. Trans. Armond Maurer CSB. 2nd ed. Toronto: PIMS, 1983.

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Contra Gentiles. Trans. Charles J O’Neil. New York: Image Books, 1957.

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Trans.  Laurence Shapcote OP. In Great Books of the Western World, ed. Adler, Mortimer. Vol. 17-18. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., 1994.

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province.  London: Sheed and Ward, 1981.

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province.  London: R & T Washbourne, Ltd., 1912.

Aquinas, Thomas. The Compendium of Theology: Light of Truth. Trans. Cyril Vollert SJ. Manchester: Sophia Institute Press, 1993.

Aristotle. De Anima. Trans. JA Smith. Richard McKeon, ed. The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York, 1941.

Aristotle. De Generatione Animalium. Trans. Arther Platt. Richard McKeon, ed. The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York, 1941.

Aristotle. De Partibus Animalium. Trans. William Ogle. Richard McKeon, ed. The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York, 1941.

Aristotle. Historia Animalium. Trans. D’Arcy Thompson.  Richard McKeon, ed. The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York, 1941.

Bedouelle, Guy. In the Image of St. Dominic: Nine Portraits of Dominican Life.  Trans. Mary Thomas Noble OP. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994.

Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Copleston, Fredrick. A History of Philosophy. Vol. 2. Part 2. New York: Image Books, 1962.

D’Arcy, M.C. Thomas Aquinas: Selected Writings. London: J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1939.

Getson, Etienne. History of Christian Philosophy In The Middle Ages. New York:  Random House, 1955.

Glenn, Paul. A Tour of The Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas. Theological Bangalore : Publication in India, 2001.

Grabmann, Martin. The Interior Life of St. Thomas Aquinas. Milwaurkee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1953.

Gratsch, Edward. Aquinas’ Summa: An Introduction And Interpretation. Bangalore:  Theological Publication in India, 1990.

Kenny, Anthony. Ed. Aquinas: A Collection of Critical Essays. London: McMillan, 1970.

Koterski, Joseph. An Introduction

t
o Mediaeval Philosophy: Basic Concepts (UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 175.

McDermott, Timothy. Ed. Summa Theologiae: A Concise Translation. Texas: Christian Classics, 1991.

McDermott, Timothy. Trans. Thomas Aquinas: Selected Philosophic Writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Mondin, Battista. A History of Mediaeval Philosophy. Trans. Myroslaw  Cizdyn. Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1998.

Neuner, J,and J. Dupuis. Ed. The Christian Faith. 5th ed. Bangalore: TPI, 1991.

Pegis, Anton. St. Thomas And The Problem Of The Soul In The Thirteenth Century. Toronto:PIMS,1983.

Plato. Republic. Trans. H. Spens. Delhi: Surjeet Publications, 1999.

Stokes, Philip. Philosophy: 100 Essential Thinkers. London: Acturus Publishing Ltd., 2010.

The Essential Catholic Survival Guide. San Diego: Catholic Answers Inc., 2005.

Walz, Angelus. St. Thomas Aquinas: A Biographical Study. Trans. Sebastian Bullough OP. Westminster: The Newman Press, 1951.

ARTICLES

Boland, Vivian. “Thomas Aquinas and Practice of Theology.” Dominican Ashram 14 (June 1995), 58-67.

Brennan, Robert. “Troubadour of Truth.” In Essays in Thomism. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1942.

CHURCH DOCUMENTS

Catechism of the Catholic Church. Minnesota: The Wanderer Press, 1994.

Leo XIII. Aeterni Patris, Encyclical. In Summa Theologica. London: R & T Washbourne, Ltd., 1912.

Second Vatican Council. Dei Verbem, The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. Austin Flannery OP, ed. Vatican II. Bombay: St. Paul Publications, 1989.

Second Vatican Council. Lumen Gentium,The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. Austin Flannery OP, ed. Vatican II. Bombay: St. Paul Publications, 1989.

ENCYCLOPAEDIAS AND DICTIONARIES

Audi, Robert, ed. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Audi, Robert. Ed. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Blackburn, Simon. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2008.

Bourchert, Donald. Ed.  Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2nd ed. USA: Thomson Gale.

Bourke, Vernon. “Thomas Aquinas, St.” In Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2nd ed. Ed. Donald M. Borchert, 424-440. USA: Thomson Gale, 2006.

Dell, Richard, Brian Kennedy, Jeff Groman, and Howard Thomas. Eds. The World Encyclopedia.London: World Book Inc., 1992.

Holstein, H.  Dictionary of Mary . Mumbai: St. Paul’s, 2010.

Horowitz, Maryanne. Ed. New Dictionary of The History of Ideas. USA: Gale Cengage Learnings, 2005.

Johnston, Bernard. In Colliers Encyclopedia. New York: Macmillan Educational Company, 1991.

Mautner, Thomas. Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd ed. London: Penguin Books, 2005.

Puthuparambil, Thomas. “Thomism.” In ACPI Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 1396-1400. Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 2010.

The New Encyclopaedia Brittannica: Macropaedia. 15th ed. USA: Encyclopaedia Brittannica Inc., 1984.

ELECTRONIC SOURCES

“Aquinas_on_human_ensoulment.”www2.franciscan.edu/plee/.htm. Accessed on Septemer 22,  2012.

“Immaculate_Conception.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception. Accessed on December 15, 2012.

“Did St. Thomas Deny the Dogma of Immaculate Conception.” http://newtheologicalm ovement.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/did_st_thomas_deny_dogma_of_immaculate.html. Accessed on October 13, 2011.

“Thomas Aquinas.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas. Accessed on July 19, 2017.

[1] Battista Mondin, A History Of Mediaeval Philosophy (Bangalore: TPI, 1998), 1.

[2] Philip Stokes, Philosophy: 100Essential Thinkers (London: Acturus Publishing Ltd, 2010), 51.

[3] “Philosophy,” The World Book Encyclopedia , ed., Richard Dell et al., vol.15 (London: World Book Inc., 1992), 424.

[4] “Middle Ages,”The New Encyclopaedia Brittannica: Macromedia, 15th ed., vol. 12 (USA: Encyclopaedia Brittannica Inc., 1984),163.

[5] “Middle Ages,” The World Book Encyclopedia , vol.13, 451.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Anton C. Pegis, St Thomas And The Problem Of The Soul In The Thirteenth Century (Toronto: PIMS, 1983), 10.

[8] Ibid., 9.

[9] Richard Dell et al., vol.13, 451.

[10] Anthony Kenny, ed., Aquinas: A Collection of Critical Essays (London: McMillan, 1970), 18.

[11] Frederick Copleston S J, A History Of Philosophy, vol. II, part II (New York: Image Books, 1962),  21.

[12] Thomas Puthuparambil OP, “Thomism,” ACPI Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol.2 (Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 2010), 1397.

[13] Joseph W. Koterski S J, An Introduction To Mediaeval Philosophy: Basic Concepts (UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 175.

[14] Battista Mondin, 345.

[15] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 57.

[16] See Aristotle, De Anima II, 412b.

[17] Koterski, 177.

[18] The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.7 (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America, 1967), 380.

[19] “Aquinas on Human Ensoulment” www2.franciscan.edu/plee/Aquinas _on_human_ensoulm ent..htm, accessed on September 22, 2012.

[20] St. Thomas Aquinas, Light of Faith: The Compendium of Theology, Trans. Cyril Vollert SJ (Manchester: Sophia Institute Press, 1993), 276.

[21] ST I, Q 118, A 1, ad 3.

[22] ST I, Q 118, A 1, ad 4.

[23] “Immaculate Conception” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception, accessed on December 15, 2012.

[24] H. Holstein, “Immaculate Conception,” in Dictionary of Mary (Mumbai: St. Paul’s, 2010), 205.

[25] ST III,Q 27, A 2, ad 3.

[26] See 1 Tm:4:10.

[27] ST III,Q 27, A 2.

[28] Holstein,206.

[29] Paul J. Glenn, A Tour Of The Summa Of St. Thomas Aquinas (Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 2001), 334.

[30] Cyril Vollert SJ, trans., preface to Light of Faith: The Compendium of Theology, by St. Thomas Aquinas, xi.

[31] ST III, Q 27, A 2, ad 2.

[32] Cyril Vollert SJ, xi.

[33] St. Thomas Aquinas, Light of Faith: The Compendium of Theology, 278.

[34] See Lk:1:15

[35] See Jr:1:5

[36] St. Thomas Aquinas, Light of Faith: The Compendium of Theology, 280.

[37] ST III, Q 27, A 3, ad 3.

[38] Ibid.

[39] ST III, Q 27, A 4.

[40] St. Thomas Aquinas, Light of Faith: The Compendium of Theology, 280.

[41] ST III, Q 27, A 1.

[42] ST III, Q 27, A 2.

[43] St. Thomas Aquinas, Light of Faith: The Compendium of Theology, 279.

[44] ST III, Q 27, A 2.

[45] ST III, Q 14, A3,ad 1.

[46] St. Thomas Aquinas, Light of Faith: The Compendium of Theology, 279.

[47] ST III, Q 27, A 2, ad 4.

[48] ST III, Q 27, A 3, ad 3.

[49] ST III, Q 27, A 5, ad 2.

[50] ST III, Q 27, A 3.

[51] Ibid.

[52] St. Thomas Aquinas, Light of Faith: The Compendium of Theology, 514.

[53] ST III, Q 27, A 3, ad 3.

[54] ST III, Q 27, A 4.

[55] cf. 2Cor:6:15

[56] cf. 1Cor:1:24 and Wis:1:4

[57] ST III, Q 27, A 4.

[58] ST III, Q 27, A 4, ad 1.

[59] St. Thomas Aquinas, Light of Faith: The Compendium of Theology, 280.

[60] Ibid., 278.

[61] cf. Lk:1:28.

[62] Timothy McDermott O P, Summa Theologiae: A Concise Translation (Texas: Christian Classics, 1991), 514.

[63] ST III, Q 27, A 5.

[64] ST III, Q 27, A 5, ad 2.

[65] One of such attempts was of Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Langrange in his book, The Mother of the Saviour. He developed the theory of three stage in the life of Thomas: the saint denying the Immaculate Conception in the second stage whereas in favour of the doctrine in the first and the final stages.

[66] “Did St. Thomas Deny Dogma of Immaculate Conception,” http://newtheologicalmovement. blogspot.com.au/2011/12/did_st_thomas_deny_dogma_of_imimmacula.html. accessed on October 13, 2011.

[67] J. Neuner SJ and J. Dupuis SJ, eds, The Christian Faith, 5th ed. (Bangalore: TPI, 1991), 218.

[68] See Lk:1:47.

[69]http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/did_st_thomas_deny_dogma_of_immaculate.html.