St. Thomas affirming the Immaculate Conception!

[Geremia]

St. Thomas's views on the Immaculate Conception went through three phases.
^{cf. also ch. 2, art. 2, § "St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception" of Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.}

Phase 1: clear support of it
St. Thomas's clearest support of the Immaculate Conception is in his commentary (1252-6) on Peter Lombard's Sentences (Super Sent., lib. 1 d. 44 q. 1 a. 3 ad 3):

puritas intenditur per recessum a contrario: et ideo potest aliquid creatum inveniri quo nihil purius esse potest in rebus creatis, si nulla contagione peccati inquinatum sit; et talis fuit puritas beatae virginis, quae a peccato originali et actuali immunis fuit.

Purity is increased by withdrawing from its opposite: hence there can be a creature than whom no more pure is possible in creation, if it be free from all contagion of sin: and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin who was immune from original and actual sin.

Phase 2: grappling with it
Summa Theologica III, written in 1272-3, contains the famous question 27 on the Sanctification of the Blessed Virgin, in which he seems to deny the Immaculate Conception.

Phase 3: return to his original position
Explanation of the Lord's Prayer, petition 5 (Lent 1273):

...beatae virgini, quae fuit plena gratiae, in qua nullum peccatum fuit.

...the Blessed Virgin, who was full of grace, in whom there was no sin.

Commentary on Psalm 18 (1272-3):

...beata virgine, quae nullam habuit obscuritatem peccati.

...the Blessed Virgin, who had no darkness of sin.

He preached in his On the Angelic Salutation (Lent 1273):

Ipsa (Virgo) omne peccatum vitavit magis quam alius sanctus, praeter Christum. Peccatum enim aut est originale, et de isto fuit mundata in utero; aut mortale aut veniale, et de istis libera fuit. ... Sed Christus excellit beatam virginem in hoc quod sine originali conceptus et natus est. Beata autem virgo in originali est concepta, sed non nata.

For She Herself avoided every sin, more holy than anyone after Christ. For sin is either original, and from this she was cleansed in the womb; or mortal or venial, and from these She was free. ... But Christ excelled the Blessed Virgin in this, that He was conceived and born without original (sin). Moreover the the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original (sin), but not born (in it).

^{The sense of "the Blessed Virgin was conceived in/with original sin (in/cum peccato originali)" is explained by a similar passage of his Compendium Theologiæ cap. 224 ("Sanctification of Christ's Mother") (1272-3), in which he seems to be referring to Sts. Anne's and Joachim's sexual act,* not to the Blessed Virgin's participation in Adam's sin (or lack thereof):
*(cf. St. Augustine's theory that the propagation of original sin is due to the concupiscence inherent in the sexual act after the Fall, On Marriage & Concupiscence ch. 27, and this)}

<sup>Nec solum a peccato actuali immunis fuit, sed etiam ab originali, speciali privilegio mundata. Oportuit siquidem quod cum peccato originali conciperetur, utpote quae ex utriusque sexus commixtione concepta fuit. Hoc enim privilegium sibi soli servabatur ut virgo conciperet filium Dei. Commixtio autem sexus, quae sine libidine esse non potest post peccatum primi parentis, transmittit peccatum originale in prolem. Similiter etiam quia si cum peccato originali concepta non fuisset, non indigeret per Christum redimi, et sic non esset Christus universalis hominum redemptor, quod derogat dignitati Christi. Est ergo tenendum, quod cum peccato originali concepta fuit, sed ab eo quodam speciali modo purgata fuit.

Mary was not only free from actual sin, but she was also, by a special privilege, cleansed from original sin. She had, indeed, to be conceived with original sin, inasmuch as her conception resulted from the commingling of both sexes. For the privilege of conceiving without impairment of virginity was reserved exclusively to her who as a virgin conceived the Son of God. But the commingling of the sexes which, after the sin of our first parent, cannot take place without lust,* transmits original sin to the offspring. Likewise, if Mary had been conceived without original sin, she would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and so Christ would not be the universal redeemer of men, which detracts from His dignity. Accordingly we must hold that she was conceived with original sin, but was cleansed from it in some special way.</sup>

^{*(cf. Psalm 50:7: "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.")}

See:

• Pedro Lumbreras O.P., "Saint Thomas and the Immaculate Conception," Homiletic and Pastoral Review 24, no. 3 (1923): 253–63.
• Norbert del Prado O.P., Divus Thomas et bulla dogmatica "Ineffabilis Deus" (Friburgi Helvetiorum: Ex typis Consociationis sancti Pauli, 1919).

[Non Nobis]

Thank you, Geremia!

However I am having a problem with the links.

E.g. this, as you have it, does not work for me: Psalm 50:7

Code Select Expand


[iurl=http://"http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&bk=21&ch=50&l=7-#x"]Psalm 50:7[/iurl]


But here I modified it: Psalm 50:7

Code Select Expand


[iurl=http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&bk=21&ch=50&l=7-#x]Psalm 50:7[/iurl]


I think there is the same problem with other links... (maybe others don't have this problem?)

In any case I appreciate the scholarly work you do and in general put together so well (and format nicely), and this topic was well worth a post.

[Gardener]

Only your first quote would seem to offer support to the title.

2nd is obviously a denial of the IC, as is the 3rd.

For in the 3rd, the sentences which deny the IC are:

Mary was not only free from actual sin, but she was also, by a special privilege, cleansed from original sin. She had, indeed, to be conceived with original sin, inasmuch as her conception resulted from the commingling of both sexes. For the privilege of conceiving without impairment of virginity was reserved exclusively to her who as a virgin conceived the Son of God. But the commingling of the sexes which, after the sin of our first parent, cannot take place without lust,* transmits original sin to the offspring.
Likewise, if Mary had been conceived without original sin, she would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and so Christ would not be the universal redeemer of men, which detracts from His dignity. Accordingly we must hold that she was conceived with original sin, but was cleansed from it in some special way.

This is in direct contradiction to the Immaculate Conception as defined by the Church, and as argued for by Blessed John Duns Scotus.

I'm not even convinced of the 1st quote unless it can be demonstrated as to what he means by immune from original and actual sin.

For example:

Does he mean immune post-cleansing or does he mean immune for her entire existence?
Does immunity mean having been inoculated or inability to contract due to preservation from the first moment?

Sorry, but St. Thomas Aquinas was wrong on this, and only the first quote potentially exonerates him. But in the order of things, the last two quotes condemn his position in relation to the truth.

[Geremia]

However I am having a problem with the links.

I've fixed it. (It's a bug in old versions of SMF.)

I also added two more quotes of St. Thomas supporting the Immaculate Conception.

[Geremia]

2nd is obviously a denial of the IC

I'm not convinced.
Assuming he is not blatantly contradicting himself in On the Angelic Salutation when he says both that "She Herself avoided every sin" (original or actual) and that "the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original (sin)", by "conceived in original (sin)" he must mean something else (e.g., that she was a product of a sexual act, which is the more likely explanation, given the Compendium Theologiæ quote), not that she shares in Adam's guilt.

[Gardener]

Articles 1 and 2 plainly deny the Immaculate Conception, which is why the Dominicans so forcefully denied it themselves, and why Scotus so forcefully argued against the understanding. Article 2's Answer, 2nd paragraph, plainly denies that she did not incur the stain of Original Sin.

http://newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm

I suspect you will then want to argue that his understanding of animation affects the answer, but it doesn't. The principles he argues equally fail in the more modern belief in immediate ensoulment/conception, and are contra the dogmatic definition.

[Non Nobis]

Geremia,

Although I do say this topic is important and interesting, I think Gardener is right and that St. Thomas in some places clearly denied the Immaculate Conception.

He preached in his On the Angelic Salutation (Lent 1273):

Ipsa (Virgo) omne peccatum vitavit magis quam alius sanctus, praeter Christum. Peccatum enim aut est originale, et de isto fuit mundata in utero; aut mortale aut veniale, et de istis libera fuit. ... Sed Christus excellit beatam virginem in hoc quod sine originali conceptus et natus est. Beata autem virgo in originali est concepta, sed non nata.

For She Herself avoided every sin, more holy than anyone after Christ. For sin is either original, and from this she was cleansed in the womb; or mortal or venial, and from these She was free. ... But Christ excelled the Blessed Virgin in this, that He was conceived and born without original (sin). Moreover the the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original (sin), but not born (in it).

Immediately after saying "every sin" St. Thomas makes the distinction between sin "cleansed in the womb" (original sin), and sin from which she was free (venial and mortal).  You can't be cleansed of something unless you have it. I don't see how you can get away from this here or in other quotes from St. Thomas, such as those Gardener points out. It seems to me "avoid" could mean to not have at all, or else to make void after having.

The popes who have praised St. Thomas through the centuries certainly knew of his incorrect opinion here.  It was an opinion when he made it, not heresy, since it had not been defined. His error was made for holy reasons - showing Christ's superiority over Our Lady.  But his holy and intelligent thinking could be erroneous, because he was not infallible. I too knew of this error before I came to really appreciate him. I think that this false opinion results far too easily in people basically brushing off the statements of Popes about taking the Angelic Doctor extremely seriously.  The Popes never said so much about Scotus or others, despite some of them being right about the Immaculate Conception.

[Geremia]

the Dominicans so forcefully denied it themselves

Which Dominicans? And what did they say?

Scotus so forcefully argued against the understanding

What understanding?

[Geremia]

the more modern belief in immediate ensoulment/conception

I agree modern embryology has no bearing on this question.

[Xavier]

Nice. John Lane wrote an article on it a while ago. The Catholic Encyclopedia also treats it. I agree with the 3 periods demarcation, first when he clearly affirmed it, second when he held She was certainly sanctified in the womb, but, like, an instant after Her animation (for otherwise, it was felt, how could it be explained that She was truly redeemed - here we must credit Scotus for providing the answer. A person can be saved from a pit by preventing her from falling into it when in the ordinary course of things she would have so fallen) and the third when the Angelic Doctor seems to go back to his original position. Just want to point out a couple of things about St. Thomas' Mariology no one denies (1) he always held She was sinless and sanctified from original sin, at most, an instant after Her animation (so that it could be said the Lord redeemed Her) (2) he held She had a kind of plenitude of grace so high and inconceivable (here St. Thomas is Montfortian) that it would suffice for the salvation of all men, just like Christ had. "It is, indeed, a great thing that any one saint has so much grace that it conduces to the salvation of many; but most wondrous is it to have so much as to suffice for the salvation of all mankind: and thus it is in Christ and in the Blessed Virgin." and this high Mariology is the reason for St. Thomas' second dilemma. How to preserve the superiority of Christ to the Blessed Virgin if this is so. Developing his principles, theology would later explain, that though Jesus and Mary are both full of grace, Jesus is superior because as God He is the source of grace, whereas Mary, although full of His grace, is only a channel of it. Already in this understanding, that every possible grace exists in Mary in its plenitude, the truth of the Immaculate Conception, a possible grace, is implicitly contained.

St. Thomas also preached for like 40 days in Rome on just the Hail Mary, sending his hearers into delight. He had a great devotion to Our Lady, as is very clear in his writings. So in light of the sources below, I think those who want to affirm for certain that he didn't hold the right opinion near the end of his life should, at least, tread with caution. An excerpt from another article on St. Thomas' Mariology: "When St. Thomas asks, in the Summa Theologiae, whether God could have made things better than they are, he answers, surprisingly, yes.  But when it comes to the humanity of Christ, or the happiness of the beatific vision, or the dignity of the blessed Virgin Mary, he answers with what is perhaps the most beautiful words he ever wrote on Mary. The humanity of Christ, since it is united to the Godhead; the beatific vision, since it is the fruition of God; and the blessed Virgin, since she is the mother of God – all have a certain dignity from the infinite good, who is God.  And so therefore there cannot be anything better or more sublime. [20]" http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/mcbride/mcbrideaquinas.htm

otherwise-pious Catholics point to St Thomas's supposed error on this point as a way of reducing his credibility. No doubt they are unaware of his absolutely unique position as a theologian and Doctor of the Universal Church. No doubt they are unaware that Canon Law prescribes that all professors of theology are to hold and teach the "arguments, doctrine, and principles" of St. Thomas. Canon 1366, Section 2 : "The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by Professors (in seminaries etc.) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of St. Thomas which they are inviolately to hold." Canon 589 prescribes that religious are to do likewise. No other Doctor holds this place in Catholic theology ...

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Thomas at first pronounced in favour of the doctrine in his treatise on the "Sentences" (inI. Sent. c. 44, q. I ad 3), yet in his "Summa Theologica" he concluded against it. Much discussion has arisen as to whether St. Thomas did or did not deny that the Blessed Virgin was immaculate at the instant of her animation, and learned books have been written to vindicate him from having actually drawn the negative conclusion. For this controversy see: Cornoldi, "Sententia S. Thomae etc.", (2nd ed., Naples, 1870); Ronard de Card, "L'ordre des Freres-precheurs et l'immaculee Conception" (Brussels, 1864), Pesch, "Prael. dogm." III (Freiburg, 1895), 170; Heinrich-Gutberlet, "Dogmat. Theol.", VII (Mainz, 1896), 436; Tobbe, "Die Stellung des hl. Thomas zu der unbefl. Empfangnis" (Munster, 1892); C. M. Schneider, "Die unbefl. Empfangnis und die Erbsunde" (Ratisbon, 1892); Pohle, "Lehrbuch d. Dogmatik", II (Paderborn, 1903), 254. Yet it is hard to say that St. Thomas did not require an instant at least, after the animation of Mary, before her sanctification. His great difficulty appears to have arisen from the doubt as to how she could have been redeemed if she had not sinned. This difficulty he raised in no fewer than ten passages in his writings (see, e.g., "Summa Theol.", III, Q. xxvii, a. 2, ad Sum). But while St. Thomas thus held back from the essential point of the doctrine, he himself laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together and worked out, enabled other minds to furnish the true solution of this difficulty from his own premises."

[Gardener]

the Dominicans so forcefully denied it themselves

Which Dominicans? And what did they say?

Scotus so forcefully argued against the understanding

What understanding?

Before I answer this, I want to honestly ask if you're just being snide because I cannot actually believe you have ignorance of this issue at Paris and the surrounding arguments.

[Geremia]

I cannot actually believe you have ignorance of this issue at Paris and the surrounding arguments.

I'm not familiar with the full history of the question, but I do know St. Thomas's views were the common opinion among the masters at the time. I have read St. Thomas's writings regarding it, plus St. Bonaventure's in this book-length response to Fr. Lumbreras, O.P.'s article:

   
• Hugolinus Storff, O.F.M., The Immaculate Conception: The Teaching of St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure and Bl. J. Duns Scotus on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary (San Francisco, Calif.: St. Francis Press, 1925).

But I'm wondering which other famous Dominicans argued in favor of St. Thomas.

[c_mullen]

the Dominicans so forcefully denied it themselves

Which Dominicans? And what did they say?

Scotus so forcefully argued against the understanding

What understanding?

Before I answer this, I want to honestly ask if you're just being snide because I cannot actually believe you have ignorance of this issue at Paris and the surrounding arguments.

He answered you honestly. Any reply, or citation to back up your claims?

[Gardener]

Sure, when I get a chance. Likely tomorrow since I will have 10 hours of watching a network ( read: plenty of time on my hands).

I'm frankly surprised at his answer, given how much he researches every minuscule thing.

[Gardener]

the Dominicans so forcefully denied it themselves

Which Dominicans? And what did they say?

Scotus so forcefully argued against the understanding

What understanding?

Which Dominicans?

The Dominicans at the University of Paris, in union with the entire Dominican Order per the teaching of St. Thomas in the Summa. Blessed John Duns Scotus was a new professor there and was teaching the Immaculate Conception. Because he was teaching contra St. Thomas, he was called to defend his position in front of the entire University, with a Papal representatives moderating.

What Understanding?

The understanding that the teaching of St. Thomas provided in the Summa-- that Our Lady was conceived in Original Sin, even if only for an instant before she was sanctified lest Christ not be the Redeemer of all.

He countered this by showing the error of the Fathers who St. Thomas based his teaching on, as well as Saints/Popes, by addressing their arguments individually. He did not buy the argument from authority schtick which the Dominicans tried to foist upon him (which was really the game -- they weren't adept at unpacking the philosophical and theological issues as much as they were at parroting St. Thomas... a problem not unfamiliar today in certain circles).

He also shows that there was not really as clear cut of an opinion as might be thought, as even St. Augustine wouldn't really touch the subject and others were wishy-washy on it.

Here's a "brief" outline of the issues.

Arguments against the privilege of the Immaculate Conception

            Scotus commences his quaestio by presenting arguments from Holy Scripture and the Church Fathers which the theologians of his times were quoting as being contrary to the privilege of the Immaculate Conception.  The first argument is taken from the Letter of Saint Paul to the Romans 5,12: "Sin entered the world through one man, and through sin death, and thus death has spread through the whole human race, because everyone has sinned."  According to the flesh every human person, without any exception, was conceived in original sin, inherited from Adam, the first man.  The only exception to the rule was Jesus Christ.  According to what Saint Augustine states in his Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Levi was generated from Adam according to the flesh, but this was not the case of Christ.  Therefore Jesus Christ did not contract original sin.  All other human beings were born from Adam according to the flesh, including the Virgin Mary. Therefore she also was conceived in original sin. [2]

            Likewise the Fathers of the Church deny Mary the privilege of being Immaculate.  Saint John Damascene states that the Virgin Mary was purified by the Holy Spirit.  This means that she had been conceived in the state of original sin.

            Saint Augustine states that it is beyond doubt that every human person who is conceived out of union between man and woman is born in the state of original sin.  This view of the state of original sin depending upon human generation is then applied to the Virgin Mary, who was conceived in a natural way like every other human person.  Therefore she could not possibly have averted being conceived in the state of original sin.

            In one of his homilies for Christmas, Saint Leo the Great writes that the Lord came into the world to heal all humankind.  This would imply that the Virgin Mary is no exception to the rule.

            Saint Bernard states that Mary could have been sanctified either in the moment of conception or immediately after.  He rules out the possibility of her being sanctified at the moment of conception, since physical union between man and woman cannot coexist with sanctification.  That leaves open the second option, of her being sanctified immediately after conception.  But that would imply that she was in the state of original sin at the moment of conception.

            Finally Scotus refers to the liturgical praxis of the Church in his times, which celebrated the feast of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, but not that of her Conception, because Mary was not believed to have been conceived Immaculate.  Scotus is referring to a commentary on the Decretum Gratiani, which mentioned the feast of the Conception which was celebrated particularly in England, but did not encourage it, since it was contrary to the Church's official teaching. [3]

Arguments in favour of the privilege of the Immaculate Conception

            Theologians during the times of John Duns Scotus were following the Church Fathers who, in the majority of cases, had been unfavourable to the possibility of Mary having been conceived without original sin.  In spite of this, Scotus quotes Saint Augustine, who in De natura et gratia writes: "Where there is a question of sin, in the case of Mary I do not want to comment." [4]   Saint Anselm, in De conceptu virginali, writes: "It was fitting that the Mother of Christ would have a purity greater than which nobody could think of." [5]

The presentation of the common opinion regarding Mary's conception

            The Son of Mary was the Redeemer of all, and with his death he merited the salvation of his Mother and of all humankind.  However, if his Mother had not been conceived in original sin, since she did not commit any actual sin, she could not possibly have needed a Redeemer, since she would have been without sin.  If she would have been conceived without original sin, the doors of heaven would not have been closed to her, and they would not have been opened at the moment of the death of her Son.  From this follows that, if she had died before her Son died on the cross, she could immediately have seen God face to face.

            Scotus is here referring to what famous theologians of his times had been saying.  John de la Rochelle had stated that if the Virgin Mary had not sinned, than she would not have needed redemption.  Since she was redeemed by Christ, then she was conceived in original sin.  Saint Bonaventure, in the Commentary on the Third Book of Sentences, had written that if the Blessed Virgin was free from original sin, then Christ's redemption would not have had anything to do with her. Now for Christ it was a greater glory to redeem Mary than to redeem the other saints.  In this way, if he did not redeem the Blessed Virgin, he would be deprived of a most noble glory.  Saint Thomas Aquinas, also in his Commentary of the Third Book of Sentences, wrote that Christ did not need to be redeemed, since he is the head of the human race, but all other human persons had to redeemed through him. Now this could not be possible if only one soul could be found which was not infected with original sin. Therefore neither the Blessed Virgin nor any other human person before Christ could have been given this privilege.  In his Summa Theologiae Thomas Aquinas writes that if the Blessed Virgin did not contract original sin, she would not have needed redemption through Christ. Now this would have been out of place, since Christ had to be Saviour of all human persons. [6]

            The body of Mary was conceived in the same manner of the conception of all other human beings.  In this way she also contracted original sin.  Since original sin finds its material cause in the human body, it follows that the body needs to be united with the soul before a human person can receive sanctifying grace.  Now, during the moment in which the soul unites itself with the body, at that very moment it contracts original sin.  Moreover, Mary underwent those sufferings which are the effect of original sin.  She did not accept these sufferings out of her own free will, as Christ did in order to save humanity, but she underwent these sufferings as a consequence of her solidarity with the human race in the state of original sin.

Scotus' own exposition of the common opinion

            John Scotus begins his defence of the Marian privilege, by presenting his arguments against the common opinion of theologians.  He builds the first argument upon the figure of Christ as the most perfect mediator.

            "Christ was the most perfect mediator.  Therefore he exercised the highest degree of mediation in favour of another person.  Now he could not be a most perfect mediator and could not repair the effects of sin to the highest degree if he did not preserve his Mother from original sin (as we shall prove).  Therefore, since he was the most perfect mediator regarding the person of his Mother, from this it follows that he preserved her from original sin." [7]

            The key notion to understand Scotus' theology in this paragraph, as indeed in all his arguments in this question on the Immaculate Conception, is the verb "to preserve".  Christ preserved his Mother from original sin, according to Scotus.  In other words, the Blessed Virgin Mary, like every other human person, was bound to be conceived in original sin, but she was preserved from it through the merits of her Son.

            Scotus goes on to show that the perfect act of mediation in favour of a person does not only concern that person's liberation from the guilt of actual sins, but also the liberation from the guilt which is a result of original sin, which he calls culpa contracta (contracted guilt).  In order to prove this he quotes an example given by Saint Anselm in his Cur Deus homo II, c. 16.  A king is offended by a father, and punishes him and all his future sons by sending them into exile.  But the king is drawn to love in a special way one of the sons born to that man, and he would have wanted to preserve him from exile.  So what he does is to forgive that man and his sons from the punishment of exile, but in his anger he does not forgive them their culpa contracta, or acquired guilt.  In order to speak of a perfect act of mediation and forgiveness, that man has to acquire for his son not only the king's forgiveness of his acquired guilt but also the king's benevolence.  In the same way, through his death on the cross, Christ merited not only the forgiveness of any sin which his Mother could have committed without the help of grace, but even that of the acquired guilt in which she was to be conceived like every other human being.

            Scotus therefore states that there cannot be a most perfect mediator and reconciler if he does not acquire the remission of the greatest guilt in favour of the one he is mediating for.  Christ could not have been a perfect mediator if he did not permit that at least the soul of one single person would not have been deprived of rectitude in the fullest sense.  Now the Virgin Mary was innocent to the highest degree.  If her Son had to be her most perfect redeemer and reconcilator, he had to preserve her from original sin.  The Holy Trinity, which could also foresee the merits of the passion of Christ, for this very reason, permitted that the Virgin Mary be preserved from all guilt, whether it resulted from actual sin or from original sin.

Scotus' arguments regarding the common opinion

            Scotus presents four main arguments regarding the common opinion of theologians on the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.  The first argument of the theologians had regarded the fact that, if the Blessed Virgin Mary had not contracted original sin, then she could not possibly have needed redemption from sin.  Scotus, however, responds that the process was the reverse of  what these theologians were stating.  When a person receives abundance of forgiveness through the act of a mediator, that person is all the more in debt towards that mediator and owes to him any privilege that he or she acquires.  Now this is the case of the Virgin Mary, who needed Christ more than all the other human beings.  This was the result of her being preserved from original sin through the merits of the passion of Christ.  Mary was, therefore, redeemed in a nobler manner.  Above all, "it is more noble to forgive one's guilt by preserving that person from it, than by permitting that same person to fall into guilt and than to remit that person's guilt." [8]

            In order to prove this fundamental assertion, Scotus gives an example.  A man sins mortally only once and then God preserves him from other mortal sins.  Another sins mortally more than once, and God forgives him every time he converts to Him.  Now who of the two receives the more perfect forgiveness?  Scotus says that it is the first one, in the sense that God  not only as forgiven him in a more noble way, but has also preserved him from falling into sin in the future. Thus he is more indebted to God.  The same is true in the case of the Virgin Mary being preserved from all sin.

            The second argument of the contrary opinion of theologians had shown that, if the Virgin Mary had been freed from original sin, the gates of heaven would not have been closed for her, and therefore she would have been like Christ in everything.  Scotus, however, shows that the gates of heaven were opened to the Virgin Mary through no merits of her own, but solely through the merits of the passion of Christ.  It was only after Christ had applied the merits of his passion to Mary, that she, like the rest of humankind, could attain to beatific vision.  Therefore Mary also needed the passion of Christ in order for her to enter through the gates of heaven.  The only difference between her and the rest of humankind was that the Virgin Mary was preserved beforehand from all guilt through the merits of the passion of Christ, whereas the rest of the human race was liberated from guilt only after Christ applied to them the merits of his passion through grace which works in an ordinary way through the sacraments.

            Regarding the third argument, which insisted that the human soul is sullied by original sin as soon as it is united to the body, Scotus answers that, in the same moment in which God created the human soul, he could endow it with the grace of sanctification.  Moreover, he could also purify the human body before it would be united with the soul.  This is what happened in the conception of the Son of God in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

            The fourth argument insisted that the effects of sin were to be seen in suffering and want in human nature, and particularly in death.  Now we know that Christ also underwent all these sufferings.  But he did this out of his own free will, in order to take upon himself our sufferings when he saved us.  In the case of the Virgin Mary Scotus says that Christ merited for her to be freed from the guilt of original sin, but that it was not necessary that, as a consequence, she would also be freed of the effects of sin which are still evident in redeemed humanity.  Therefore Christ merited his Mother the greatest perfection regarding the lack of the greatest guilt, but not regarding its effects, which are important for a soul in order to attain the merits of the redemption brought by Christ.

            At this point Scotus arrives at refuting all the arguments which were trying to prove that it was not possible that Mary was conceived without original sin.  But he still needed to prove his assertions.

Scotus' definite answer and the proofs he presents

            The fundamental question which Scotus had to answer was the following: Was Mary conceived in original sin and then immediately purified from it?  Scotus is wary to leave open all possibilities and answers in a very prudent way:  "I say that it was possible that she (the Virgin Mary) was not conceived in original sin.  It was also possible that she was in the state of original sin for a split second of time and then was in a state of grace for the rest of her life.  Lastly it was possible that she was in a state of original sin for some time and then passed into the state of grace." [9]

            Regarding the first possibility, which is certainly the most valid one according to Scotus,  the Subtle Doctor states that it was possible that God infuses grace into the soul in the very first instants of its union with the body, and that this grace has the power to purify the body from all stain of sin.

Scotus also admits the second possibility, that is, that the Virgin Mary was in the state of original sin for a split second and then immediately passed into the state of grace.  This was the opinion of Henry of Ghent, who stated that there were two moments in conception, the body which is conceived in original sin, and the soul which is sanctified by grace. [10]  We make a distinction on the intellectual level between these two moments, but in fact, they are as far away from one another as the twinkle of an eye.  After all, God has the power to operate within our category of time or in a simultaneous way. [11]

Regarding the third possibility, in which the human person is conceived in the state of original sin and than is freed from this state through grace, Scotus does not envision any contradiction, since all human beings, in effect, are conceived in the state of original sin and then pass on to a state of grace.  Scotus, however, insists on making an exception to this rule in the case of the Virgin Mary.

Scotus' solution to the principal arguments of theologians outlined above

            Scotus returns to the authority of the Church Fathers who speak about the fact that the Virgin Mary was sanctified in the womb, but that she could not possibly have been conceived without original sin.  He reminds us that Saint Augustine had asserted that, where it is a question of sin, he would prefer not to comment in the case of the Virgin Mary.  He answers John Damascene, who had stated that the Virgin Mary was purified in her body during conception, telling him that there cannot be purification without the prior sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit.  Saint Leo the Great had stated that all human persons were born as sons of God's wrath, except Christ.  Scotus reminds him that grace had already preserved the Virgin Mary from God's wrath when she was conceived without original sin.  All human beings are, in fact, sons and daughters of God's wrath, and they are reconcilied to God through the merits of the passion of Christ.  The Virgin Mary, however, was preserved from being conceived into God's wrath because of a special privilege that God the Father gave her, because of the special love He had for his only-begotten Son. [12] Regarding Saint Anselm's statement that Mary was born into the sin of Adam like all other human pesons, Scotus shows that the true words of Anselm were that the Virgin Mary had been purified of sin and that Christ assumed human nature in a purified mother. [13]   Scotus answers Saint Bernard, who had admitted that there was a split second of a moment during which Mary had contracted original sin when her body was conceived, after which she was immediately sanctified when the soul was infused into her body.  Scotus says that there is only one moment when grace touches the human person, that is, the moment of the union between soul and body.  It was at that initial moment that the Virgin Mary was freed from original sin.  He even states that Saint Bernard had appeared to a certain woman after his death, showing a stain on his foreheard, and telling her that he got that stain because he had stated that the Virgin Mary was conceived in original sin.  Scotus reminds that we do not celebrate the conception of a human body, but the conception of a body which is vivified by the infusion of the soul.  It was at this precise moment that the Virgin Mary was conceived without any blemish of original sin. [14]

            The Subtle Doctor reasons truly in a subtle way when he affirms that there is a difference between stating that the soul of the Virgin Mary in the moment of conception did not fall under the influx of grace and stating that the soul of the Virgin Mary was, in itself, conceived without grace. [15]   If Scotus remains open to the possibility that, for a split second, the Virgin Mary could not have been under the power of sanctifying grace, but certainly he does not mean to imply that, even for a split second, the Virgin Mary was cut off from the gift of sanctifying grace.

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/scotus&immac.htm


Now one might think that perhaps there was an error, or perhaps the amount of time from Blessed John Duns Scotus until the proclamation of the dogma casts doubt on Papal Infallibility... but it was gradually dealt with even in 1483...

Although Scotus' explanation was bitterly contested, especially by the Dominicans, it found official theological approval by the Church. In 1483, Pope Sixtus IV addressed the controversy surrounding the Immaculate Conception and gave Dun Scotus's conclusion in favor of the papal approval. From this point forward, most people devoutly celebrated the Feast of the Immaculate Conception and the theological controversy was put to rest.

https://capuchins.org/2016/12/09/understanding-the-immaculate-conception/