Aquinas on Mary's Sanctification in the Womb (ST III q.27 a.1–2) and Pius IX's Definition of the Immaculate Conception

Orientation #

He returns to the proemium of question 27, which he says he looked at before, and notes he had already mentioned that the first three of its four parts divide the Gospel of Matthew. He promises to bring copies of a Van Eyck painting (the Lamb with the saints) when they reach the fourth part. The previous class finished the treatise on the union and Christ’s mediatorship, and the next continues in q. 27 with the fomes, Mary’s freedom from actual sin, and her fullness of grace.

The class, in order #

1. The proemium and its divisions (“this consideration will be divided into four parts”) #

What remains after the union and its consequences: what the incarnate Son did or suffered in the human nature united to him. Four parts: (1) his entry into the world, (2) the process/course of his life in this world, (3) his exit from this world, (4) his exaltation after this life.

• The first three are a division of the Gospel of Matthew, represented by the man, since it emphasizes Christ’s human nature; the fourth is more in the Apocalypse.
• Entry into the world has four heads: conception, birth, circumcision, baptism — at baptism “he more sanctifies the waters and they sanctify him.”
• The conception is considered (a) as regards the mother conceiving, (b) the mode of conception (appropriated to the Holy Spirit), (c) the perfection of the offspring conceived.
• On the mother’s side, four: her sanctification, her virginity, her betrothal/espousal, the annunciation (preparation for conceiving).
• Question 27 then asks six things: sanctified before birth from the womb? before animation? did sanctification wholly take away the fomes? did it follow she never sinned? did she obtain fullness of grace? was being thus sanctified proper to her? — on the last he says here it is better to translate proprium by private and proper, i.e. unique to her.
• Fomes he leaves untranslated; a student offers “tinder of sin”; he jokes it is “a little foam.”

2. Article 1, the objections (“not before what is spiritual, but what is animal”) #

1. 1 Cor 15: not first the spiritual but the animal; but by sanctifying grace man is born spiritually as a son of God (John 1); birth from the womb is the animal birth — so she was not sanctified before it.
2. Augustine, Epistle to Adeodatus: the sanctification by which we are made a temple of God belongs only to those born again; but no one is born again unless first born.
3. Whoever is sanctified by grace is cleansed of original and actual sin; only original sin could bar her from the heavenly kingdom; so had she then died she would have entered — impossible before Christ’s passion, since our confidence of entry is “through his blood.”
4. Original sin is contracted from our origin; as one in the act of sinning cannot be cleansed of that actual sin, so she could not be cleansed of original sin while still in the very act of originating, in the maternal womb.

• Sed contra: the Church celebrates the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin; one celebrates a feast only for someone holy.
• Aside (from before class): there were liturgical feasts of the Immaculate Conception before it was defined — the sort of argument taken into account when Pius XII asked whether the Assumption could be defined. A student adds the Rosary had the Assumption before the definition.
• Grammar aside on Albert the Great and neuter genus: “neuter” = neither, i.e. ne-uterus; and on “reproduction” — you are not reproduced, your parents are reproduced in you.

3. Article 1, the corpus: argued from fittingness, not Scripture (“nothing is treated of this in canonical Scripture”) #

Scripture says nothing of her sanctification, and nothing even of her birth. But as Augustine in the tractate on the Assumption reasonably argues that she was assumed bodily though Scripture does not treat it, so we may reasonably argue that she was sanctified in the womb.

1. It is reasonably believed that she who brought forth the Only-Begotten, full of grace and truth, had greater privileges of grace before all others — Ave, gratia plena (Luke 1:28).
2. Others were granted this privilege: Jeremiah (“before you came out of the womb I sanctified you,” Jer 1) and John the Baptist (“filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb,” Luke 1).

4. Article 1, replies (“she was sanctified in the womb as regards the personal stain”) #

1. In her too the animal was first: conceived first according to the flesh, afterwards sanctified according to the spirit.
2. Augustine speaks of the common law of the sacraments, by which we are regenerated only after birth; God does not bind his power to that law, and by special privilege can confer grace before birth from the uterus.
3. She was sanctified from original sin as regards the personal stain, but not freed from the guilt/punishment to which the whole nature was held — that one enters paradise only through Christ’s offering; the same is said of the Holy Fathers before Christ.
4. Original sin of nature is contracted when human nature is communicated, which happens at ensoulment; after animation nothing prevents the offspring being sanctified, since it remains in the womb not to take human nature but to take some perfection.

• He asks the class, half-teasing: “Has Thomas gotten into trouble yet in his first article or not?”

5. Ineffabilis Deus read in Latin and English (“in primo instante suae conceptionis”) #

He hands out and reads Pius IX’s bull of 8 December 1854 (he first misdates it 1864 and corrects himself): by the authority of Christ, of Peter and Paul, and his own, he declares, pronounces and defines that the most blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu — in view of the merits of Christ Jesus, Saviour of the human race — was preserved immune from all stain of original culpa; this is revealed by God and firmly to be believed; whoever presumes otherwise suffers shipwreck of the faith and has fallen from the unity of the Church, with penalties ipso facto for expressing it.

• A student reads the English translation; he notes John Paul II’s phrase “princes of the Apostles.”
• Lourdes follows four years later, 1858 — “a very striking thing.” From 1854 to the definition of the Assumption is called the Marian century.
• De Koninck’s suggestion: these solemn definitions of Mary’s exalted mysteries were perhaps delayed by divine providence lest we confuse Mary with God — as the Trinity was not spelled out in the Old Testament, lest it be understood polytheistically; even today Muslims accuse us of polytheism. There is always a gradual unfolding.

6. Thomas against the definition, and his own writings against each other (“take these with a grain of salt”) #

He passes round a text from Thomas’s Sentences commentary (reply to the third objection) where Thomas seems to say she is immune from original as well as actual sin — “I don’t know if he changes his mind.”

• Student: the Pope says “stain,” Thomas says “guilt” — are they the same? He answers: they are connected, at any rate.
• Thomas before dying submitted all his writings to the judgment of the Church; this is a good example where the Church’s judgment is to be followed even on Thomas’s own view.
• His reconciliation: the definition says “in view of the merits of Christ.” As Thomas elsewhere says all are saved from mortal sin by Christ, some by being forgiven, others (a St Thérèse) by being preserved from ever committing it — so with original sin: all are saved through Christ’s merits; the rest of us by being washed in baptism, Mary by being preserved from contracting it, in view of those same merits.

7. Article 2, the objections (“sanctified before animation”) #

1. More grace was given her than to any saint; but some seem to have been sanctified before animation — Jer 1:5 “before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (the soul is not infused before the body’s formation); and Ambrose on Luke: in John the Baptist there was not yet the spirit of life when there was already the spirit of grace.
2. Anselm, On the Virginal Conception: fitting that she shine with a purity than which none greater under God can be understood; Canticles: “Tota pulchra es, there is no stain in you” — greater purity if never stained. (He notes this is the text used for the Immaculate Conception, and that the handout from the Sentences uses the same Anselm text to a different purpose.)
3. A feast is celebrated only of someone holy; some celebrate the feast of her conception.
4. Rom 11: if the root is holy so are the branches; parents are the root of sons — so she could have been sanctified in her parents.

• Sed contra: Old Testament things are figures of the new (1 Cor 10); the sanctifying of the tabernacle (Ps 45, “the Most High sanctified his tabernacle”; Ps 18, “in the sun he placed his tabernacle”) signifies the sanctifying of the Mother of God; but of the tabernacle Exodus 40 says that after all things were perfected the cloud covered it and God’s glory filled it — so she was sanctified only after all of her, body and soul, was perfect.

8. Article 2, corpus: two reasons (“the subject of grace is only the rational creature”) #

1. This sanctification is nothing but a cleansing from original sin; holiness is a perfect cleansing (Dionysius, Divine Names ch. 12); culpa is cleansed only through grace, whose subject is only the rational creature; therefore before the infusion of the rational soul she was not sanctified.
2. Only the rational creature is susceptible of culpa; before the infusion of the soul the offspring is not subject to guilt; so had she been sanctified before animation she would never have incurred the stain of original guilt, and so would not have needed the redemption and salvation which is through Christ — unfitting, since Christ is Saviour of all.

• Student exchange: the very formulation seems to assume animation comes after conception in time. He answers that before animation you do not yet have the person; grace requires a rational soul, and without grace no sanctification — the stages, vegetative, animal, rational soul. He grants that whether every rational soul has original sin is another question, but you certainly cannot have cleansing without grace, and grace only in a rational creature, since grace is a partaking of the divine nature, possible only in what is made in God’s image.
• Of Mary he says: she does not have mundatio (cleansing) but preservatio from peccatum originale — “a funny way to speak, because before the infusion of her soul she didn’t exist yet.”

9. Digression: peccatum versus culpa (“a defect in an act”) #

From reading the Compendium of Theology. Peccatum is a defect in an act, and can be a defect in a natural act — hence the phrase peccatum naturae, said of a defective offspring, which sounds odd in English as “a sin of nature.” Culpa is more like guilt: a peccatum in the will, for which you are responsible, is not only peccatum but culpa; there is no culpa in nature. If you translate peccatum only by “sin” you will have trouble reading the Latin.

10. What the definition does and does not settle (“I’m not sure what the Pope means by conception”) #

Student: does the definition imply that Mary at least was animated at the first instant of conception? He answers no — the definition says “in the first instant of her conception,” and the answer depends on what the Pope means by conception; one might assume the fusion of sperm and egg, but that may not be his meaning. Because the word is preserved, it seems to leave open that animation follows. He also notes the Latin is originalis culpa / labe, not peccatum, though the English renders it “stain of original sin.”

• Aside: Báñez, close to St Teresa of Avila, was always indignant at those denying the Immaculate Conception — the days when Jesuits and Dominicans were hard at it.
• His verdict: “the element of truth in what Thomas is saying is preserved in the text of the definition.”

11. Article 2, replies to objections 1–3 (“she was cleansed before she was born from the womb”) #

1. Jeremiah was known before formation by the knowledge of predestination; he was sanctified not before formation but before he came out of the womb. Ambrose’s “spirit of life” is not the soul but spiritus as the air we breathe; or the soul was there but not as to its manifest and complete operations (crying, trembling).
2. If her soul had never been stained (inquinata) by original sin, it would detract from Christ’s dignity as universal Saviour; so under Christ, who did not need saving as being himself the universal Saviour, hers is the greatest purity. Christ in no way contracted original sin — “who is born of you shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1) — but the Blessed Virgin contracted it and was cleansed before birth from the womb. Here he interjects: “This is not true, Thomas.” Job 3:9 on the night of original sin: “let it expect light” (Christ) “and not see it,” nor the rising of the morning star — the Blessed Virgin, who in her origin was immune from original sin. He comments: she was immune, period; and notes the Sentences handout seems to say she is immune even from original sin — “second thoughts are not always better than first thoughts.”
3. The Roman Church does not celebrate the conception but tolerates the custom of some churches; the celebration is not wholly to be reproved; it should not be understood that she was holy in her conception, but since the time of her sanctification was not known, the feast of her sanctification was celebrated on the day of her conception. He remarks that is not how the Church reads it now.

• A note in his edition observes Thomas here expresses the same view as Bernard, Bonaventure and Albert, but that in the Expositio on the Angelic Salutation — composed after this article — he taught her immunity: “she was most pure as regards culpa, since she incurred neither original nor mortal nor venial sin.” He checked the Marietti edition that morning; a student jokes about a “corrected/purified edition.”
• Jokes: Thomas may have had a short stay in purgatory over this — “at least as long as a Hail Mary; the first part”; and a run of quips about Mary’s look and her Son’s word.

12. Reply to the fourth objection (“twofold is the sanctifying”) #

Sanctification is twofold: of the whole nature, as human nature is freed from the corruption of guilt and punishment — this will be at the resurrection; and personal sanctification, which does not carry over to the child begotten bodily, since it regards not the flesh but the mind. So although her parents were cleansed of original sin, she contracted it, being conceived from the desire of the flesh and the union of male and female — Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence: everything born of this union is flesh of sin.

• He remarks this gets Augustine into trouble too, but that Augustine excludes any consideration of sin when speaking of the Blessed Virgin; he does not know Augustine’s specific position. (He had misread ahead — “third article… oh, we got the fourth.”)

His words #

• fomes — left untranslated; a student’s “tinder of sin”; his joke, “a little foam.”
• “private and proper” — his rendering of proprium in a. 6: unique to her.
• neuter genus — Albert the Great’s explanation: ne-uterus, neither one.
• “reproduced” — in reproduction it is the parents who are reproduced, not you.
• “the Marian century” — 1854 to the definition of the Assumption.
• mundatio vs. preservatio — cleansing (ours) against preservation (Mary’s).
• peccatum — a defect in an act, even a natural act (peccatum naturae); culpa — guilt, a peccatum in the will, for which one is responsible.
• inquinata — “stained,” of the soul contracting original sin.
• “the angelic preceptor” — the title in his edition’s note on Thomas.

Texts #

Read in class

• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III, q. 27, proemium
• Summa Theologiae III, q. 27, a. 1 (objections, sed contra, corpus, replies)
• Summa Theologiae III, q. 27, a. 2 (objections, sed contra, corpus, replies)
• Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 December 1854 — Latin and English
• A passage from Thomas’s commentary on the Sentences, reply to obj. 3, passed round in class (inferred locus)

Mentioned

• 1 Cor 15; John 1; Luke 1:28; Jer 1:5; Luke 1 (John the Baptist); Romans 11; 1 Cor 10; Ps 45; Ps 18; Exodus 40; Canticles (“Tota pulchra es”); Job 3:9
• Augustine, Epistle to Adeodatus; Augustine, tractate on the Assumption; Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence
• Anselm, On the Virginal Conception; Ambrose on Luke; Dionysius, Divine Names ch. 12
• Thomas Aquinas, Compendium of Theology; Expositio on the Angelic Salutation (Marietti edition)
• Bernard, Bonaventure, Albert the Great; Báñez; De Koninck; Van Eyck’s Lamb

His questions #

• How should you translate fomes? Left open; he declines the standard rendering and jokes about it.
• Has Thomas gotten into trouble yet in his first article or not? Not yet in a. 1; the trouble comes in a. 2, where he says she contracted original sin.
• How can there be a universal redemption of the human race by Christ if someone never needed to be redeemed? She is redeemed by being preserved from contracting sin, in view of Christ’s merits — as some are saved from mortal sin by being preserved from ever committing it.
• Are guilt (culpa) and stain the same thing? “They’re connected, I guess.”
• How could something be sanctified before it is animated, since it does not yet exist? It could not: sanctification is through grace, whose subject is the rational soul; no rational soul, no grace, no sanctification.
• Does the definition imply that Mary was animated at the first moment of conception? No; it turns on what the Pope means by “conception,” and the word “preserved” seems to leave animation afterwards open.
• Did Thomas change his mind, given the Sentences text? Left open — “second thoughts are not always better than first thoughts”; the note cites the later Expositio on the Hail Mary as teaching her immunity.
• What is Augustine’s position on the Blessed Virgin and sin? Left open; he has seen Augustine exclude any consideration of sin where she is concerned, but does not know his specific position.