Library
|
|
|
Aquinas Vindicated This article attempts to prove that St. Thomas Aquinas did not reject the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Because of the limits of the theological development of his day his concepts were also less developed. As a consequence, his words represented different ideas than what those same words mean today. What sounds like a contradiction of this doctrine is not so in his case. Thomas Aquinas Points to Immaculate Conception Being True updated August 2, 2014 1. The
Objections Was Saint Thomas Aquinas more right than wrong in his writings about Mary’s Immaculate Conception ? 1. The Objections Objection #1 Objection #2 :
On the contrary, And I reply
However, his approach and decisions were more in line with Church teaching than not. He affirmed and help secure the proper understanding of the foundation of this doctrine. This enabled the future development so that a proper explanation could be made. Like every person in every age, whether he realizes it or not, he is limited by the standards and concepts of his culture and by the advances or lack thereof in the fields of science and theology. While some might have said the Virgin was immaculately conceived,
that however does not
necessarily mean they were fully explicating or expressing the fullness of
that doctrine. 2. Fully Developed Meaning of Immaculate Conception Today, when we see the words the “Immaculate Conception” we read into them a very modern, developed and complex understanding. We understand them to include the definition of Pope Pius IX in his papal bull Ineffabilis Deus which was published on December 8, 1854. They also represent the following :
Importantly, it was St. Thomas Aquinas (AD 1225 - 1274 ) that helped secure a solid understanding for the foundation of our beliefs about salvation and how it relates to the Immaculate Mary. That foundation is the absolute necessity that everyone, even Immaculate Mary, needed to be saved by Jesus Christ. “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.” 3. Logical reasoning is always based on foundational truths. With the truths expounded by Aquinas set firmly in place as a foundation Blessed John Duns Scotus would later be able focus on just how Mary was saved. Duns Scotus was able to see that since the Immaculate Mary must have been saved somehow, it must be the case that she would have fallen if not for the saving grace of Jesus Christ. By analogy a healthy person who was about to step and fall into a pit of filth could be saved by another who reaches out just in time to prevent the first person from ever falling into that pit - a most perfect way to be saved. And, is it not fitting that God would triumph over the influence of Satan in this most perfect way? And that development would eventually lead to the fuller definition of Mary’s Immaculate Conception that Pope Pius IX would give and infallibly declare. But this would not happen until hundreds of years after Aquinas. 4. Understanding the Limits of Theological Developments Far from rejecting the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Thomas Aquinas secured its foundation. Every workman is limited by the tools in his toolbox. It is not so easy to instantly invent a new tool to add to one’s box. It was only the later developments in science and theology that would enable theologians to more clearly express how the Immaculate Mary was saved. And so, St. Thomas Aquinas was limited by the concepts made available to him both by the theological as well as the scientific limits of his day. For example, consider how the Bible speaks of the sun rising in the sky as if it moved around the earth. Is that an error? It would be more accurate to say the Biblical writers expressed themselves with incomplete comprehension than to say that they were rejecting the true scientific understanding of how our solar system works. Just as their limited understanding of astronomy limited how they spoke and perceived things, the common views during the time of St. Thomas Aquinas limited his ability to explain the truths he saw. Questions remained about when human life began and how a person might be saved. It was as if he was looking
through low resolution lenses of a telescope that produced somewhat fuzzy images. Using this
analogy, it was as if there were three stars in the night sky. Two of
those stars were so close that from Aquinas’
vantage point they appeared as one star. Let’s
call those three stars positions A, B, and C. It was those stars B and
C that were so close together that Aquinas saw them as one fuzzy image.
He could never, from his vantage point, clearly distinguish position C. 5. Three Possible Explanations There are three different positions that we can theorize about how a human being could come into this world.
When Saint Thomas Aquinas says that Mary was not sanctified until after her animation it is clear that he is arguing against the idea that Mary came in this world by way of position “A” above. This is evident by the reason that he gives. He says Mary cannot be without original sin because it would insult Jesus Christ. Here are his words:
Aquinas clearly saw a source of light, a ray of truth, coming from this coalesced image of positions B and C. By insisting that Mary would have to be saved by Christ and using that as his reason for rejecting the idea of Mary being sanctified “before” her animation he is showing that he is actually thinking about and clearly rejecting position “A.” Thus, he laid the foundation for future generations to sort out the distinction between positions B and C. The limited theological and scientific development of his day prevented him from distinguishing between "having original sin" and "having an origin such that one would have had original sin except that this person was saved from it from the first moment of conception," that is, between positions B and C. Nor, was it even possible for him to see the distinction between those two positions because he never considered the distinguishing characteristics of position C. We can prove this to be the case by looking at his explanation for claiming that Mary did indeed “contract original sin” which was his way of affirming some truth was coming from this coalesced image of B and C. Re-quoting his pertinent words above :
This line of logic would not have proven his case, and thus he would not have used it, if he had ever considered and argued against the possibility of the distinguishing characteristics of position C. Therefore, we can see that he never even contemplated position “C,” the Immaculate Conception. Therefore, he could not have argued against something that he never considered. He had only considered positions “A” and “B.” Actually, you could say that his thoughts are consistent with the first half of position “C.” He got us half way home. Therefore, it is mistaken
to say the he argued against the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, a
position he did not consider. 6. Clarifying the limitations of the human mind
And so, neither could St. Thomas Aquinas affirm or reject the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Because of the limitations of his culture in regards to the concepts of how a person might be saved, his only way of expressing that Mary must be somehow saved by Christ is that “the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin.” He had no other words or concepts to express his otherwise quite orthodox understanding that Mary needed the saving grace of Christ. In short, the words and concepts of his day were incapable of expressing the full meaning we attach to the words “Immaculate Conception” today. Today with our better telescope, our more refined theological developments, we are able to see not just two, but three images. He cannot be faulted for the limits of his day. Nor is it reasonable that we demand he use tools he did not have. By analogy, consider the scientists who said the world began with the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. And before this the physical world which we see did not exist. Now with better science the Big Bang is being pushed back to 13.82 billion years ago. That is 120 million years earlier. Do we say the earlier scientists were wrong? It would be more accurate to say they made the best estimation based on what they could see at the time. A similar argument could be made for Aquinas and the Blessed Virgin. St. Thomas Aquinas saw fit to declare that God had revealed how Mary’s Immaculate state must be pushed all the way back to the time before her birth. Later, with better theological lenses Blessed John Duns Scotus, following St. Thomas Aquinas’ lead, would see fit to push back the time of her Immaculate state all the way to her conception. There can be a temptation to read Aquinas the same way
a fundamentalist reads the Bible, and assume the meaning is right on surface
of what WE think the words mean in OUR context when they were written in
another context. Not only was St. Thomas Aquinas writing in a different
language, and living in a different culture in a different country he lived
about 1,000 years ago. Not only was the language less developed, but even
the concepts on how one was to categorize the imagined possibilities or
thoughts was less developed. When interpreting what others mean we must be
very careful not to impose our standards of expression on them. This is
especially true for someone living a culture that has a less developed
language and a less developed system of theology. 7. Intention is the Key to Interpretation Fulton Sheen was a master communicator. In one particular joke he illustrated how two people could basically say the same thing, but by their intentions mean the exact opposite. He related the following explanation : On a moonlight night one man says to his fiancé, “You are so lovely. Your face could make time stand still.” While another man might complain to his drinking buddy, “Wow. My mother-in-law has a face that could stop a clock.” Literally they say almost the same words, but they have opposite meanings. One’s intentions are a better indicator of one’s meaning than just the actual words they use. When we formulate an idea we conceptualize, define, and categorize it by what it is or what it is not. When information is identified or reduced down to the most basic level it either has a particular quality or it does not. Computers are good at storing this information with their base 2 system. All data is reduced to a series of yes’s or no’s, 1’s or 0’s. Now imagine Aquinas formulating his expression on what he believes about Mary. An idea or concept can be thought of as a file or as an article. And it has to be dropped into one of two folders in his file cabinet. In regards to a specific quality it either is or it is not. Using this analogy, we can imagine Aquinas labeling two folders to distinguish and explain the possibilities of one’s sanctification. He would have labeled the First folder, He would have labeled the Now in order to express anything about her he must place his conception of her into one of these two folders. Due to his culture he only has those two labels for those two folders. He put the idea or expression to explain Mary’s condition into the Second folder. Some people mistakenly take the literal meaning of the label for this folder to be a perfect and complete expression of what he meant for the concept of what he was saying about Mary. But words are not complete concepts, they are just labels for concepts. By looking at Aquinas’ explanation we can see deeper into his intention. This opens up our ability to better understand exactly what he was saying. Now, if he had said that the First folder does not work for Mary because then she would have just been too holy, then we could have said he was arguing against her Immaculate Conception. But he does not say that. He explains that the First folder does not work for Mary because then Jesus is not her Savior because in this case she does not need a Savior. He correctly rules out that as a possibility. As he explains, his primary intention is to defend that Mary needs a Savior. So he places his doctrine to explain how she was saved into the Second folder. His only way expressing the label for that folder, due to the limits of his culture, was that she “contracted original sin.” His label was underdeveloped, but his intention, what he was really teaching, was correct. Even though his label doesn’t work for our more developed understanding he was on the right tract. He chose the right folder, it is just that we need to fine tune his label. Instead of “contracted original sin” the Second Folder should be labeled “Created human beings who are descendants of Adam and Eve and who as a consequence are due to be conceived in original sin.” With our more developed theology, we can also divide
this Second folder into two subfolders. Let us call And Folder 2B, In order to determine what St. Thomas Aquinas was teaching when he wrote that Mary contracted “original sin” we need to understand not only the context, but also the limits and restrictions that were placed on him by his culture in expressing himself. It would be a mistake to assume he was actually teaching those restricted ideas or limited ways of perceiving things. The best way to determine what he was really teaching is to ask what did he intend to teach. Consider places in the Bible when God appears to be within time and constricted by it. In Exodus chapter 32 he appears not to know how future events will enfold. He tells Moses he is going to consume the Israelites, but then relents (verses 10-14.) It is difficult to imagine and write about Someone Who is outside of time because being in time is the only condition we experience. The writer is restricted in expressing thoughts about God and His work because they are beyond our full comprehension. However, the writer should not be assumed to be actually teaching the restricted expressions that are in the framework of his expression. Somewhat similarly, Aquinas is deficient in his expression about how Mary needed to be saved, that she did “contract original sin.” But he should not be interpreted to actually be teaching that deficiency because it was an inherent limit placed on him by his culture. That was the only option available to him to express that there was a relationship between the realities of Original Sin and Mary that necessitated that she be saved. The framework of perceptions of his day forced him to choose between one deficiency or another one even worse, or not to write anything at all. He chose the best option to convey a very important truth that Mary, even though she somehow became the immaculate one, still needed to be saved somehow. When a writer expresses some truth about one of the
profound mysteries of God or His work in the context of the inherent
deficiencies of his day, he should not necessarily be judged as intending to
endorse that deficiency. The answer to the question of what was he teaching is best answered by asking what did he intend to teach. This is revealed when we read his explanation of WHY he chose to place Mary in category, or Position B rather than into Position A. For some there can be a temptation to oversimplify what the Immaculate Conception is about. It is not primarily to be without original sin. For example, a rock does not have original sin. It has no need to be redeemed or saved. Our concept of rock could go into Position A, but that is not what the Immaculate Conception is about. Therefore, by looking at his intention, we can see what
he was really teaching. He was focusing on the truth that Mary needed a Savior. And he was correct
to focus on that because the principle truth of the Immaculate Conception is
that it is a work of God. It
was just the labels he was forced to work with were not yet refined enough
by today’s standards. We cannot blame him for the inadequacy of the tools
he was forced to use to express an important truth about her.
When a person draws a straight line in Euclidean geometry and then another person examines it from the context of non-Euclidean geometry, or when a person draws a straight line in non-Euclidean geometry and then another person examines it from the context of Euclidean geometry each person’s straight line is going to appear crooked to the other. Only in the proper context will a straight line appear straight. The lines Aquinas drew were straight and true. But you have to understand his context, and not read into his words present day assumptions. Let’s consider the following explanation of a person developing a computer program. He writes the software to solve a complicated problem where steps A, B, C, and D have to be performed. In his mind he fully knows each step that must be performed. He writes and executes the software for the first time as he assumes the computer will perform each step. However, as often is the case, the result is not what is desired. In his mind the software writer knows each function the computer must do, and he assumes his software includes each step but the failure tells him he left a step out. If a person tells the software writer your first attempt did not work, fix it. The software developer will ask to see the computer’s output. He will want to know what answer did the computer give, how did it fail, where did it get stuck in a loop, etc. ? The computer’s output in a sense instructs the writer as to the difference between what he assumed his software instructed the computer to do, and what it actually said. Trying to fix the software without seeing what went wrong is extremely difficult. The point here is that we make assumptions without realizing it, and it is very difficult to see what those assumptions are. Without seeing the computer output it is very difficult to figure out what wrong assumptions were made. In our day, in our context, we make the distinction between being part of the family of Adam and therefore being subject to the curse of Original Sin and actually having Original Sin as opposed to the position of being part of the family of Adam and being subject to the curse of Original Sin but being saved from ever contracting it at one’s conception. We see the distinction between our state and Mary’s state, between Positions B and C explained above in section 5. But Aquinas could not have made the distinction between those two positions. He could not have done so because the idea that a person could be subject to receiving the curse of Original Sin but then somehow being saved so that he or she never actually contracted Original Sin was an idea that was not thought of in his culture. This idea was first presented by Blessed John Duns Scotus in AD 1307, several years after Aquinas’ death. In relation to the analogy of the software programmer we in our present day culture can be compared to the software writer and Aquinas to the computer. We can see in our mind, just as the writer sees in his mind all the steps that the computer must perform, that there is a difference between those two positions B and C. But the concepts that Aquinas has to work with – or in the case of the analogy, the software the computer has to work with – is only the idea that a person is a descendant of Adam and is therefore subject to the curse of Original Sin or the idea that a person does not need to be saved at all, i.e. Position A in section 5 above. Aquinas must separate things into Folder 1 or Folder 2 as explained in section 7 above without the distinctions of Folder 2A from Folder 2B.. Aquinas has to work and phrase his thinking without the distinctions between Positions B and C. Just as the computer cannot make a distinction that is not written in its code, Aquinas cannot make the distinction either. It is impossible for Aquinas to separate Positions B and C because he does not have the compute code, or more correctly, the theological concepts, that would enable him to do so. Therefore, when Aquinas says that Mary did “contract Original Sin” we cannot assume he meant by those words what we would mean by those words. The best clue of what he meant can be seen in his explanation of WHY he said those words in his Summa Theologica. From the above sections we can see that there are
difficulties that are often unrecognized in trying to interpret or
understand words written over 700 years ago. We need to take into account
the context of that time and culture. This is especially true when concepts
develop and become more precise as new ideas are added to the deposit of
knowledge. It is not possible for a person in one time period to make use of
future concepts. 9. How do we interpret Aquinas ? ... Proving Aquinas Correct !
Words do not equal Ideas When interpreting St. Thomas Aquinas it is most important to remember that words are not the same thing as thoughts or ideas. Words, like the letters of this page, are mere symbolic representations of various thoughts or ideas. We cannot assume that the meaning we attach to a given set of words is the same definition or meaning that he would attach to those same set of words. By studying his logic we can determine his train of thought and what he really meant by the words he used. Two Positions, and a Logical Deduction What did Aquinas' words mean to him? By examining his use of logic we can deduce the question he was considering. For him, it was either Position A or Position Not A. This examination will enable us to see past the labels, and beyond the symbolic words he used, to determine what his thoughts really were.
For Aquinas, the position for whose validity was to be determined was labeled by him with the symbolic words “Mary did not have Original Sin.” To simplify our expression here let us call that Position A. So, our question is, Was this Position A true or false? Aquinas reasons that this position must be false because Mary must have had a Savior. Now if this Position A could have included the possibility of our concept of what we now define as the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, then his rejection of it was the result of him using faulty logic at its most basic level. Yet, only a simpleton could accuse Aquinas of not being able to form a basic logical sequence. My premise here is that Aquinas could not have made such a blunder in elementary reasoning. Therefore, this Position A that Aquinas represents with the words “Mary did not have original sin” did not mean for him what they would mean for us by today's standards and they could not include what we mean by the Immaculate Conception because we clearly do teach that Mary was Saved by Jesus. Therefore, Aquinas was right in saying the first position, A, represented by his words “Mary was without original sin” is false. Since this concept is false Aquinas was logical and correct in rejecting it. Therefore, the converse must be true. For Aquinas the words, or symbolic label, that he would use to describe the converse of this concept was that “BV (Mary) did indeed contract original sin.” Today we would use a more precisely defined label or different set of words. We would call Position A, which we also reject as false, “There was no relationship, and there was no potential cause or effect, between Original Sin and Mary which would have given her the need to be saved from it.” By careful examination of his logic we can determine that the only legitimate conclusion of how to interpret his symbols, his words, is that Mary needed to be saved from original sin by Jesus and that she was saved by Him. Because of the theological limitations of his day Aquinas was prevented from considering the concept that would later be put forth by Blessed John Duns Scotus. This was the idea of how a person could be saved from a pit of filth without ever actually falling into it, as if someone reached out a hand to stop that person from walking into it. Since Aquinas never considered this idea it was impossible for him to actually reject it as he could not have been opposed to a concept that he did not perceive. An interpretation of his words, his symbols, to the contrary cannot be justified. Some people are misled with their own false analysis of the account given when Aquinas writes about the timing of when Mary “contracted original sin.” A more precise determination of what he meant can be made by studying his logic of “why” and from what Mary needed to be saved. There are two points in this
logical sequence. Logically the second point has to follow the first. Without this sequential order the second point would have no meaning. Aquinas never considered the possibility of them both being applied to Mary at the same time at her conception. His concepts were vague by today’s standards. He never made a distinction between Positions B and C listed above in section 5. To read more into his words such that Mary actually did contract Original Sin as we would mean it in our context in our day has no logical merit. It is inherently impossible that for him his words could have represented a meaning that was more precise than the concepts he held in his mind. This line of reasoning is
also verified in how we interpret the New Testament. By making it clear, that even Mary, the Immaculate one, needed a Savior he was laying the foundation. But, it was not to be until a later moment in time that mankind would be able to explain just how Original Sin required Mary to need a Savior. 10. Why is this so important? It is important because we all have Original
Sin, not counting the Blessed Virgin Mary and her Son of course. We are all
vulnerable to wanting to find some half-baked excuse for not accepting the
cross, the path of our salvation. Some have reasoned according to the
objections listed in the beginning of this article that they have an excuse
for rejecting their need to follow the Catholic Church in her moral
teachings. 11. Reply to Objection 1. Besides, it is illogical to
pit him against the definitive teachings of the Catholic Church when he
completely submitted his own writings to the Magisterium of that Church, to
sort out what was good and what was not. Just before his death, Thomas
Aquinas declared :
Reply to Objection 2.
12. In Conclusion, It is a mistake to interpret the words of St. Thomas Aquinas in a literal modern context. The keys are his context and intention. First, we need to understand the lack of theological development of his day which placed limitations on how he could express himself. Second, the question of what was he teaching is best examined by asking what was he intending to teach. And, that is best answered by looking at his explanation of why he answered as he did. He explains that because of the relationship between mankind and original sin we must affirm that everyone including Mary needed to be saved by Jesus. He spoke of Mary as having incurred the stain of original sin because the theological limits of his day left him no other way to express that Mary needed Jesus as a Savior. It would be impractical to expect that he would or even could use a theological framework that had not yet been developed. So, he cannot be faulted for that. It is not valid to assume he wanted to teach the limited view of how a person could need to be saved, that Mary had indeed contracted original sin, because he had no other way to express that Mary needed a Savior. That which he had intended to teach is true doctrine, i.e., all human creatures because of original sin, even the Immaculate Mary, need the saving grace of Jesus Christ. It is unreasonable to assume that he was wanting to teach beyond those orthodox truths. By him securing this foundation he paved the way so that future scholars like Blessed John Duns Scotus would be able to reason forward to the complex definition we have today. They eventually would be able to push back her Immaculate state all the way to her conception, or rather they opened our ability to perceive that beautiful manifestation of God’s work, in both saving and preserving the Blessed Virgin from the first moment of her existence.
Endnote 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
]|
|