FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304  
305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   >>   >|  
sion 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. _______________________ QUESTION 27 OF THE SANCTIFICATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN (In 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) T
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304  
305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Thomas

 

Conception

 

doctrine

 

preservation

 
Immaculate
 

Alexander

 

Albert

 

Bonaventure

 
Bernard
 

things


argument
 
question
 

Mother

 

William

 

master

 

Scotus

 

promoters

 

weighed

 

forgotten

 

redeemed


upheld
 

absolute

 

Redemption

 

ascribed

 

privilege

 

insists

 
Catholic
 
Incarnate
 

remains

 
consequences

thereof

 

suffered

 
fourfold
 

consideration

 

nature

 
united
 
treatise
 

foregoing

 

insisted

 

points


sanctification

 

remarked

 

conclusion

 
Articles
 

VIRGIN

 
BLESSED
 

QUESTION

 

SANCTIFICATION

 

progress

 
answered