Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Even Aquinas Can be Wrong (Immaculate Conception)

Even Aquinas Can be Wrong (Immaculate Conception)

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:51 am by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Even Aquinas Can be Wrong (Immaculate Conception) 2026-06-06T00:51:32-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

“Turretinfan” is an illustrious anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant apologist. He put up an interesting post entitled, “Early Thomas Aquinas contra the Immaculate Conception (5-1-24). I’d like to comment on it (and dare to disagree with and respectfully critique the great St. Thomas Aquinas). I’m not a Thomist, but I have the utmost respect for St. Thomas (1225-1274): so much so that one of my books that I edited is The Quotable Summa Theologica (Jan. 2013, 200 pages). I used to also have a web page devoted to St. Thomas in the early days of my website (begun in 1997). But individuals and theologians can be wrong, according to Catholic teaching: even those as eminent and gifted as Aquinas and Augustine. Here is most of Turretinfan’s article:

***

Thomas Aquinas is one of the most notable theologians of the medieval period. One of Thomas’ earlier works was his commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences. At Sentences, III, D3, Q1, Thomas considers “the Sanctification of the Blessed Virgin,” and specifically, “Concerning the first question, two things are to be looked into: first, the time of her sanctification; [and] second, its effects.”

Article 1 asks whether Mary was sanctified “before her conception was completed.” Thomas then considers multiple question-ettes (questinculae).

In his “Response to Quaestinucula 1,” he concludes that “it should be said that there is no way she could have been sanctified in her parents, nor even in the very act of her conception.”

In his “Response to Quaestincula 2,” he concludes that “it should be said that the Blessed Virgin’s sanctification could not have occurred in a becoming way before the infusion of her soul, because she was not yet capable of grace, but also not in the very instant of its infusion, such that by grace infused into her at that time she would be preserved from incurring original sin. For Christ was unique in the human race in not needing redemption, for he is our head, but all share in needing to be redeemed through him. Now, this could not be if any other soul were found that had never been infected by the original stain. And therefore this was not granted to the Blessed Virgin or anyone other than Christ.”

In his “Response to Quaestincula 3,” he concludes that “it should be said that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before her birth from the womb, which can be gathered from the fact that she above all the other saints was most pure from sin, as the text states, as the chosen mother of divine Wisdom, in which no defilement occurs, as it says in Wisdom 7:22. Whence, since this purity may be found to have existed in some people such that they were cleansed before their birth from the womb—such as John the Baptist, of whom we read in Luke 1:15, he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb; and Jeremiah, of whom it says, before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you (Jer 1:5)—one should not doubt that this was bestowed on the Mother of God in a much more excellent way.”

***

First of all, in St. Thomas’ time of very primitive biology, it was not thought that the soul was created at the instant of conception. Thus, the prerequisite knowledge required to believe in Mary’s immaculate conception (i.e., the specific timing of it) was lacking. So we are left with the question of when the special grace and sanctity granted to Mary was given by God, if it was not from the beginning of her existence. The belief at the time was that the soul was infused sometime after conception.

The Catholic dogma of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception — nor the prior longstanding pious belief — never claimed, to my knowledge, that the grace given to her by God occurred before her conception. This is evident in its very title. So that is neither here nor there. Nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with Mary’s parents.

It was a purely gratuitous act of God at the moment she was conceived. Of course, prior to her conception, it was the will of God from all eternity to sanctify her in this extraordinary and singular way. In that sense and that alone, it existed prior to Mary’s conception. But that is potentiality and not actuality.

St. Thomas states: “it should be said that there is no way she could have been sanctified in her parents, nor even in the very act of her conception.” My question to him, were I a pupil in a classroom of his (oh the glorious thought!), discussing this topic, would be, “on what basis, esteemed master, do you believe that there is ‘no way‘ that this could have happened?” Later in the same section, St. Thomas writes that “it is uncertain exactly when that [‘her sanctification’] took place.” What puzzles me is how St. Thomas admits that the time is uncertain, yet rules out even the possibility of it being present from the moment of the existence of her soul (whenever that was deemed to be in that pre-biological time).

Also in the same section, speculating about the relation of Mary’s parents to her sanctification, he writes, “this God could certainly have done, but it would not have been fitting.” No one questions that God could and would have done whatever He chose to do. But then again, I ask, “why not from conception?” In another response, Aquinas opined, “the Blessed Virgin’s sanctification could not have occurred . . . in the very instant of [her soul’s] infusion, . . .” Again, I wonder, why did he believe this? What is it based on? What caused him to reject it seemingly out of hand? He goes on to state, “Christ was unique in the human race in not needing redemption, for he is our head, but all share in needing to be redeemed through him.”

What didn’t seem to occur to him, but did occur shortly afterwards to Blessed Duns Scotus, was that the act of God’s sanctification, making Mary immaculate from the beginning of her human existence, was itself a redeeming and saving act (“preredemption,” as it were). But for that, Mary, of course, would have inherited original sin like anyone else. God simply chose to remove it at the very instant that it would have started to exist. It’s all God at that point, and none of Mary. Mary had a savior, as we all did. Without His grace, she would not have been immaculate or sinless. But she did cooperate with the grace, as we all do, or should.

What I find even more interesting is how St. Thomas goes on to argue that “the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before her birth from the womb, which can be gathered from the fact that she above all the other saints was most pure from sin.” Thus, he held that she did indeed attain to a state of sublime holiness “above all the other saints.” It happened at some point in her mother’s womb. He cites the analogies of John the Baptist and the prophet Jeremiah (arguments I have used in my own defenses of the Immaculate Conception): who were “were cleansed before their birth from the womb.”

I submit that we can’t deny that their purifications occurred at their own conceptions, either. But we know for sure — from inspired revelation — that this happened before they were born. Aquinas concludes that “this was bestowed on the Mother of God in a much more excellent way.”

The point of tension that I see in his position is that St. Thomas grants that the Blessed Virgin was extraordinarily sanctified in the womb. That was the act of grace. Yet he fails to see the interior logic and “fittingness” of that being from her conception (or at least when her soul was infused, which he thought came later). If God sanctified her later in her time in the womb, why not earlier? What principle or reason precludes that? And He doesn’t seem to realize that this act of grace contained in it redemption and salvation (since it eliminated original sin).

Mary was simply saved in a deeper and more profound way than others who are in the company of the elect. St. Thomas saw the essence of what the later dogma clarified, but he doesn’t quite put it all together in its completeness and glorious “fittingness.” That’s okay, though. He was a human being like we all are. The development of doctrine takes centuries of the Holy Spirit enlightening holy and intellectually brilliant and wise minds. We have the benefit of hindsight. We’re mere “armchair quarterbacks.”

Even Protestants believe the same thing. Lutheran pastor and scholar Jordan Cooper stated in one of his YouTube videos that no one understood certain important aspects of justification until the 16th century. No one “got” this aspect, central to salvation, till Martin Luther came around. If that took fifteen centuries, what’s to prevent a full understanding of Mary’s Immaculate Conception from taking 1200 years? Protestants are the very last people who can rationally complain about doctrines taking a long time to be fully developed and understood.

Once the Church in her magisterium declares and dogmatizes, it’s fascinating to go back and see how closely the holy saints and great and wise theological minds approached the finally formulated dogma.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Summary: St. Thomas Aquinas got very close to the later defined dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. What he got wrong in retrospect is fascinating to analyze.

Blessed Virgin Mary

Catholic Mariology

Duns Scotus

Immaculate Conception

preredemption

St. Thomas Aquinas & the Immaculate Conception

Previous Post

May 9, 2024

Comment: James White vs. Tim Staples on the Rule of Faith

Next Post

May 11, 2024 Peter the Rock: Only a Catholic View? (vs. James White)

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"And lastly, I belong to no denomination and am free to serve God as He ..."

Mariah

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

"And obeisance doesn't mean "worship". It means "respect", "obey", or "submission". Very weird that you ..."

Mariah

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

"Many of these scriptures you have noted have been taken out of context. With Daniel, ..."

Mariah

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

""Protestants often point out that Jesus is now triumphant in heaven and object to Catholics ..."

Anthony

Three More Anti-Catholic Lies About Catholicism ..."

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz