No More Learning

Objection 1: It would seem that the relics of the saints are not to be
worshiped at all. For we should avoid doing what may be the occasion of
error. But to worship the relics of the dead seems to savor of the
error of the Gentiles, who gave honor to dead men. Therefore the relics
of the saints are not to be honored.

Objection 2: Further, it seems absurd to venerate what is insensible.
But the relics of the saints are insensible. Therefore it is absurd to
venerate them.

Objection 3: Further, a dead body is not of the same species as a
living body: consequently it does not seem to be identical with it.
Therefore, after a saint's death, it seems that his body should not be
worshiped.

On the contrary, It is written (De Eccles. Dogm. xl): "We believe that
the bodies of the saints, above all the relics of the blessed martyrs,
as being the members of Christ, should be worshiped in all sincerity":
and further on: "If anyone holds a contrary opinion, he is not
accounted a Christian, but a follower of Eunomius and Vigilantius. "

I answer that, As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 13): "If a father's
coat or ring, or anything else of that kind, is so much more cherished
by his children, as love for one's parents is greater, in no way are
the bodies themselves to be despised, which are much more intimately
and closely united to us than any garment; for they belong to man's
very nature. " It is clear from this that he who has a certain affection
for anyone, venerates whatever of his is left after his death, not only
his body and the parts thereof, but even external things, such as his
clothes, and such like. Now it is manifest that we should show honor to
the saints of God, as being members of Christ, the children and friends
of God, and our intercessors. Wherefore in memory of them we ought to
honor any relics of theirs in a fitting manner: principally their
bodies, which were temples, and organs of the Holy Ghost dwelling and
operating in them, and are destined to be likened to the body of Christ
by the glory of the Resurrection. Hence God Himself fittingly honors
such relics by working miracles at their presence.

Reply to Objection 1: This was the argument of Vigilantius, whose words
are quoted by Jerome in the book he wrote against him (ch. ii) as
follows: "We see something like a pagan rite introduced under pretext
of religion; they worship with kisses I know not what tiny heap of dust
in a mean vase surrounded with precious linen. " To him Jerome replies
(Ep. ad Ripar. cix): "We do not adore, I will not say the relics of the
martyrs, but either the sun or the moon or even the angels"---that is
to say, with the worship of "latria. " "But we honor the martyrs'
relics, so that thereby we give honor to Him Whose martyrs [*The
original meaning of the word 'martyr,' i. e. the Greek {martys} is 'a
witness'] they are: we honor the servants, that the honor shown to them
may reflect on their Master. " Consequently, by honoring the martyrs'
relics we do not fall into the error of the Gentiles, who gave the
worship of "latria" to dead men.

Reply to Objection 2: We worship that insensible body, not for its own
sake, but for the sake of the soul, which was once united thereto, and
now enjoys God; and for God's sake, whose ministers the saints were.

Reply to Objection 3: The dead body of a saint is not identical with
that which the saint had during life, on account of the difference of
form, viz. the soul: but it is the same by identity of matter, which is
destined to be reunited to its form.
__________________________________________________________________

OF CHRIST AS CALLED THE MEDIATOR OF GOD AND MAN (TWO ARTICLES)

We have now to consider how Christ is called the Mediator of God and
man, and under this head there are two points of inquiry:

(1) Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Mediator of God and man?

(2) Whether this belongs to Him by reason of His human nature?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Mediator of God and man?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to be the
Mediator of God and man. For a priest and a prophet seem to be
mediators between God and man, according to Dt. 5:5: "I was the
mediator and stood between God [Vulg. : 'the Lord'] and you at that
time. " But it is not proper to Christ to be a priest and a prophet.
Neither, therefore, is it proper to Him to be Mediator.

Objection 2: Further, that which is fitting to angels, both good and
bad, cannot be said to be proper to Christ. But to be between God and
man is fitting to the good angels, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). It
is also fitting to the bad angels---that is, the demons: for they have
something in common with God---namely, "immortality"; and something
they have in common with men---namely, "passibility of soul" and
consequently unhappiness; as appears from what Augustine says (De Civ.
Dei ix, 13,15). Therefore it is not proper to Christ to be a Mediator
of God and man.

Objection 3: Further, it belongs to the office of Mediator to beseech
one of those, between whom he mediates, for the other. But the Holy
Ghost, as it is written (Rom. 8:26), "asketh" God "for us with
unspeakable groanings. " Therefore the Holy Ghost is a Mediator between
God and man. Therefore this is not proper to Christ.

On the contrary, It is written (1 Tim. 2:5): "There is . . . one
Mediator of God and man, the man Christ Jesus. "

I answer that, Properly speaking, the office of a mediator is to join
together and unite those between whom he mediates: for extremes are
united in the mean [medio]. Now to unite men to God perfectively
belongs to Christ, through Whom men are reconciled to God, according to
2 Cor. 5:19: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. " And,
consequently, Christ alone is the perfect Mediator of God and men,
inasmuch as, by His death, He reconciled the human race to God. Hence
the Apostle, after saying, "Mediator of God and man, the man Christ
Jesus," added: "Who gave Himself a redemption for all. "

However, nothing hinders certain others from being called mediators, in
some respect, between God and man, forasmuch as they cooperate in
uniting men to God, dispositively or ministerially.

Reply to Objection 1: The prophets and priests of the Old Law were
called mediators between God and man, dispositively and ministerially:
inasmuch as they foretold and foreshadowed the true and perfect
Mediator of God and men. As to the priests of the New Law, they may be
called mediators of God and men, inasmuch as they are the ministers of
the true Mediator by administering, in His stead, the saving sacraments
to men.

Reply to Objection 2: The good angels, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei
ix, 13), cannot rightly be called mediators between God and men. "For
since, in common with God, they have both beatitude and immortality,
and none of these things in common with unhappy and mortal man, how
much rather are they not aloof from men and akin to God, than
established between them? " Dionysius, however, says that they do occupy
a middle place, because, in the order of nature, they are established
below God and above man. Moreover, they fulfill the office of mediator,
not indeed principally and

perfectively, but ministerially and dispositively: whence (Mat. 4:11)
it is said that "angels came and ministered unto Him"---namely, Christ.
As to the demons, it is true that they have immortality in common with
God, and unhappiness in common with men. "Hence for this purpose does
the immortal and unhappy demon intervene, in order that he may hinder
men from passing to a happy immortality," and may allure them to an
unhappy immortality. Whence he is like "an evil mediator, who separates
friends" [*Augustine, De Civ. Dei xv].

But Christ had beatitude in common with God, mortality in common with
men. Hence "for this purpose did He intervene, that having fulfilled
the span of His mortality, He might from dead men make immortal---which
He showed in Himself by rising again; and that He might confer
beatitude on those who were deprived of it---for which reason He never
forsook us. " Wherefore He is "the good Mediator, Who reconciles
enemies" (De Civ. Dei xv).

Reply to Objection 3: Since the Holy Ghost is in everything equal to
God, He cannot be said to be between, or a Mediator of, God and men:
but Christ alone, Who, though equal to the Father in His Godhead, yet
is less than the Father in His human nature, as stated above
([4123]Q[20], A[1]). Hence on Gal. 3:20, "Christ is a Mediator [Vulg. :
'Now a mediator is not of one, but God is one']," the gloss says: "Not
the Father nor the Holy Ghost. " The Holy Ghost, however, is said "to
ask for us," because He makes us ask.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ, is the Mediator of God and men?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ is not, as man, the Mediator of
God and men. For Augustine says (Contra Felic. x): "One is the Person
of Christ: lest there be not one Christ, not one substance; lest, the
office of Mediator being denied, He be called the Son either of God
alone, or merely the Son of a man. " But He is the Son of God and man,
not as man, but as at the same time God and man. Therefore neither
should we say that, as man alone, He is Mediator of God and man.

Objection 2: Further, just as Christ, as God, has a common nature with
the Father and the Holy Ghost; so, as man, He has a common nature with
men. But for the reason that, as God, He has the same nature as the
Father and the Holy Ghost, He cannot be called Mediator, as God: for on
1 Tim. 2:5, "Mediator of God and man," a gloss says: "As the Word, He
is not a Mediator, because He is equal to God, and God 'with God,' and
at the same time one God. " Therefore neither, as man, can He be called
Mediator, on account of His having the same nature as men.

Objection 3: Further, Christ is called Mediator, inasmuch as He
reconciled us to God: and this He did by taking away sin, which
separated us from God. But to take away sin belongs to Christ, not as
man, but as God. Therefore Christ is our Mediator, not as man, but as
God.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 15): "Not because He
is the Word, is Christ Mediator, since He Who is supremely immortal and
supremely happy is far from us unhappy mortals; but He is Mediator, as
man. "

I answer that, We may consider two things in a mediator: first, that he
is a mean; secondly, that he unites others. Now it is of the nature of
a mean to be distant from each extreme: while it unites by
communicating to one that which belongs to the other. Now neither of
these can be applied to Christ as God, but only as man. For, as God, He
does not differ from the Father and the Holy Ghost in nature and power
of dominion: nor have the Father and the Holy Ghost anything that the
Son has not, so that He be able to communicate to others something
belonging to the Father or the Holy Ghost, as though it were belonging
to others than Himself. But both can be applied to Him as man. Because,
as man, He is distant both from God, by nature, and from man by dignity
of both grace and glory. Again, it belongs to Him, as man, to unite men
to God, by communicating to men both precepts and gifts, and by
offering satisfaction and prayers to God for men. And therefore He is
most truly called Mediator, as man.

Reply to Objection 1: If we take the Divine Nature from Christ, we
consequently take from Him the singular fulness of grace, which belongs
to Him as the Only-begotten of the Father, as it is written (Jn. 1:14).
From which fulness it resulted that He was established over all men,
and approached nearer to God.

Reply to Objection 2: Christ, as God, is in all things equal to the
Father. But even in the human nature He is above all men. Therefore, as
man, He can be Mediator, but not as God.

Reply to Objection 3: Although it belongs to Christ as God to take away
sin authoritatively, yet it belongs to Him, as man, to satisfy for the
sin of the human race. And in this sense He is called the Mediator of
God and men.

ST. THOMAS AND THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION (EDITORIAL NOTE)

The privilege of the Virgin-Mother of God and the supreme prerogative
of her Son may be seen from the following diagram:

THE LAW AND THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL SIN UNDER THE LAW . . . . . all
descendants from Adam . . . . . spring from Adam materially and
seminally . . . . . the body lies (not under the guilty, but) under the
effects of original sin . . . . . the stricken body dispositively
causes the soul to contract the guilt of original sin . . . . . all
contract both debt and stain . . . . . all need a Redeemer to destroy
the stain contracted PARTIALLY EXEMPT FROM THE LAW; PRIVILEGE OF
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION . . . . . the Blessed Virgin . . . . . springs
from Adam materially and seminally . . . . . the body lies (not under
the guilt, but) under the effects of original sin . . . . . the
stricken body would have dispositively caused the soul to contract the
guilt of original sin . . . . . the soul at the moment of union with
the body was prevented by the infusion of grace from contracting sin .
. . . . Mary contracted the debt, but not the stain . . . . . Mary
needed a Redeemer to prevent her from contracting the stain WHOLLY
EXEMPT FROM THE LAW; MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION . . . . . Our Blessed Lord .
. . . . springs from Adam materially, not seminally ([4124]Q[31], A[1])
. . . . . His body lay under neither guilt nor effects of original sin
. . . . .
the body being entirely free, could not transmit the stain to
His soul . . . . . no preventive grace needed . . . . . Jesus Christ
contracted neither debt nor stain . . . . . Jesus Christ is not
redeemed, but the Redeemer

It will thus be seen how accurately St. Thomas speaks of the "flesh" or
body of our Blessed Lady. For it should be remembered that, according
to St. Thomas, the human body is animated in succession by (1) a
vegetative, (2) a sensitive, and (3) a rational soul. Hence his
assertion that "the flesh of the Blessed Virgin was conceived in
original sin" ([4125]Q[14], A[3], ad 1) means that the body of the
Blessed Virgin, being descended from Adam both materially and
seminally, contracted the bodily defects which are conveyed by seminal
generation, and are the results of the privation of original justice
([4126]Q[69], A[4], ad 3). Before animation, therefore the body of the
Blessed Virgin would not be infected with the guilt of original sin,
because privation of grace can only be in that which is the subject of
grace, viz. the rational soul. Nevertheless, before animation the body
of the Blessed Virgin, being seminally descended from Adam, was such
that it would have been the means of transmitting the taint of original
sin to the rational soul at the very first instant of animation, unless
the grace of the Redeemer intervened and sanctified her soul "in that
self-same instant," thus redeeming her and preventing her from
contracting the guilt of original sin.

Why, then, does St. Thomas say that because the Blessed Virgin was not
sanctified before animation, therefore she could be sanctified only
after animation?

Such a conclusion would hold if it were a question of the order of
Nature: "a thing must be before it is such [prius est esse quam esse
tale]"; and therefore the soul must be, before it is sanctified. But if
St. Thomas held for a posteriority of time, no matter how short, we ask
how it was that he did not perceive the fallacy of the argument, since
it might be neither before nor after, but in the very instant of,
animation.

The question is answered thus: St. Thomas as a Doctor of the Church and
in matters which were not then "de fide," is a witness to the
expression of the faith of his time. Hence his line of argument
coincides with, because it follows, that of St. Bernard, Peter Lombard,
Alexander of Hales, Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure. It was not
likely that St. Thomas would differ from the great masters of his time,
who failed to understand that the grace of redemption might at the same
time be one of preservation and prevention. Nor is it likely that St.
Thomas had any reliable information about the movement* in progress at
that time towards a belief in the Immaculate Conception. [*Principally
in England, where, owing to the influence of St. Anselm (1109), the
doctrine was maintained by Eadmer (1137). Nicolas of St. Albans (1175),
Osbert of Clare (1170), Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln (1253),
William of Ware (1300), who was the master of Duns Scotus (1308)]. No
doubt he knew something of it, but the names of its promoters would
have weighed little with him as against those of Bernard, Albert,
Peter, Alexander, and Bonaventure. And it must not be forgotten that
among those who upheld the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, not a
few ascribed the privilege as being absolute and not one of
preservation and Redemption. Hence it is that St. Thomas insists on two
things: (1) that the Mother of God was redeemed, and (2) that the grace
of her sanctification was a grace of preservation. And, be it remarked
in conclusion, these two points, so much insisted on by St. Thomas, are
at the very basis of the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception.
__________________________________________________________________

OF THE SANCTIFICATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN (SIX ARTICLES)

After the foregoing treatise of the union of God and man and the
consequences thereof, it remains for us to consider what things the
Incarnate Son of God did or suffered in the human nature united to Him.
This consideration will be fourfold. For we shall consider: (1) Those
things that relate to His coming into the world; (2) Those things that
relate to the course of His life in this world; (3) His departure from
this world; (4) Those things that concern His exaltation after this
life.

The first of these offers four points of consideration: (1) The
Conception of Christ; (2) His Birth; (3) His Circumcision; (4) His
Baptism. Concerning His Conception there are some points to be
considered: (1) As to the Mother who conceived Him; (2) as to the mode
of His Conception; (3) as to the perfection of the offspring conceived.

On the part of the Mother four points offer themselves to our
consideration: (1) Her sanctification. (2) her virginity; (3) her
espousals; (4) her annunciation, or preparation for conception.

Concerning the first there are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, was sanctified before
her birth from the womb?

(2) Whether she was sanctified before animation?

(3) Whether in virtue of this sanctification the fomes of sin was
entirely taken away from her?

(4) Whether the result of this sanctification was that she never
sinned?

(5) Whether in virtue of this sanctification she received the fulness
of grace?

(6) Whether it was proper to her to be thus sanctified?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before her birth from the womb?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified
before her birth from the womb. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:46):
"That was not first which is spiritual but that which is natural;
afterwards that which is spiritual. " But by sanctifying grace man is
born spiritually into a son of God according to Jn. 1:13: "(who) are
born of God. " But birth from the womb is a natural birth. Therefore the
Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb.

Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan. ): "The
sanctification, by which we become temples of God, is only of those who
are born again. " But no one is born again, who was not born previously.
Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before her birth from
the womb.

Objection 3: Further, whoever is sanctified by grace is cleansed from
sin, both original and actual. If, therefore, the Blessed Virgin was
sanctified before her birth from the womb, it follows that she was then
cleansed from original sin. Now nothing but original sin could hinder
her from entering the heavenly kingdom. If therefore she had died then,
it seems that she would have entered the gates of heaven. But this was
not possible before the Passion of Christ, according to the Apostle
(Heb. 10:19): "We have [Vulg. : 'having'] therefore a confidence in the
entering into the Holies by His blood. " It seems therefore that the
Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb.

Objection 4: Further, original sin is contracted through the origin,
just as actual sin is contracted through an act. But as long as one is
in the act of sinning, one cannot be cleansed from actual sin.
Therefore neither could the Blessed Virgin be cleansed from original
sin as long as she was in the act of origin, by existence in her
mother's womb.

On the contrary, The Church celebrates the feast of our Lady's
Nativity. Now the Church does not celebrate feasts except of those who
are holy. Therefore even in her birth the Blessed Virgin was holy.
Therefore she was sanctified in the womb.

I answer that, Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures
concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being
sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth. But
as Augustine, in his tractate on the Assumption of the Virgin, argues
with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven, and yet Scripture
does not relate this; so it may be reasonably argued that she was
sanctified in the womb. For it is reasonable to believe that she, who
brought forth "the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and
truth," received greater privileges of grace than all others: hence we
read (Lk. 1:28) that the angel addressed her in the words: "Hail full
of grace! "

Moreover, it is to be observed that it was granted, by way of
privilege, to others, to be sanctified in the womb; for instance, to
Jeremias, to whom it was said (Jer. 1:5): "Before thou camest forth out
of the womb, I sanctified thee"; and again, to John the Baptist, of
whom it is written (Lk. 1:15): "He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost
even from his mother's womb. " It is therefore with reason that we
believe the Blessed Virgin to have been sanctified before her birth
from the womb.

Reply to Objection 1: Even in the Blessed Virgin, first was that which
is natural, and afterwards that which is spiritual: for she was first
conceived in the flesh, and afterwards sanctified in the spirit.

Reply to Objection 2: Augustine speaks according to the common law, by
reason of which no one is regenerated by the sacraments, save those who
are previously born. But God did not so limit His power to the law of
the sacraments, but that He can bestow His grace, by special privilege,
on some before they are born from the womb.

Reply to Objection 3: The Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb
from original sin, as to the personal stain; but she was not freed from
the guilt to which the whole nature is subject, so as to enter into
Paradise otherwise than through the Sacrifice of Christ; the same also
is to be said of the Holy Fathers who lived before Christ.

Reply to Objection 4: Original sin is transmitted through the origin,
inasmuch as through the origin the human nature is transmitted, and
original sin, properly speaking, affects the nature. And this takes
place when the off-spring conceived is animated. Wherefore nothing
hinders the offspring conceived from being sanctified after animation:
for after this it remains in the mother's womb not for the purpose of
receiving human nature, but for a certain perfecting of that which it
has already received.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified
before animation. Because, as we have stated [4127](A[1]), more grace
was bestowed on the Virgin Mother of God than on any saint. Now it
seems to have been granted to some, to be sanctified before animation.
For it is written (Jer. 1:5): "Before I formed thee in the bowels of
thy mother, I knew thee": and the soul is not infused before the
formation of the body. Likewise Ambrose says of John the Baptist
(Comment. in Luc. i, 15): "As yet the spirit of life was not in him and
already he possessed the Spirit of grace. " Much more therefore could
the Blessed Virgin be sanctified before animation.

Objection 2: Further, as Anselm says (De Concep. Virg. xviii), "it was
fitting that this Virgin should shine with such a purity that under God
none greater can be imagined": wherefore it is written (Canticles 4:7):
"Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee. " But
the purity of the Blessed Virgin would have been greater, if she had
never been stained by the contagion of original sin. Therefore it was
granted to her to be sanctified before her flesh was animated.

Objection 3: Further, as it has been stated above, no feast is
celebrated except of some saint. But some keep the feast of the
Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Therefore it seems that in her very
Conception she was holy; and hence that she was sanctified before
animation.

Objection 4: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 11:16): "If the root be
holy, so are the branches. " Now the root of the children is their
parents. Therefore the Blessed Virgin could be sanctified even in her
parents, before animation.

On the contrary, The things of the Old Testament were figures of the
New, according to 1 Cor. 10:11: "All things happened to them in
figure. " Now the sanctification of the tabernacle, of which it is
written (Ps. 45:5): "The most High hath sanctified His own tabernacle,"
seems to signify the sanctification of the Mother of God, who is called
"God's Tabernacle," according to Ps. 18:6: "He hath set His tabernacle
in the sun. " But of the tabernacle it is written (Ex. 40:31,32): "After
all things were perfected, the cloud covered the tabernacle of the
testimony, and the glory of the Lord filled it. " Therefore also the
Blessed Virgin was not sanctified until after all in her was perfected,
viz. her body and soul.

I answer that, The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be
understood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons.
First, because the sanctification of which we are speaking, is nothing
but the cleansing from original sin: for sanctification is a "perfect
cleansing," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin cannot be taken
away except by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature
alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed
Virgin was not sanctified.

Secondly, because, since the rational creature alone can be the subject
of sin; before the infusion of the rational soul, the offspring
conceived is not liable to sin. And thus, in whatever manner the
Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation, she could
never have incurred the stain of original sin: and thus she would not
have needed redemption and salvation which is by Christ, of whom it is
written (Mat. 1:21): "He shall save His people from their sins. " But
this is unfitting, through implying that Christ is not the "Saviour of
all men," as He is called (1 Tim. 4:10). It remains, therefore, that
the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation.

Reply to Objection 1: The Lord says that He "knew" Jeremias before he
was formed in the womb, by knowledge, that is to say, of
predestination: but He says that He "sanctified" him, not before
formation, but before he "came forth out of the womb," etc.

As to what Ambrose says, viz. that in John the Baptist there was not
the spirit of life when there was already the Spirit of grace, by
spirit of life we are not to understand the life-giving soul, but the
air which we breathe out [respiratus]. Or it may be said that in him as
yet there was not the spirit of life, that is the soul, as to its
manifest and complete operations.

Reply to Objection 2: If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never
incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the
dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all.
Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed
not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest
place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever,
but was holy in His very Conception, according to Lk. 1:35: "The Holy
which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. " But the
Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed
therefrom before her birth from the womb. This is what is signified
(Job 3:9) where it is written of the night of original sin: "Let it
expect light," i. e. Christ, "and not see it"---(because "no defiled
thing cometh into her," as is written Wis. 7:25), "nor the rising of
the dawning of the day," that is of the Blessed Virgin, who in her
birth was immune from original sin.

Reply to Objection 3: Although the Church of Rome does not celebrate
the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, yet it tolerates the custom of
certain churches that do keep that feast, wherefore this is not to be
entirely reprobated. Nevertheless the celebration of this feast does
not give us to understand that she was holy in her conception. But
since it is not known when she was sanctified, the feast of her
Sanctification, rather than the feast of her Conception, is kept on the
day of her conception.

Reply to Objection 4: Sanctification is twofold. one is that of the
whole nature: inasmuch as the whole human nature is freed from all
corruption of sin and punishment. This will take place at the
resurrection. The other is personal sanctification. This is not
transmitted to the children begotten of the flesh: because it does not
regard the flesh but the mind. Consequently, though the parents of the
Blessed Virgin were cleansed from original sin, nevertheless she
contracted original sin, since she was conceived by way of fleshly
concupiscence and the intercourse of man and woman: for Augustine says
(De Nup. et Concup. i): "All flesh born of carnal intercourse is
sinful. "
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the Blessed Virgin was cleansed from the infection of the fomes?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin was not cleansed
from the infection of the fomes. For just as the fomes, consisting in
the rebellion of the lower powers against the reason, is a punishment
of original sin; so also are death and other corporeal penalties.
Therefore the fomes was not entirely removed from her.

Objection 2: Further, it is written (2 Cor. 12:9): "Power is made
perfect in infirmity," which refers to the weakness of the fomes, by
reason of which he (the Apostle) felt the "sting of the flesh. " But it
was not fitting that anything should be taken away from the Blessed
Virgin, pertaining to the perfection of virtue. Therefore it was
unfitting that the fomes should be entirely taken away from her.

Objection 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that "the Holy
Ghost came upon" the Blessed Virgin, "purifying her," before she
conceived the Son of God. But this can only be understood of
purification from the fomes: for she committed no sin, as Augustine
says (De Nat. et Grat. xxvi). Therefore by the sanctification in the
womb she was not absolutely cleansed from the fomes.

On the contrary, It is written (Canticles 4:7): "Thou art all fair, O
my love, and there is not a spot in thee! " But the fomes implies a
blemish, at any rate in the flesh. Therefore the fomes was not in the
Blessed Virgin.

I answer that, on this point there are various opinions. For some have
held that the fomes was entirely taken away in that sanctification
whereby the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb. Others say that
it remained as far as it causes a difficulty in doing good, but was
taken away as far as it causes a proneness to evil. Others again, that
it was taken away as to the personal corruption, by which it makes us
quick to do evil and slow to do good: but that it remained as to the
corruption of nature, inasmuch as it is the cause of transmitting
original sin to the offspring. Lastly, others say that, in her first
sanctification, the fomes remained essentially, but was fettered; and
that, when she conceived the Son of God, it was entirely taken away. In
order to understand the question at issue, it must be observed that the
fomes is nothing but a certain inordinate, but habitual, concupiscence
of the sensitive appetite. for actual concupiscence is a sinful motion.
Now sensual concupiscence is said to be inordinate, in so far as it
rebels against reason; and this it does by inclining to evil, or
hindering from good. Consequently it is essential to the fomes to
incline to evil, or hinder from good. Wherefore to say that the fomes
was in the Blessed Virgin without an inclination to evil, is to combine
two contradictory statements.

In like manner it seems to imply a contradiction to say that the fomes
remained as to the corruption of nature, but not as to the personal
corruption. For, according to Augustine (De Nup. et Concup. i.