The position of Hugon (and Lagrange) is wrong because the Expositio Salutationis Angelicae was likely written in 1269, and was thus prior to the Tertia Pars. (This is the current position according to Marc Millais from Editio Leonina) Fr Larcher's translation of the commentary on Galatians claims the opposite: it says that no woman was found with such characteristics. The one of the commentary on the romans is probably an interpolation as Aquinas claimed that Mary contracted the original sin multiple times. And whilst it is conceded that Rossi's opinion on the Expositio is true, we should note alongside Merkelbach that the Expositio is a very brief sermon with no precision or detailed explanation of the topic, and thus we should prefer more extensive works which focus more specifically on the topic at hand, such as the Summa Theologiae and the commentary on the sentences. About your claim on the original sin being the debitum peccati in the Q.27 of the Tertia Pars, Aquinas clarifies in the ad.3 of the first article that he is referring to the personal stain (maculam personalem), and in ad.4 that she was sanctified of the original sin *properly speaking* (proprie peccatum originale) after animation, and this exact reference proves the maculist position as he claims that Mary was sanctified once she already received human nature and was only going to perfect it, whilst there is no such event concurrent to animation in the temporal order and posterior to it in the logical order, for the completion of the human nature is the very last event in the logical order which satisfies this condition, wherefore the posteriority must be of time. (And thus she incurred original sin atleast for an instant.)
The way saint Thomas understood biology makes it hard for anybody to say that he denied immaculate conception, what was understood to be there before ensoulment wasn’t a human or humanity, so no original sin could be there, no human is there to be with sin or in sin, and from the moment of ensoulment she never sinned and was the purest of all creatures.
"Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod sanctificatio Beatae Virginis non potuit esse decenter ante infusionem animae, quia gratiae capax nondum erat, sed *nec etiam in ipso instanti infusionis, ut scilicet per gratiam tunc sibi infusam conservaretur, ne culpam originalem incurreret.* Christus enim hoc *singulariter* in humano genere habet ut redemptione non egeat, quia caput nostrum est, sed omnibus convenit redimi per ipsum. Hoc autem esse non posset, *si alia anima inveniretur quae nunquam originali macula fuisset infecta;* et ideo " Sent.III, d.3, q.1, a.1, ad qa.2 "To the second question, 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 is quite clear.
@@emanuelbenicio3501 yeah, that's one of the texts, he says otherwise in other texts, yet in that text he is wrong, because nobody says that she wasn't redeemed by Christ, she received the graces of redemption at the moment of conception. It's Christ who merited that for her.
@@AprendeMovimientoEvery text in which he allegedly posits the immaculate conception has no detailed exposition of his opinion, whilst every text in which he denies the immaculate conception is very detailed and clearly refers to the actual original sin. That's why Merkelbach comments that we shouldnt focus on the Expositio. The maculist position is simply much more probable, it is affirmed in the commentary on the sentences and on the Sth. Undeniable.
So what is the explanation for the discrepancy in St. Thomas' Exposition on the Angelic Salutation where he appears to contradict himself? Is he saying she was cleansed of original sin before the ensoulment of the rational soul, and that's how she differs from Christ who was not conceived with original sin, and why it is legitimate to say she didn't incur original sin (since she didn't formally exist before ensoulment)?
Its because he believed in a aristotelian way of the soul, he thinked we would get our souls in 40 days since gametic fusion, ans because Mary had no sin, Jesus flesh even before the ensoulment was not affected by Original sin, Mary was but God cleansed it with grace in her animation
Not the kamala Haris ad💀
The position of Hugon (and Lagrange) is wrong because the Expositio Salutationis Angelicae was likely written in 1269, and was thus prior to the Tertia Pars. (This is the current position according to Marc Millais from Editio Leonina)
Fr Larcher's translation of the commentary on Galatians claims the opposite: it says that no woman was found with such characteristics.
The one of the commentary on the romans is probably an interpolation as Aquinas claimed that Mary contracted the original sin multiple times.
And whilst it is conceded that Rossi's opinion on the Expositio is true, we should note alongside Merkelbach that the Expositio is a very brief sermon with no precision or detailed explanation of the topic, and thus we should prefer more extensive works which focus more specifically on the topic at hand, such as the Summa Theologiae and the commentary on the sentences.
About your claim on the original sin being the debitum peccati in the Q.27 of the Tertia Pars, Aquinas clarifies in the ad.3 of the first article that he is referring to the personal stain (maculam personalem), and in ad.4 that she was sanctified of the original sin *properly speaking* (proprie peccatum originale) after animation, and this exact reference proves the maculist position as he claims that Mary was sanctified once she already received human nature and was only going to perfect it, whilst there is no such event concurrent to animation in the temporal order and posterior to it in the logical order, for the completion of the human nature is the very last event in the logical order which satisfies this condition, wherefore the posteriority must be of time. (And thus she incurred original sin atleast for an instant.)
The way saint Thomas understood biology makes it hard for anybody to say that he denied immaculate conception, what was understood to be there before ensoulment wasn’t a human or humanity, so no original sin could be there, no human is there to be with sin or in sin, and from the moment of ensoulment she never sinned and was the purest of all creatures.
"Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod sanctificatio Beatae Virginis non potuit esse decenter ante infusionem animae, quia gratiae capax nondum erat, sed *nec etiam in ipso instanti infusionis, ut scilicet per gratiam tunc sibi infusam conservaretur, ne culpam originalem incurreret.* Christus enim hoc *singulariter* in humano genere habet ut redemptione non egeat, quia caput nostrum est, sed omnibus convenit redimi per ipsum. Hoc autem esse non posset, *si alia anima inveniretur quae nunquam originali macula fuisset infecta;* et ideo "
Sent.III, d.3, q.1, a.1, ad qa.2
"To the second question, 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 is quite clear.
@@emanuelbenicio3501 yeah, that's one of the texts, he says otherwise in other texts, yet in that text he is wrong, because nobody says that she wasn't redeemed by Christ, she received the graces of redemption at the moment of conception. It's Christ who merited that for her.
@@AprendeMovimientoEvery text in which he allegedly posits the immaculate conception has no detailed exposition of his opinion, whilst every text in which he denies the immaculate conception is very detailed and clearly refers to the actual original sin. That's why Merkelbach comments that we shouldnt focus on the Expositio. The maculist position is simply much more probable, it is affirmed in the commentary on the sentences and on the Sth. Undeniable.
Thanks much for this video.
10 minutes left...
Let's go but nine days?
He wants that Cyberpunk 2077 hype
9 days is just enough time to memorize an abbreviated encyclopaedia. Be thankful.
7 days
So what is the explanation for the discrepancy in St. Thomas' Exposition on the Angelic Salutation where he appears to contradict himself?
Is he saying she was cleansed of original sin before the ensoulment of the rational soul, and that's how she differs from Christ who was not conceived with original sin, and why it is legitimate to say she didn't incur original sin (since she didn't formally exist before ensoulment)?
Its because he believed in a aristotelian way of the soul, he thinked we would get our souls in 40 days since gametic fusion, ans because Mary had no sin, Jesus flesh even before the ensoulment was not affected by Original sin, Mary was but God cleansed it with grace in her animation
This was great
real
St. Thomas would vote for Kamala Harris
what did the ai mean by this?