|
It seems that we must distinguish between three periods in the life of
St. Thomas as to his teaching on this subject.
In the first period, which was from 1253 to 1254, he affirmed
the privilege, for he wrote: "Such was the purity of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, who was exempt from both original and actual
sin."[2467]
In the second period, St. Thomas sees more clearly the difficulties
of the problem, and, because some theologians said that Mary had no
need of redemption, the holy Doctor affirms that, according to
revelation,[2468] Christ is the Redeemer of the human race,
and that nobody is saved without him. But giving no thought to
preservative redemption, St. Thomas seems to deny the privilege of
the Immaculate Conception, saying: "It remains, therefore, that
the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation,"[2469]
St. Thomas fails to distinguish, as he often does in other
questions, between posteriority of nature, which is compatible with
the privilege, and posteriority of time, which is incompatible with
it. He says: "The Blessed Virgin did indeed, contract original
sin,"[2470] not sufficiently distinguishing between the debt of
incurring original sin and the fact of incurring it.
Concerning the question as to the precise moment when the Blessed
Virgin was sanctified in the womb, St. Thomas does not come to any
conclusion. He only says: "This sanctification took place
immediately after her animation,"[2471] and "it is not known
when she was sanctified."[2472]
It must be observed with Fathers del Prado, O. P.,[2473]
Mandonnet, O. P.,[2474] and Hugon, O.
P.,[2475] that the principles invoked by St. Thomas do not
contradict the privilege and remain intact if preservative redemption be
admitted. But St. Thomas, at least in this second period of his
life as teacher, does not seem to have thought of this most perfect
mode of redemption. Moreover, it must be noticed that the feast of
the Conception of the Blessed Virgin was not as yet celebrated in
Rome;[2476] but what is not done in Rome, does not appear to
be in conformity with tradition.
In the last period of his life, however, from 1272 until
1273, St. Thomas wrote a work that is certainly
authentic.[2477] In a recent critical edition of this small work
made by J. F. Rossi, c. M., we read: "For she [the
Blessed Virgin] was most pure because she incurred the stain neither
of original sin nor of mortal sin nor of venial sin."[2478] If
it be so, then St. Thomas at the end of his life, after mature
reflection, and in accordance with his devotion toward the Blessed
Virgin, again affirmed what he had said in the first period of his
life.[2479]
We must note other passages indicative of this happy return to his
first opinion.[2480]
A similar change of opinion is often enough to be found in great
theologians concerning very difficult questions that belong to
Mariology. First something of the privilege is affirmed in accordance
with tradition and devotion; afterward difficulties become more
apparent which give rise to doubts, and finally upon more mature
reflection, enlightened by the gifts of the Holy Ghost, the
theologian returns to his first opinion, considering that God's gifts
are more fruitful than we think and there must be good reasons for
restricting their scope. But the principles of St. Thomas, as we
have observed, do not decide against the privilege, they even lead to
it, at the same time as the mind is acquiring an explicit notion of
preservative redemption.
Thus St. Thomas probably at the end of life reaffirmed the privilege
of the Immaculate Conception. Father Mandonnet[2481] and
Father J. M. Voste[2482] thought so.
|
|
