tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post1401606407102451312..comments2024-03-05T11:44:26.154-08:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: Did St. Thomas deny the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?Father Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-17456381939703621282012-11-14T21:23:24.019-08:002012-11-14T21:23:24.019-08:00Dear Father Ryan,
There is an old translation of ...Dear Father Ryan,<br /><br />There is an old translation of St. Thomas' <i>Angelic Salutation</i> online <a href="http://dhspriory.org/thomas/AveMaria.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>. In it, the above-quoted sentence ("<i>She ... incurred neither original nor mental nor venial sin.</i>") lacks the word "original" – but I understand there is some disagreement in the extant manuscripts on that point.<br /><br />I'd like to draw your attention to an earlier sentence, under the heading <b>"Full of Grace"</b>. Thomas writes:<br /><br /><i>"Christ excelled the Blessed Virgin in this, that He was conceived and born without original sin, while the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, but was not born in it."</i><br /><br />This seems to agree with Thomas' earlier teaching in the <i>Summa</i>.<br /><br />Grace be with you,<br /><br />StrossmayerStrossmayernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-22019117012422366702011-12-11T19:24:17.621-08:002011-12-11T19:24:17.621-08:00This coming Easter will be my second in the Church...This coming Easter will be my second in the Church. I have been consuming Catholic theology as fast as I can but have much to learn. I am grateful for the serious approach taken in the comment section. This is the first time I've ever commented on a blog and it is because I felt compelled to say thank you. I am comforted to know the desire for truth lives in the Church without the need to kill the Mystery of Faith.<br />AlanAlan Rnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-59995139397554180162011-12-10T07:48:26.403-08:002011-12-10T07:48:26.403-08:00@mormorador,
I agree with you that St. Thomas is n...@mormorador,<br />I agree with you that St. Thomas is not explicitly addressing the timing issue in his commentary on the Sentences -- and this is why he never explicitly says "She was preserved from original sin in the moment of her conception".<br /><br />However, the whole force of the argument shows that St. Thomas did indeed think that Mary was entirely free from original sin -- making her the most pure among created things (and it is obvious that she must then be more pure than John and Jeremiah, who were cleansed in the womb; more pure than a baby who is cleansed by baptism).<br />Hence, the whole force of the "was immune from original and actual sin" is that she never had either -- your reasoning would lead us to think that St. Thomas would be ok with saying that she once committed an actual sin, but was later on purified from it ... which is ridiculous.<br /><br /><br />I don't have anything more to say ... the argument seems obvious to me ... it is the received Tradition of both the Thomistis (like Garrigou-Lagrange) and the non-Thomists (like most of the articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia -- the particular one I referenced is by F. Holweck, who is not remembered as a Thomist but as a Church historian).<br /><br />I have nothing more to say on this point ... I guess we will have to agree to disagree. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-87497787674810167812011-12-09T21:53:03.794-08:002011-12-09T21:53:03.794-08:00Additional point: your initial argument about new-...Additional point: your initial argument about new-born babies, again, might be ingenious, but it isnt in the 1 Sent text. And decontextualised arguments ex silentio about what Thomas did not say are pretty worthless.<br /><br />Thomas is not addressing the timing issue in immaculate conc. issue in 1 Sent, and his wording is open enough to accomodate what was then an ongoing controversy. The onus is on you to prove he did uphold it definitively to make your change-of-views reading of AQ work. So far you havent.<br /><br />Sorry about long posts, but distinguishing between the true and the false requires it. I do not think I am 'padding'.mormoradorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231765668788709090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-56675574115349958852011-12-09T21:46:36.830-08:002011-12-09T21:46:36.830-08:00TO address them slightly out of order -
The GL an...TO address them slightly out of order - <br />The GL and Catholic Encycl. of the old days are partisan sources, and my comments about about appeals to authority above hold. Show me a contemporary Aquinas scholar (last 30 years, not a 'Thomist', in serious academic literature) and I'll give it weight.<br /><br />First point - inquantum erat "she was able to sin"; this 'was' is ambiguous, referring to whole time or at once; there is no reason to think it refers to all time given we know about Aquinas' views later. While a first blush reading of it fits your reading, because we dont attend to such temporal issues when reading simple 'esse' predication, when we realise the question of timing isnt at issue, we reread it and see it is compatible with a later purification, or purification at a time. The 'was' for his argument only has to be true for a time for Aq's argument to work (indeed, note he uses 'inquant erat' for the conditional, then 'fuit' for the assertions about mary - he is actually being more careful about modality and time than you are, or our translations are capturing him as doing. He says She was (fuit) below God, insofar as there was (erat) in her a potency to sin). <br /><br />to the third: you say:<br />yet he clearly says that there could be a created thing "which nothing more pure can be among created things" and then he such "there was such purity in the blessed Virgin".<br />Correct. But again, you are overintepreting the force of 'fuit' (there was). It doesnt imply 'always was' without further argument, given what we know about Aq's views and the views of people at the time.<br /><br />Note you did a shift from presenting a argument in Thomas' mouth about thinkable/conceivable degrees of perfection (I say, a la Anselm) back to a more fair representation of Aquinas' own expression, which does not secure the conclusion. Does this mean you concede that your earlier argument was NOT Thomas', and is an Anselmianised Thomism?<br />Please tell me you can at least see the difference between the first version of the argument you imputed to AQ (the conceivable grades one), and this new version (dealing direct with realities). If not, I fear for your competence in reading the subtlety of texts.<br /><br />It hangs on the 'There was' and temporal properties, basically. You've overinterpreted the text.<br /><br />Any comment on maximal consistency?<br />Any comment on the broader D.44 context?mormoradorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231765668788709090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-31152144821595778452011-12-09T06:29:54.053-08:002011-12-09T06:29:54.053-08:00@mormorador,
You need to start your own blog ... t...@mormorador,<br />You need to start your own blog ... that last comment was way too long and involved.<br /><br /><br />My short reply:<br />St. Thomas says that Mary was less than God "inquantum" (insofar as) she was able to sin ... rather than inquantum she incurred any sin.<br />If he intended that she had once had original sin, but then it was washed away -- then, she would not (necessarily) be any more pure than a newly baptized baby ... but St. Thomas doesn't say that a newly baptized baby is less pure than God inquantum he is able to sin ... but inquantum he has had original sin.<br />This shouldn't be that difficult to grasp.<br /><br />Further, it is the accepted interpretation of more than simply the great Fr. R. Garrigou-Lagrange ... even the Catholic Encyclopedia affirms that St. Thomas held the Immaculate Conception when he was young!<br /><br /><br />Finally, while St. Thomas says that a created thing can always be created "more good" (contra Anselm), yet he clearly says that there could be a created thing "which nothing more pure can be among created things" and then he such "there was such purity in the blessed Virgin".<br />Hence, I don't know why you say that Thomas doesn't make this argument. Clearly he does!<br /><br />Now, address those two arguments ... I don't care which edition of the Latin you use.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-86798889465226555142011-12-09T03:36:12.161-08:002011-12-09T03:36:12.161-08:00Dear Fr, I included translations and context of th...Dear Fr, I included translations and context of the 1.Sent article to obviate exactly this sort of misreading.<br /><br />Your comments then mine; your response needs unpicking, and having done so, the failure of the original argument becomes clear.<br />You write:<br />If Mary had ever had original sin, then she would be less than God in more ways than simply being able to sin.<br />**This just isnt in Aquinas' text here.** <br />But, in the Commentary on the Sentences, St. Thomas says that the only respect according to which she is less than God is that she could sin.<br />** No, the Latin and my trans. do not say that that was the only way she is less than God is impeccability. It only says that She was, however, below God, in as much as (inquantum) there was in her a potential to sin. Nothing makes this an 'only', and the very context (remember, it is Anselm who wants Mary as maximally-pure-and-only-God-is-purer/better; Aquinas is exactly trying to carve out the possibility of Mary's being possibly betterable (read the whole paragraph again pls, and look at the argument at play - it has nothing directly to do with immaculate conceptions in the timing sense, but degrees of perfection).**<br /><br /><br />You say:<br />Thus, it is clear that St. Thomas believed (early on) that she was conceived without original sin.<br /><br />**This doesnt follow. He only says she was without original sin; and that, in this context of discussion of possible good or better ways of creating the world, does not address conceived-with issues.**<br /><br />You say:<br />Further, if we though of Mary as conceived with sin and then purified later ... we could thing of yet something more pure, namely one conceived without original sin ... but St. Thomas held that Mary was the most pure of all that can be thought among created things ... thus, it is clear that he held that she was immaculately conceived.<br /><br />**This is perhaps an ingenious argument; but (1) it isnt Aquinas' D. 44 arg (2) Aquinas is exactly arguing against a conclusion founded on this sort of 'nothing greater conceivable' sort of move of Anselm. Note (3) that it is *Anselm* that uses the language reminiscient of possible conceivable perfections (again, see my translations). Aquinas quietly sidesteps this ontological-argument style language and doesnt entangle with it, so why impute it to him?<br />(4) We havent even touched on the Latin, and on Aquinas' response to the whole question, where he makes points on absolute vs comparative perfection and evaluation that undermine this little ingenious argument that you tried to impute to Aquinas 1 Sent.<br /><br />Further points (again): my reading makes Aquinas maximally consistent across his works, and deals with the context of the article and distinction of the Sent. Comm. It does not impute things to Aq that are not in the Latin. It is written without an agenda to make Aquinas on the right side of debates decided definitively only centuries later (surely a bad scholarly methodology, although, as a partisan, one is welcome to it). <br /><br />Might I suggest you have gone off half-cocked on the basis of ideology, and would do better to read these snippet-paragraphs of Aquinas in a broader context of his concerns in Sent 1. D.44 - the goodness and changeability of the universe. (Or, better, read D.42-44). In terms of sec. lit, O. Blanchette's book on the perfection of the universe is the best guide to Aquinas' mind on this distinction. <br /><br />PS I used Parma vol 6, p. 533. I'd be really interested if you used Mandonnet for this and there is a variation in MSS here.mormoradorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231765668788709090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-53662794260852613172011-12-08T15:17:02.316-08:002011-12-08T15:17:02.316-08:00@mormorador,
If Mary had ever had original sin, th...@mormorador,<br />If Mary had ever had original sin, then she would be less than God in more ways than simply being able to sin.<br />But, in the Commentary on the Sentences, St. Thomas says that the only respect according to which she is less than God is that she could sin.<br />Thus, it is clear that St. Thomas believed (early on) that she was conceived without original sin.<br /><br />Further, if we though of Mary as conceived with sin and then purified later ... we could thing of yet something more pure, namely one conceived without original sin ... but St. Thomas held that Mary was the most pure of all that can be thought among created things ... thus, it is clear that he held that she was immaculately conceived.<br /><br /><br />Now, will you get serious and show where the flaw in my argument is?Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-57790146621091278282011-12-08T15:10:13.149-08:002011-12-08T15:10:13.149-08:00My point was that the 1 Sent. text you cite is com...My point was that the 1 Sent. text you cite is compatible with the position (of ST) that<br />she was cleansed from sin shortly after conception and while yet in the womb, and such a position makes Aquinas consistent across time, and consistent with the Dominicans of his day etc (i.e. a decent contextualised reading). Sorry about the lengthy post, but a matter of evidence, decency and truth was at stake.<br /><br /><br />Again: in the 1 Sent. text, he only affirms that Mary was cleansed (at some point), it does not deal with whether this happened after conception or at it (embryological issues notwithstanding). <br />One cannot infer "never had any sin (not even original sin)", as you and GL require from the 1 Sent text, only 'did not have sin (neutral about never/sometimes), such that only below God in potential to sin'. This subtlety kills the inference you must make for your alternating reading of AQ to work.<br /><br />Remember, as Pope Leo said, whoever hates the distinctions of scholastic philosophy hates the distinction between the true and the false! Get ready to make the distinctions, or admit the argument is a flopper.<br /><br />The authoritative status of G-L as a Thomism *scholar* has to be in doubt - he was a scholar, but also a Thomas-partisan, trying to make Aquinas congruent with dogma after the 19th c. declarations. This project of bending Aquinas' texts for 19th-20th century purposes is perfectly fine for an ideologue in a continuing tradition, but it ain't expertise in Thomism of the sort of scholarly detachment your appeal to authority requires. <br /><br />Please respond to my argument seriously this time.mormoradorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231765668788709090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-13258574038116693942011-12-07T22:27:19.161-08:002011-12-07T22:27:19.161-08:00Thanks for Clearing This Misconception about Thomi...Thanks for Clearing This Misconception about Thomism!Josemaria Paulo Jeromino Martin Carvalho-Von Versterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00128928800453615354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-89127847061804404562011-12-07T15:22:40.659-08:002011-12-07T15:22:40.659-08:00@Josemaria,
No, Thomism is not the only valid syst...@Josemaria,<br />No, Thomism is not the only valid system in Catholic thought ... personally, I am convinced that it is the best system, but it is not the only one.<br /><br />Catholics are free to be Scotists, or Augustinians, or Bonaventurians ... not to mention the many Eastern schools of thought!<br /><br />But it is good to know that St. Thomas did not deny the Immaculate Conception after all ... far too many people take this cheep shot, and they are liars.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-34440812343858840552011-12-07T15:20:22.928-08:002011-12-07T15:20:22.928-08:00@mormorador,
First, please limit the length of you...@mormorador,<br />First, please limit the length of your comments ... that last one was way too long and in-depth ... it was more a blog-post than a comment.<br /><br /><br />In any case, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange (who was an expert in Thomism if ever there was one) was convinced that in the commentary on the sentences St. Thomas held the Immaculate Conception (though, of course, he did not use those specific words).<br /><br />The point St. Thomas was making (early on) is that Mary had no sin and never had any sin (not even original sin) -- this is why he said that the only thing that made her less than God was the "potential to sin" (hence, he clearly held what we today call the "Immaculate Conception").<br /><br />And (truth be told), St. Thomas went too far in his early writings because, in addition to the potential to sin, Mary also had the debt of original sin (even while being immaculately conceived).<br /><br /><br />I hope it is clearer now!Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-19118770797715106012011-12-07T14:30:55.971-08:002011-12-07T14:30:55.971-08:00I think that the material in I Sent. does not actu...I think that the material in I Sent. does not actually make the point that the author requires; the first give away of this is the fact that the discussion is in 1 Sent D44. I.D.44 is on the power of God to create things/the universe/the humanity of christ etc better. It is NOT focused on issues of the immac. conc. at all; this example just added to the mix of arguments. <br />Aquinas' response is against the Anselmian challenge as follows: <br />it was fitting for the virgin which God prepared for his only-begotten son that he make her shine in a degree of purity, which nothing greater that is less than God can be understood. But God can make nothing equal to him in goodness and purity. Thus it seems that he could not make anything better than the virgin. (Anselm Concep. Virg. ch. 18).<br /><br />The way this issue is framed, note, has no bearing on the question of time, and transiting from sin to being cleansed of sin slightly after conception, or being in permanently in a pure state. Indeed, questions of acquiring a pure state versus having it from the start are just not resolvable, and the concept of purity at issue for the argument doesnt impinge on it.<br /><br />Aquinas' response is as follows:<br />To the third videtur, it needs to be said that purity is held out by retreat from a contrary; and therefore something created can be found which nothing more pure can be among created things, if it has not been stained by any contagion of sin; and there was such purity in the blessed Virgin, who was free from original and actual sin. She was, however, below God, in as much as there was in her a potential to sin. But goodness is increased by approach to the term which is infinitely distant [distat in infinitum], namely the highest good. Whence for any finite good anything can be better.<br /><br /><br />The point about this response is that the past-tenses (perfects and imperfect-pasts) fit with the entire question, which Aquinas asks about what God could have done [potuerit]. It just says that The BV was without orig. sin; there is no implication about process at all.<br /><br />Note that this reading makes Aquinas more consistent across his works, and removes the 'flipflop'. Given that it also makes better sense of the text (respecting that the immac. concept. timing issue is not in play), but it is instead a broader disquisition on the broader issue of God's power. As a result, I think the early-career view of Aquinas as holding the immac. conc. doctrine you impute to him wont work. It is possible that your argument for doctrinal change still works because of a change from ST to the Angelic Salutation; I havent looked at the text, but frankly Id be dubious, on the interpretive grounds that the prayer just isnt addressing the issue with the refinement our question requires. (Clue again: its a *prayer*).mormoradorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231765668788709090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-39605441004673277022011-12-07T10:53:11.788-08:002011-12-07T10:53:11.788-08:00Father Ryan
Even if St. Thomas Aquinas was in Err...Father Ryan<br /><br />Even if St. Thomas Aquinas was in Error early in his life before believing in the Immaculate Conception,is Thomism still The only valid system of Catholic theology?Josemaria Paulo Jeromino Martin Carvalho-Von Versterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00128928800453615354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-23222367507094315322011-12-07T07:38:46.105-08:002011-12-07T07:38:46.105-08:00Thank you for this explanation. I was not aware of...Thank you for this explanation. I was not aware of St. Thomas' later thought on the Immaculate Conception.jeremyschwagerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13666706571841510758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-38020439144465879812011-12-07T07:36:56.183-08:002011-12-07T07:36:56.183-08:00Dear anonymous re ensoulment. That is the argument...Dear anonymous re ensoulment. That is the argument of the Josef Mengele Society - abortionists.<br /><br />While the Angelic Dr wrote about that issue he also firmly maintained the Tradition of an absolute, complete, and total ban on abortion.<br /><br />No, it is the Church of the Angel of Death, the followers of Mengele (an abortionist in So America) who try and abuse the Angelic Doctor's teachings to make it seem as though he would likely support early abortion.Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-77282857481216641602011-12-06T20:50:20.959-08:002011-12-06T20:50:20.959-08:00@Capreolus,
Thank you for the reference to Del Pra...@Capreolus,<br />Thank you for the reference to Del Prado's work!<br />I will see if I can get a hold of it somehow.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-26817093986021781742011-12-06T20:49:26.090-08:002011-12-06T20:49:26.090-08:00@Veronica,
Yes, indeed, even St. Bonaventure had e...@Veronica,<br />Yes, indeed, even St. Bonaventure had erred on this point ... but (given the time) it is certainly understandable. <br />The specific citation is: III Sent., dist. 3, q.27.<br /><br />Blessed Duns Scotus (who followed in the Bonaventurian school) is often credited as the great defender of the Immaculate Conception -- though, I have tried to show that St. Thomas himself sets the theological foundations for the dogma (and also seems to have believed in it by the end of his life).<br /><br />Peace to you always! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-23299813184293997662011-12-06T20:46:16.774-08:002011-12-06T20:46:16.774-08:00@Alfred (Flamen),
I have no idea what you are tryi...@Alfred (Flamen),<br />I have no idea what you are trying to say ... perhaps there is a language problem?Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-53896687635529737912011-12-06T19:43:51.169-08:002011-12-06T19:43:51.169-08:00Excellent and inspiring, as always. Goodness!Excellent and inspiring, as always. Goodness!Stacy Trasancoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14638075878905614981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-62062351884611595352011-12-06T17:02:27.546-08:002011-12-06T17:02:27.546-08:00This reminds me of a theological question... Will ...This reminds me of a theological question... Will development of doctrine continue to the end of time, or will it stop prior to the time of the Antichrist?Nickhttp://www.catholicity.webs.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-52395246122300870062011-12-06T13:14:30.627-08:002011-12-06T13:14:30.627-08:00Thank you for that concise summary of St. Aquinas&...Thank you for that concise summary of St. Aquinas' thought. This is very helpful!Joe @ Defend Us In Battlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15230524215323916396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-53819601532010517692011-12-06T13:13:59.942-08:002011-12-06T13:13:59.942-08:00WHAT MISTAKEN IDEA ABOUT HUMAN GENERATION? SINCE ...WHAT MISTAKEN IDEA ABOUT HUMAN GENERATION? SINCE ST. ApetsvUGUSTINE TO THE 19TH CENTURY THE CHURCH TAUGHT THAT THE HUMAN BODY BEGAN AT CONCEPTION AND THE HUMAN SOUL WAS INFUSED 40-80 DAYS LATER.Alfredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03509419398798912595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-68303950105640635372011-12-06T13:11:50.599-08:002011-12-06T13:11:50.599-08:00What mistaken idea about human generation. From S...What mistaken idea about human generation. From St. Augustine until the 19th century the church taught that the huiman body began at conception and tht the humaan soul was infused 40-880days later.<br />FlamenAlfredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03509419398798912595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-29870459661269509982011-12-06T13:08:52.668-08:002011-12-06T13:08:52.668-08:00What mistaken idea about human generation? Since ...What mistaken idea about human generation? Since St. Augustine until the 19th century the church taught that the human body began at conception and the human soul was infused 40-80 days later.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com