4-Γ' ■
î& <. ;

THE

b
h
SMlit Ή

jHoMlLETIC AND Pastoral
F
Review
s

H'

VOL.

XXIV

NUMBERS 14

FROM OCTOBER, 1923, TO MARCH, 1924
î

-W f?

üif’i

-o

NEW YORK
JOSEPH F. WAGNER, Inc.

È 'SI­

252

THE HOMILETIC AND PASTORAL REVIEW

and unrelenting war with sin; and that the more carefully and

resolutely we guard ourselves against even venial faults and imper­
fections,—in other words, the more closely zve resemble the Immacu­

late Mother of God,—the more we shall grow in God’s favor.
Beata Mater et intacta Hirgo, gloriosa Regina, mundi, intercede
pro nobis ad Dominwn!

ST. THOMAS AND THE IMMACULATE
CONCEPTION
By P. Lumbreras, O.P., S.T.Lr., Ph.D.
Some years ago I was traveling with a Baptist minister.

In the

course of our conversation he attacked the traditional basis of
Catholic dogmas. As an instance, he pointed out the dogma of the
Immaculate Conception, a dogma, he said, that was never taught
by the Fathers of the Church, and was even denied by St. Thomas

Aquinas, one of the greatest of ecclesiastical Doctors. Three years
afterward, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, while dining
with some Catholic priests, who were also learned professors, one
of them remarked that the only opponents of the Feast had been the
Dominicans. In fact, he contended that St. Thomas denied the
Immaculate Conception.

It would be interesting to hear this Catholic priest discussing the
above question with the Baptist minister. What would be his

answer to the minister’s last statement ? Of course, I am told, he
could say that St. Thomas is one of the Doctors, and that our
Faith is not based on the particular opinion of one Doctor, but on
the unanimous teaching of them all. This answer, however, is
anything but satisfactory; for a learned interlocutor can reply
that St. Thomas is not alone; that at the side of Aquinas we can
number St. Anselm, St. Bernard, and St. Bonaventure. Although
they are four Doctors only, they belong to the most brilliant period
of Catholic theology. They were, moreover, perfectly acquainted
with the writings of the Fathers and Doctors, their predecessors, and
they preserved in every way the most perfect devotion and the
closest attachment to them. They compete, finally, with those
Fathers and Doctors in extolling the singular prerogatives and un­
limited excellency of Mary. In fact, in language more precise,
though less rhetorical, they surpass the former writers; for there
is no praise of Mary in those authors which could not be found in
St. Thomas, not merely reproduced, but even improved;1* while, on
1 Here are a few instances : Beata Virgo tantam gratia obtinuit plenitudinem,
ut esset propinquissima Auctori gratia; ita quml^Eum, qui est plenus gratia, in se
reciperet; et, Èum paricudo, quodammodo c/raliam ad omnes derivaret (Summa
Thcol,, p. III, ο. 27, a. 1, ad
Magnum est in quolibet sancto, quando habet

253

256

Ί

4 ”

THE HOMILETIC AND PASTORAL REVIEW

instrumental virtue—by which the semen evolves the ovum into
flesh—flesh which will rebel against reason—and by which the
flesh makes necessary the infusion of the soul—a soul which will
share the corruption of the flesh.8* For as the semen comes from a
body which habitually revolts against reason, it moves to the forma­
tion of a body which will keep itself in identical rebellion. This
habitual rebellion (or concupiscence, or fomes peccati) is formally
and properly in the body. Though it is derived from sin—the sin
of Adam-—and inclines to sin—the actual rebellion,—-it is not yet
a sin. Still, this corruption of the body is a disposition which
makes the corruption of the soul necessary, inasfar as at the
moment of animation the body makes up with the soul a person
unworthy of God’s grace, so that this person deserves to receive no
grace and has to be deprived of grace and to contract as a conse­
quence original sin.
It is easy now to see in how many different senses the term
“Immaculate Conception” may be employed, and in how many dif­
ferent ways we may speak of a person being conceived exempt from
original sin. We classify thorn as follows.
We have a first Immaculate Conception, or a first mode in which
a human individual could be conceived without original sin, if we
hold that Adam was not constituted the moral head or prince of
that individual for the transmission of either original grace or
original sin. God could communicate to some individual sanctifying·
grace absolutely independent of Adam’s grace.0

We have a second Immaculate Conception, or a second mode in
which some human individual could be conceived without original
sin, if we hold that Adam was not constituted the natural principle
or source of that individual, for the transmission of human nature.
God could form another man from the dust, as He formed Adam.10
We have a third Immaculate Conception, or a third mode in
which some human individual could be conceived without original
sin, if we hold that Adam, though constituted such a principle and
source for the transmission of the human nature, does not move hv
means of seminal power in this transmission. As God could form a
sSn>nm. Theol., p. I, II, q. 81, a. 1, ad 2m and 3m; q. 83, a. 1 ; p. Ill, q. 33. a. 1.
8 Smn. Theol., p. Ill, q. 1, a. 3.
10 Sumin. Theol., p. Ill, q. 31, a. 1, arg. 2 and 3.

ST. THOMAS AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

257

man from the rib of Adam or from that of any of his descendants,
so He could reserve a portion of Adam’s flesh before Adam’s sin,
and have that portion of flesh transmitted from generation to genera­
tion to form out of that flesh the body of that individual.11
We have a fourth Immaculate Conception, or a fourth mode in
which some human individual could be conceived without original
sin, if we hold that Adam, though moving by means of seminal
power, reaches the individual through descendants who were granted
sanctifying grace for themselves and for their children. God
could confer His grace on any of the descendants of Adam in the
very measure in which He conferred it on Adam himself.12
We have a fifth Immaculate Conception, or a fifth mode in
which some human individual could be conceived without original
sin, if we hold that the immediate parents of that individual,
though descendants of Adam and not previously granted the afore­
said sanctification, were, at the moment of generation or active con­
ception, filled and purified by the Holy Ghost and freed, thus, from
sexual concupiscense. As God could sanctify the parents previously
to the coition, He could sanctify them at that very moment.13
We have a sixth Immaculate Conception, or a sixth mode in
which some human individual could be conceived without original
sin, if we hold that God purifies the fetus previously, with a
priority of time, to the animation or passive conception. God could
purify the flesh in the womb of the mother during the several
weeks which precede the infusion of the rational soul.14
We have a seventh Immaculate Conception, or a seventh mode in
which some human individual could be conceived without original
sin, if we hold that God purifies the fetus at the moment of the
animation or passive conception, in such a way, however, that with
apriority of nature this purification precedes the animation. To be
comes first; next, to be willed.15
We have an eighth Immaculate Conception, or an eighth mode in
which some human individual could be conceived without original
^Suwn. Theol., p. I, Π, q. 81, a. 4 ami 5.
i- St. Thomas, in II Sent., d. 31, q. 1, a. 2, ad 5m; in III Sent., q. 1, a. 1, solut. 1,
ad Im,
«St. Thomas, « III Sent., d. 3, q. 1; a. 1; Suemi. Theol., p. HI, q. 27, a. 2,
arg. 3.
u Surum Theol., ρ. ΙΠ, q. 27, a. 2, arg. 2.
15 St. Thomas, in III Sent., d. 3, q. 4, a. 1, ad 5m.

258

THE HOMILETIC AND PASTORAL REVIEW

sin, if we hold that God sanctifies the soul at the moment of its
creation and infusion or animation, so, however, that with a
priority of nature the sanctification precedes the animation. This is
the rational order : creation, infusion, animation.10

h

We have a ninth Immaculate Conception, or a ninth mode in
which some human individual could be conceived without original
sin, if we hold that God sanctifies the soul at the moment of its
creation and infusion or animation, in such a way, however, that
with a priority of nature, the animation precedes the sanctification.
We conceive then the union of soul and body as previous to the
sanctification of the soul.
We have, thus, nine different modes which God could use for
having the Virgin Mary conceived without original sin; we have
nine possible Immaculate Conceptions. Still, the present question
is not concerned with the possibility, but with the fact. We want
to know in which one of these ways the Virgin Mary was conceived
without original sin. And, since an opposition is claimed between
St. Thomas and the Church, let us seek the answer of St. Thomas
and of the Church. Which are the Immaculate Conceptions denied
by St. Thomas? St. Thomas answers: the first eight. Which is
the Immaculate Conception affirmed by the Church? The Church
answers : the last one.

St. Thomas denies the first eight Immaculate Conceptions in
terms and in principle.

Μ'

In terms he denies the first when he opposes Scotus’ theory of
the Incarnation independent of Adam’s sin, from which theory that
Immaculate Conception follows as the logical result.17 In terms he
denies the second when he says : “Christ assumed human nature in
order to cleanse it from corruption. But human nature did not need
to be cleansed save inasfar as it was soiled in its
whereby it was descended from Adam. Therefore, it was becoming
that He should assume flesh of matter derived from Adam/’18 In
terms he denies the third when he writes: “Error may occur by
1,5 St. Thomas, tn III Sent., d. 3, p. 1, a. 1, solut. 2; St. Bonaventure, ibidem.
^Smnm. Theol., p, HI, q. 1, a. 3. Thesis Franciscaliuni de praelectione
Christi logica deductione ipsos du.rit ad Immaculatam l'irgûiis Conceptionem
viribus tuendam (Carmelus ab Iturgoycn, O. M. C., cit. by Del Prado, p, 1
o· Summ. Theol., ρ. Ill, q. 31, a. 1. Cf. ibid., ad 3m.

ST. THOMAS AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

259

attributing the condition of Christ or of His flesh to that which
was actually in .the patriarchs, by saying, for instance, that because
Christ’s flesh, as existing in Christ, was not subject to sin, there­
fore in Adam also and in the patriarchs there was some part of his
body that was not subject to sin, and from which afterwards
Christ’s body was formed, as some indeed held.”1® In terms he
denies the fourth, saying: “Sanctification is two-fold: One is that
of the whole nature: inasmuch as the whole nature is freed from all
corruption of sin and punishment. This will take place at the
resurrection. The other is personal sanctification. This is not
transmitted to the children begotten of the flesh, because it does not
regard the flesh, but the mind. Consequently, though the parents
of the blessed Virgin were cleansed from original sin, nevertheless
she contracted original sin.”20 In terms he denies the fifth for
a similar reason, 21 and by adding : “It is not the actual lust that
transmits original sin ; for, supposing God were to permit a man to
feel no inordinate lust in the act of generation, he would still transmit
original sin.”22 In terms he denies the sixth in these words: “I
answer that the sanctification of the blessed Virgin cannot be
understood as having taken place before the animation.”23 In
terms he denies the seventh, when he argues : “In whatever manner
the blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation,
die could never have incurred the stain of original sin : and thus
she would not have needed redemption and salvation which is by
Christ. . . . But this is unfitting. . . ,”24 In terms, finally,
he denies the eighth in those, few lines of his Commentary on the
Sentences: “The sanctification of the blessed Virgin could not be
conveniently before the infusion of the soul . .
nor even at the
Theol., p. Ill, q. 31, a. 7. Cf. ibid., a. 6.
ΐ0Λ?»«. Thocil., p. ΙΠ, q. 27, a. 2,ad 4m; in II Sen!., d. 31, q. 1, a. 2.
21 St. Thomas, in III Sent., d. 3, q.1, a. 1;Suivit Theol., p. Ill, q. 14, a. 3,
ad Im; q. 31, a. 7; p. I, II, q. 81, a. 3,ad 2m.
t2Summ. Theol., p. I, II, q. 82, a. 4,ad 3m. It is to the objection :“No feast
b celebrated except of sonic saint, hut some keep (on December 8th) the feast
of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin; therefore, it seems that, in her very
(active) Conception she was holy, and hence that she was sanctified before anima­
tion,” that St. Thomas answers: “The celebration of this feast does not give
üs to.understand that she was holy in her (active) conception. _ But since it is
not known when she was sanctified, the feast of her Sanctification rather than
the feast of her (active) Conception, is kept on the day of her (active) con­
ception" (Summ. Theol., p. Ill, q. 27, a. 2, ad 3m.).
. Twm Theol. p. Ill, q. 27, a. 2; in Ill Sent., cl. 3, q. 1, a. 1, q. 2.
u Summ.Theol., p. Ill, q. 27, a. 2.

H
260

THE HOMILETIC AND PASTORAL REVIEW

moment of the infusion, in such a way, namely, that by grace then
infused into the soul, the soul would be preserved exempt from
incurring original sin/'25*lines whose interpretation we find in St.
Bonaventure : “Some claimed that in the soul of the glorious Virgin
the. grace of sanctification preceded the stain of original sin. . . .
Thus, at the moment of its creation, grace was infused into the soul:
and at. that very moment, the soul was infused into the body. . . .
But others say that the sanctification came after tlie contraction of
original sin. . . . /And this second opinion is more common, and
more reasonable, and more sure. . . . More reasonable, because
the natural is prior to the spiritual, with priority either of time or
of nature. . . . First, consequently, the soul is conceived to be
united with the body, and then grace to be infused by God into the
soul.”20
St. Thomas denies all these first eight Immaculate Conceptions in
principle. The principle is this : “It is unfitting that Christ be not
the Saviour of all men, as lie is called in I Tim. iv. κρ.’’27 And
by this principle St. Thomas means that every man needs, as a
person, to be redeemed by Christ; that every man needs personal
redemption, which is by Christ.28* It is true that such personal
redemption does not: imply the person as already fallen into sin, but
it implies, at least, that the person has to incur the sin.28 And
because, as St. Thomas· warns us, “We may not attribute to the
Mother anything· that would diminish the honor of the Son, who
is the Saviour of all men,’’30 St. Thomas was perfectly right in
opposing the first and the second and the third Immaculate Concep­
tions, where not even the flesh has to contract in any way the infec­
tion of original sin; and he was perfectly right in opposing the
fourth and the fifth, where the flesh, though as existing in the
parents it contracts infection, yet. as found in the offspring enjoys
immunity; and he evas perfectly right in opposing the sixth and the
seventh, where, though the flesh of the offspring contracts the
25 St. Thomas, in III Sent., <1. 3, q. 1, a. 1, q. 2.
211 St. Bonaventure, in Ilf Sent. d. 3, par. 1, a. 1, q. 2.
27 Sit mm. Theol., p. HI, q. 27, a. 2, et passim.
iSS'umin. Theol., p. I, II, q. 81, a. .3; cf. Del Prado, p. 31 ss.
w Sitmm. Theol., p. I, II, q. 81, a. 3, ad Im; cf. Cajetan, Comment, in h. 1.
tantiim debemus dare Matri quad substrahat aliquid honori Filii qui
est Salvator omnium hominum, ut dicit Apostolus, I Tim. iv (St. Thomas
Quodlib. 6, a. 7).

ST. THOMAS AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

261

infection, the soul has not to contract the sin ; and perfectly right
in opposing the eighth, where, though the flesh contracts and the
soul has to contract, the person has not to contract original sin.
In no one of these eight cases can we speak of a personal debt. As
a consequence, neither of a personal redemption. For in the first,
the second, and the third, not even the flesh needed redemption ; in
the fourth and the fifth, only the parents had to be redeemed ; in the
sixth and the seventh, only the flesh; whereas in the eighth, it is
exclusively the soul.
Now what is the Immaculate Conception affirmed by the Church ?
Here is the dogma : “We declare, pronounce, and define that God
has revealed the doctrine which holds that the most blessed Virgin
Mary in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and
privilege granted her by Almighty God, in view of the merits of
Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt
from all stain of original sin.”31
The Immaculate Conception, as defined by the Church stands,
then, for the person of the Blessed Virgin, being preserved exempt
at the moment of animation from original sin, and this personal
preservation being granted her on account of her personal redemp­
tion by Christ.
The only way of saving the dogma is the ninth and last way.
We have to conceive the union of the soul with the corrupted body
as previous, with a priority of nature, to the sanctification of the
soul. Thus we have a corrupted body, as it is the body of this
person; and we have a soul, which, being the soul of this person,
has to be corrupted by the body. We have, thus, and thus only,
a person who has to incur original sin, who has to be redeemed
with personal redemption.32
But such a preservation was never denied by St. Thomas Aqui­
nas. He has not denied it in terms, for he never discussed it. All
he says is that the sanctification cannot be in a convenient way
previous to the animation. While the Church declares that it hap­
pened in the very moment of the animation, St. Thomas, time and
again, says that he did not know the moment when the sanctifica3i Bull “Ineffabilis Deus,” Dec. 8, 1854.
Beata Cirgo non fuit sanctificato nisi postquam cuncta eius perfecta sunt,
scilicet corpus et anima (Sum. Theol., Ρ· HI, q. 27, a. 2, Sed contra).

262

THE HOMILETIC AND PASTORAL REIN Ell

lion took place.33 Why did he not know? because things which
are entirely dependent on the free will of God cannot be ascertained
save through divine revelation.34 This revelation is made known
to us by the Roman Church, and at the time of St. Thomas the
Roman Church did not even celebrate the Feast.35* Mus! we wonder
at St. Thomas’ position when, four centuries afterward, Pope
Gregory XV declared that “the Idoly Ghost, though urged by the
earnest prayers of the Faithful, did not yet reveal to the Church
the secret of such a Mystery.’'31'
On the contrary St. Thomas, rather than Scottis or anybody else,
settled the principles which had to lead, and in fact did lead,
to the definition given ultimately by Pius IX. For we have in
St. Thomas not only that the sanctification stands for a personal
sanctification by the merits of Christ the Redeemer, but also that it
was proper that the blessed Virgin should have all purity possible
to be granted by God,3738
*40
and, moreover, that a posteriority of nature
is sufficient within a single instant of time.35 Did not St. Thomas
teach that the blessed Virgin was granted more grace than any
man or angel,3" and that the first man and the angels were granted
grace at the very moment of their creation, though their creation
preceded their sanctification with priority of nature?10
St. Thomas, therefore, has promoted directly the definition given
by the Church. He has promoted it indirectly, also, by opposing
33 Summ. Theol,, p. Ill, q. 27, a. 2, ad 3m ; in HI Sent., d. 3, q. 1, a. 1 ; Oiiodlib.
6, a. 7.
;,f Summ. Theol., p. IT!', q. 1, a. 3.
35 Summ. Theol., p. Ill, q .27, a. 2, ad 3m.
3« July 4, 1622.
37 Oportebat ut Mater Dei maxima puritate niteret: non enim est aUquid
digne receptaculum Dei nisi sit mundum (Summ. Theol., p. I, II, q. KI, a. 5, ad
3m )--C tedendum ' est (Beafce Virgini) collatum esse quidquid conferri potuit
(in III Sent., d. 3, q. 1, a. 1).
38 Cf. Summ. Theol., p. ILI, q. 6, a. 4, ad 3m ; q. 34, a. I ; a. 2, ad Ini : a. 3, c. ct
ad 2m. Hence the statement: “To them (the theologians of the XIII Century.)
the idea seemed strange that what was subsequent in the order of nature could
be simultaneous in point of time,” given by the writer of the article ‘‘Immaculate
Conception” in “The Catholic Encyclopedia,’’ is as gratuitous as several others
to be found in his contribution.
3u Quanto aliquis magis appropinquat principio in quolibet Renere, tanto magis
participat effectum illius principii . . . Christus autem est principium gratiae . . .
Beata autem Virgo, propinquissima Christo fuit ... Et ideo pree ceteris maiorem
debuit a Christo gratia plenitudinem obtinere (Summ. Theol. p. IJI. q, 27 a. 51,—
Beata Virgo super omnes alios sanctos a peccato purior fuit, veluti' 'Divime
Sapientiae Mater electa (m HI Sent., d. 3, q. 1, a. D.—Beata' Virao ercessit
Angelos in iribus. et primo in plenitudine gratia, qua magis est in Beata Virgine
quam in aliquo Angelo (in Salut. Angel.).
40Summ. Tïheol., p. I, q. 95, a. 1 ; q. 62, a. 3.

ST. THOMAS AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

263

the eight other Immaculate Conceptions and thus warning Catholic
theologians to leave wrong paths and to take the right highway.
This advice of St, Thomas, however, was not followed by some
Catholic theologians. In opposing these theologians the Dominican
School was believed to be opposing the Immaculate Conception
which became a dogma. Still, the Dominican School, supposedly
against the definition, was the only one which was sustained by the
definition. For the Immaculate Conception, as defined, is a con­
clusion of the Dominican theory of the Incarnation dependent on
Adam’s sin.
It may be true that in the controversy concerning the Immacu­
late Conception a few Dominicans misunderstood the teaching of
St. Thomas; but it is also true that the great public did misunder­
stand and does still misunderstand the position of the Dominicans.41
41 Cf. Del Prado, pp. xxiv and xxviii, note 4.