252 THE HOMILETIC AND PASTORAL REVIEW fand unrelenting war with sing and that the more carefully ang resolutely we guard ourselves against even venial faults and imper . THOMAS AND THE IMMACULATE fections in other words, the more closely we resemble the Inmacy. ‘CONCEPTION late Mother of God,—the more we shall grow in God's favor, Pee ae eer ak Beata Mater et intacta Virgo, gloriosa Regina mundi, intercede y years ago I was traveling with a Baptist minister. In the ff our conversation he attacked the traditional basis of dogs. As an instance, he pointed out the dogma of the Conception, a dogma, he said, that was never taught 8 of the Church, and was even denied by St, Thomas fone ofthe grestest of ecclesiastical Doctors. Three years J, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, while dining Catholic priests, who were also learned professors, one remarked that the only opponents of the Feast had been the In fact, he contended that St. Thomas denied the Conception. be interesting to hear this Catholic priest discussing the ion with the Baptist minister. What would be his the ministe’s last statement? Of course, T am told, he that St, Thomas is one of the Doctors, and that our Rot based on the particular opinion of one Doctor, bat on ous teaching of them all, This answer, however, is Dut satisfactory; for a learmed interlocutor can reply ‘homas is not alone; that at the side of Aquinas we can ISt. Anselm, St Bernard, and St. Bonaventure. Although four Doctors ony, they belong to the most brillant period ic theology. They were, moreover, perfectly acquainted Swtitings ofthe Fathers and Doctors, thelr predecessors, and ved in every way the most perfect devotion and the Attachment to them. They compete, finally, with those nd Doctors in extolling the singular prerogatives and une xcellency of Mary. Tn fact, in language more precise, ro nobis od Domsinu? ess chetorical, they surpass the former writers; for there ise of Mary in those authors which could not be found in not merely reproduced, but even improved;* while on fo oaces: Beata Vigo tote grate obit penitdinem, in dari paar quod gto ed not i frend uSlantinde Sean of oats eee PSs, iiai'ad ie} Boavam et Quote nt onbe b 253254 THE HOMILETIC AND PASTORAL REVIEW THOMAS AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 258 j the contrary, we can find in the Fathers and in the ancient doctors some phrases to which St. Thomas fet constrained to give 2 mi gentle, and Catholic interpretation* Let it be understood, therefore, that it is not St. Thomas along wwe plead for when we plead for St. Thomas" m broke the first and fundamental subjection, and, tearing er of his authority, he lost control of his lower appetite and ‘of his body. He lost that supernatural gift to the same gs it had been granted: for himself, namely, and for the race dependent on him, as on its moral head and natural "This privation stands, then, for sin: a personal sin in ‘9s an individual who by his own will actually loses God's [aad asin of nature in all men, for by the wil of Adam they tually despoiled of God's grace stands for the moral head and prince of the human. original or first sin affects all, yet only, the individuals As the sixth centenary of St. Thomas! canonization was come imemorated in the month of July this year, it may be apropos 4g discuss the claim of his opposition to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, a claim most widespread, most easly grante, and sil, ‘most superficial ofall claims.* Such a claim is the most superficial we say. For, if everyone talks about the Immaculate Conception, very few are acquainted with the different meanings which may be ‘on him as their moral heed and prince. Foran individual . sziven, and were really given in the history of the dogms, to tat considered as a member of a society, and thus an act can ‘expression Jalthough it has not been performed by him, but by the rest Tmmaculate Conception stands, certainly, for a conception ia ty, or by the greater part of the society, or bythe prince Jety, asa nation is considered to act when its prince acts* stands, moreover, for the natural principle and source n nature, original sin is transmitted by him together with i Human nature is not transmitted by Adam totally, but othe flesh, Even the flesh is not transmitted just materially bodily substance; it ie transmitted through an active ‘by means of generation. It is through this active power ternal semen that the maternal ovum evolves into ls flesh having evolved to its perfect fitness for receiving a {soul makes the creation and the infusion of the soul neces- . sou! wnited to the body makes up the man. Asan actual — Which the offspring is exempt from original sin, Original sin stands for the privation of sanctifying grace. This privaton was incurred by human nature on account of the frst sin of Adam, ca stituted, as he was by God, both the moral head or prince and thal natural principle or source of the human race* The human rag dependent on Adam as both its head and its source, was gras jn Adam a supernatural gift, consisting chiely in the subjection of reason to God, though implying, as a consequence, the subject of inferior powers to reason, of body to soul, In rebelling agai Vegi porte (Summ Theol pkg 2, «2,20 3a). oe ee eerie ota pein Ma eee (eed oer ann fied ste es red in wit tm Dire hr i ate ight erate Hecate tam sec tuo Snes ‘Bingen Sf eh by Fe, Norberion del Prod 0.°P. tm ‘nina eth iss tect yeaa che Otc a ‘Buy elec) by a member of the body belongs to that member as itis moved by the will, to original sin belongs to the fof Adam inasfar as they are moved by Adam. Adam is children through the active power of the semen this power Adam makes his descendants men, an through ‘Adam makes his descendants sinners” sin isnot setually and properly inthe semen nor in the human nature is neither actually and properly therein. tre and original sin are in the semen and in the flesh instrumental necessary cate, a8 contained in the virtue—256 THE HOMILETIC AND PASTORAL REVIEW intraental vstoe—by wich the samen evolves the ovum ing fesh—fesh which will reel sguinst reson—and by ‘hic the oak ios ecomery the ito of te woul son hich yl tre ha corruption of tn Sek? For asthe sues cones ng Bany which ably revs aginst reson, it moves othe forma tion of a Body which will Kep itl in identealrebelion Thi Iaitalrebelion (or concuptcence, or fomes eco) is fomaly and propel in the body. Though i is derived fom sn—the si of Adarn—and inclines to sit—the acta rebelion —it is nt ye 4 sin. Stl, this corruption of the boty is a diposton which rakes the corruption of the sol necessary, inafar a6 at the rmoment of animation the body makes sp wth the so peson snweorthy of Go’ gre, 29 that this erom deserves t0 recive op race and has to be deprived of grace apd t contract os a cme: tons tigen Te is eany now to ee in how many diferent senses the term “tmmactlate Conception” may be employ, and in how many di ferent ways we may speak ofa person bing conesived exer fm Gigi das We cely then ws Slows We have fst Immacolste Conception, of frst moe in wie 4 aman indvida! coud be coneived without originals, we hold that Adam was not consitted the moral ead or prac of that invidual forthe tension of either origins! rice of rig sn. God coud cormmmiate to some inva senting race abohtely independent of Adam's grace? We have a second Immaculate Conception, ora second mate i which some human individ con be conceived without oil ‘sin, if we hold that Adam was not constituted the natural principle or source ofthat individual, forthe tranisson of human si God could form another man from the dat, as He formed. Adan We have third Immaculate Conertion, or = third mole i which eme human indvidal cond be concived withoat orig tin, if we hold that Adam, though consited such a pina source forthe transmission ofthe human wate, does not ove reas of seminal power inthis tranamisson, As God co for Sonn Pho» UT q 81 a1 ad 2 nd Sm; 832.1: pa SH Sumo Theol, 9-H 1 3 Summ. Theol pI Sha re 2 and 3 R THOMAS AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 257 g the rib of Adam or from that of any of his descendants, ld reserve a portion of Adam's flesh before Adam's si, that portion of flesh transmitted from generation to genera out of that flesh the body of that individ ® 2 fourth Immaculate Conception, or a fourth mode in ‘human individual cauld be conceived without original hold that Adam, though moving by means of seminal ches the individual through descendants who were granted grace for themselves and for their children. God His grace on any of the descendants of Adam in the re in which He conferred it on Adam himself.* yve a fifth Immaculate Conception, or a fifth mode in human individual could be conceived without original bold that the immediate parents of that individual, endants of Adam and not previously granted the afore on, were, at the moment of generstion or active con- and purified by the Holy Ghost and freed, thus, from scense. As God could sanctify the parents previously n, He could sanctify them at that very moment. 2 sixth Immaculate Conception, oF a sixth mole in Inuman individual could be conceived without original hold that God purifies the fetus previously, with a time, to the animation or passive conception. God could flesh in the womb of the mother during the several h precede the infusion of the rational soul a seventh Immaculate Conception, ora seventh mode ia Thuman individual could be conceived without otiginal Told that God purifies the fetus at the moment of the ‘or passive conception, in such a way, however, that with fof nature this purification precedes the animation, To be next, tbe united * fan eighth Immaculate Conception, or an eighth mode in Ihoman individwal could be conceived without original Theo,» 1, 1,9 81m 4 aS Sent 30,2 2S I Set 1, sa fn LL Sot, 2 3,15 13 Samm. Theo, 0, «27, Disa ikea had So258 THE HOMILETIC AND PASTORAL REVIEW sin, if we hold that God sanetifes the soul at the moment of j creation and infusion or animation, so, however, that with priority of nature the sanctification precedes the animation. Thi the rational order: reston, infusion animation We have a ninth Immaculate Conception, o a ninth moe jal Which some human individual could be conceived without origin sin, if we hold that God sanctifes the soul at the moment of ity creation and infusion or animation, in euch @ way, however, thay with a priority of nature, the animation precedes the sanctification, We conceive then the union of soul and body as previous to th sanctification of the soul. We have, thus, nine diferent modes which God could use fo hhaving the Viegin Mary conceived without original sin we hi nine possible Immaculate Conceptions. Still, the present quest {is not eoncemed with the possiiliy, but with the fact. We to know in which one of these ways the Virgin Mary was eoncc without original sin. And, since an opposition is claimed betwee SSt. Thomas and the Church, let us seek the answer of Se. and ofthe Church. Which are the Immacalate Conceptions ds by St. Thomas? St, Thomas answers: the first eight. Which i the Immacalate Conception affirmed by the Church? The Chur answers: the last one ‘St, Thomas denies the fest eight Immaculate Conception ji terms and in principle Tm terms he denies the frst when he opposes Soot the Incarnation independent of Adam's sn, from which theory’ th Immaculate Conception follows a¢ the logical result” In terms denies the second when he says: “Christ assured fhuman nstare order to cleanse it from corruption, But human mature didnot ne to be cleansed save inasfar as it was soiled in its tated or whereby it was descended from Adam. Therefore, it was becom that He should assume flesh of matter derived from Adam.”*" terms he denies the third when he writes: “Error may our Of "St Thomas, in Sey 3p a, sol 2; St Bonavenas, Summ. Tol p. TM, a1, a 3 Thess Fromm de frac rpg debut Bi dn Ica Vagins oehhoney ‘shor tuendom (Carmela ab Tsgapen OC ot by Dal Prods, "Summ Theol, pl, 31, Cl Bd, 2d Se THOMAS AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 259 the contin of Christ or of He fesh to that which in the patriarchs, by saying, for instance, that because flesh, as existing in Christ, sas not abject to sin, there- da also and in the patriarchs there was sme part of hie was not subject to sin, and from which afterwards ody was formed, as some indeed held." In terme he fourth, ying: “Sanctification is two-fold: One is that le nature: inasmuch a the whole nature is freed from all on of sin and punishment. "This will take place at the Gon. The other is perscral sanctifcation. This is not led to the chilren begotten ofthe flesh, because it doesnot flesh, bot the mind. Consequently, though the parents Virgin were cleansed from original si, nevertheless ed original sin" Tn terms he denies the fifth for reason, * and by adding: “It isnot the actoal lst that ginal sin; for, supposing God were to permit a man to priate st nthe act of generation, he would stil transit bin.* In terms he denies the sixth in these words: “L Etat the sanctication of the blesed Virgin cannot be das having taken place before the animation”"™ Th denies the seventh, when he argues: In whatever maanet el Virgin would have been sunetied before animation, fd never have incurred the stain of orginal sin: and thas dnt have needed redemption and salvation which is by But this is unfiing. . "Tn terms, finaly, the cighth in those few lines of his Commentary om the “The sanctification of the besed Virgin could not be Hy before the infusion of the soul. . nor even at the FRM S SAM. inw We tn: “ie fe persian urate ome be ee feet ree, meee ta Smet caee ere aca ey motes aera Sy Gees ee am ees oS Bees ae ae Sat ee peruse!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 extingt frm incurring original sin,” lines whose interpretation we find in St Bonaventure: “Some claimed that inthe soul of the glories Virgin the grace of sanctification preceded the stain of original sn ‘Thus, at the moment ofits creation, grace was infused into the soul ‘and at that very moment, the soul was infused into the boy But others say that the sanctification came after the contraction of original sin... . And thie second opinion is more common, sd more reasonable, and more sure. . . . More reasonable, becaise ‘the natural is prior to the spiritual, with priority either of time or of mature, First, consequently, the soul is conceived to be united with the body, and then grace to be infused by Gol into the ‘St. Thomas denies all these frst eight Immaculate Conceptions ia principle. ‘The principle is this: “I i unfting that Christ be mot the Saviour of all men, as He is called in I Tim, iv. 19.""" And by this principle St. Thomas means that every man nets, a8 person, to be redeemed by Christ; that every man needs personal redemption, which is by Christ® It is true that such personal redemption does not imply the person as already fallen ito sin, bat it implies, at least, that the person has to incur the sin" And because, 25 St. Thomas warns us, “We may not attribute to the Mother anything that would diminish the honor of the Son, why is the Saviour of all mea," St. Thomas was perfectly right ia ‘opposing the fst andthe second andthe third Immaculate Concep tions, where not even the Mesh has to contract in any way the ine tion of original sin; and he was perfectly right in opposing fourth and the ith, where the flesh, sbough as existing in parents it contracts infection, yet, as found in the offspring en immanity; and he was perfecly right in opposing the sixth and seventh, where, though the flesh of the offspring contracts St Thomas, in 11 Set, 8, 0.1, 81,42 %Se Bontentatg fy It Son doh pas @ 2 Samm. Theol, Hl Zi 4 2, oui "Samm Theol, fly 8,23; e€ Del Prado, p31 > Summ Theol, x1, 1481 3a ty of. Cajtay Comment tM ft Sebator gamelominur, nf Gt Ajortoan E Tif (Se Gsis'5'3 THOMAS AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 261 ste soul has not to contract the sin; and perfectly right the eighth, where, though the feth contracts and the 0 contract, the person has not to contract original sin, Jf these eight eases can we speak of a personal debt. AS neither of a personal redemption, For in the fis, and the third, not even the flesh needed redemption; in ‘and the ith, only the parents had to be redeemed in the the seventh, only the flesh; whereas in the eighth, it is ly the soul. hat isthe Immaculate Conception affirmed by the Church? {the dogma: “We declare, pronounce, and define that God. the doctrine which holds that the most blesed Virgin first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and. granted her by Almighty God, in view of the merits of tthe Savioar of the human race, was preserved exempt stain of original sin."™ culate Conception, as defined by the Church stands, the person of the Blessed Virgin, being preserved exempt t of animation from original sin, and this personal being granted her on account of her personal redemp- Christ. way of saving the dogma is the ninth and last way. to conceive the union of the soul with the corrupted body with a priority of nature, to the sanctification of the we have 2 corrupted body, as itis the body of this id we have a soul, which, being the soul of this person, corrupted by the body. We have, thus, and thas only, ‘who has to incur original sin, who has to be redeemed al redemption. 8 preservation was never denied by St. Thomas Aqui- thas not denied it in terms, for he never discussed it, All 4g that the sanctification cannot be in a convenient way Ro the animation. While the Church declares that it hap- the very moment of the animation, St. Thomas, time and that he did not know the moment when the sanctifca- Mfbis De De 8 14 nia Sao Tat G'S, Seca as ae262__ THE HOMILETIC AND PASTORAL REVIEW = THOMAS AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 263 tion took place™* Why did he not know? Because things vehich are entirely dependent onthe free will of God cannot be ascertained save through divine revelation This revelation i made know to us by the Roman Church, and at the time of St. Thomas the Homan Chachi stress Post™ Mot we won i helgans. In pacing tse elas he Dinos at Se Thomas positon when, four centuries afterward, Pope twas believed to be opposing the Immaculate Conception Gregory XV desated that “the Holy Ghost, though urged by the Beane » dogma, Sil he Dinan Scho, epovy camest prayers of the Faithful, did not yet reveal to the Church Bere Sa eh Sh eel ae eral a Myles 3 Immaculate Conception, as defined, is a con- ‘On the contrary St Thomas, rather than Scotus oF anybody ela Of the Dominican theory of the Incarnation dependent on settled the principles which had to lead, and in fact did lead, to the definition given ultimately by Pius IX. For we have i St. Thomas not only that the santifeation stands for a personal sanctifcation by the merits of Christ the Releemer, but also that it twas proper that the blessed Virgin should have all purty posible to be granted by God," and, moreover, that a postririty of maar is suficient within a single instant of time* Did not St, Thor teach that the blessed Virgin was granted more grace thn any ‘man or angel and thatthe fst mun and the angels were granted trace at the very moment of their creation, though their creation preceded their sanctification with priority of nature? St. Thomas, therefore, has promoted directly the definition give y the Church. “He has promoted it indirectly, also, by orroting Gems Tha, e278 2a ST Sn, €.3, 1.1; Onl ane Sem Tel 819 1a. Sipe Fag BEE a Opole De marina pane mitre soy i! Eliane Papeete ee pp coke i Sates a nae, fe PS 1 9.62 4nd dmg Ha tse ads 8 22 Hans Aha has lS Seed es Gre foe by wea ae tn Conception” in “The Colic Encpclopedis as prataions 38 67% STE at cat tonne pri ence eure, See et Len aa Mes Eats aplenty Hi teg eat teiaes i ras ane Chg other Immaculate Conceptions and thus warning Catholic fans to leave wrong paths and to take the right highway. ‘advice of St. Thomas, however, was not followed by some fiay be true that in the controversy concerning the Immacs- pception 2 few Dominicans misunderstood the teaching of 8; but it is also true that the great public did misunder- does still misunderstand the position of the Dominieans **