From the earlier post looking at Aquinas’ and the popular view of Mary, significant differences will already have been noticed. Indeed one can sense Aquinas’ impatience with the popular views prevailing during his time in certain of his words. One such example can be found in Aquinas’ discussion of whether Mary was cleansed completely from the ‘inflammation of sin’ (she was not says Aquinas, though its effects were rendered harmless), when he remarks: “We can, then, ascribe to the blessed Virgin perfect virtue and grace’s full intensity without having to claim for her every occasion of perfect virtue.”(S.T. 3a, 27, q.3) Aquinas keeps the scriptural accounts of Mary always in view, and all the grace given to her is always given to her in such a way that its use is always “consonant with her way of life.” (S.T. 3a, 27, q.5) Thus Aquinas is clearly not representative of the popular view which would attribute to Mary every possible “occasion of perfect virtue” such as describing her as full of Biblical knowledge and so forth, in fact regarding this point, Aquinas expressly states that she did not have the use of wisdom as regards teaching for this did not befit her female sex (!). (S.T. 3a, 27, q. 5) Aquinas' 'sexism' (in scare quotes because it's a bit of an anachronism) notwithstanding, the principle feature of his Mariology is that he does not wish to attribute anything to Mary which would not accord with her own admission that she is but a “lowly handmaid” of the Lord.
A reply given to a certain Friar Gerard when asked whether it was true that the Blessed Virgin repeated the words “a sword will pierce my heart” is characteristic of Aquinas’ attitude to what he saw as the excessive Marian devotion of his time: “In my opinion such frivolities ought not to be preached, seeing there are so many subjects for preaching that are absolutely true.” (quoted in H. Graef, 'Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion') Aquinas follows his teacher St. Albert the Great whose Mariology represented the authentic tradition and who maintained the close link between Mariology and Christology: “the cause of her veneration, of her glorification, is not her own person, but Christ.” (quoted in Graef) In this Aquinas differs greatly from the popular view which increasingly developed an emphasis on Mary as an individual with no attention paid to either her union with Christ or with the Church. On the other hand, whilst Aquinas’ Mariology clearly differed significantly from the popular view there are certain points of contact between them. His Mariology may have been far more restrained but he certainly had a strong devotion to her. He had no problem placing her above the angels and would surely have been happy to call her the ‘Queen of Angels’ and ‘Mother of Mercy’. She was ‘in some way’ Mediatrix of all graces and one could profitably pray to her to intercede on one’s behalf.
Having surveyed both Aquinas’ Mariology and the popular view, typical in his time and perhaps paralleling the excesses of Marian devotion that Protestants so fear, it is clear that Aquinas cannot be said to be a representative of the latter. He did not share the popular enthusiasm for the various myths and legends associated with the person of Mary and he was theologically far more reticent about Mary’s role in salvation, always wishing to maintain the union with Christ that gave Mary her significance. The popular view on the other hand concentrated more and more on Mary as an individual in her own right, to the extent that she appeared at times to take on a role of equivalent value to that of Jesus Christ. It might not be going to far to say that had Aquinas’ more sober approach been able to better infiltrate the popular mindset, the Reformers’ backlash against what they saw as the excessive and unbiblical attention given to Mary may not have been so great, and may not have caused them to abandon Mariology altogether as they eventually occurred in the Protestant tradition (Luther at least, had quite a 'high' Mariology). Aquinas’ entire attitude towards Mariology is encapsulated perfectly in his closing sentence from his lecture in Naples: “So therefore is the Virgin blessed, but far more blessed is the fruit of her womb.” (Exposition of the Angelic Salutation)
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Aquinas' Mariology (2)
From the earlier post looking at Aquinas’ and the popular view of Mary, significant differences will already have been noticed. Indeed one can sense Aquinas’ impatience with the popular views prevailing during his time in certain of his words. One such example can be found in Aquinas’ discussion of whether Mary was cleansed completely from the ‘inflammation of sin’ (she was not says Aquinas, though its effects were rendered harmless), when he remarks: “We can, then, ascribe to the blessed Virgin perfect virtue and grace’s full intensity without having to claim for her every occasion of perfect virtue.”(S.T. 3a, 27, q.3) Aquinas keeps the scriptural accounts of Mary always in view, and all the grace given to her is always given to her in such a way that its use is always “consonant with her way of life.” (S.T. 3a, 27, q.5) Thus Aquinas is clearly not representative of the popular view which would attribute to Mary every possible “occasion of perfect virtue” such as describing her as full of Biblical knowledge and so forth, in fact regarding this point, Aquinas expressly states that she did not have the use of wisdom as regards teaching for this did not befit her female sex (!). (S.T. 3a, 27, q. 5) Aquinas' 'sexism' (in scare quotes because it's a bit of an anachronism) notwithstanding, the principle feature of his Mariology is that he does not wish to attribute anything to Mary which would not accord with her own admission that she is but a “lowly handmaid” of the Lord.
A reply given to a certain Friar Gerard when asked whether it was true that the Blessed Virgin repeated the words “a sword will pierce my heart” is characteristic of Aquinas’ attitude to what he saw as the excessive Marian devotion of his time: “In my opinion such frivolities ought not to be preached, seeing there are so many subjects for preaching that are absolutely true.” (quoted in H. Graef, 'Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion') Aquinas follows his teacher St. Albert the Great whose Mariology represented the authentic tradition and who maintained the close link between Mariology and Christology: “the cause of her veneration, of her glorification, is not her own person, but Christ.” (quoted in Graef) In this Aquinas differs greatly from the popular view which increasingly developed an emphasis on Mary as an individual with no attention paid to either her union with Christ or with the Church. On the other hand, whilst Aquinas’ Mariology clearly differed significantly from the popular view there are certain points of contact between them. His Mariology may have been far more restrained but he certainly had a strong devotion to her. He had no problem placing her above the angels and would surely have been happy to call her the ‘Queen of Angels’ and ‘Mother of Mercy’. She was ‘in some way’ Mediatrix of all graces and one could profitably pray to her to intercede on one’s behalf.
Having surveyed both Aquinas’ Mariology and the popular view, typical in his time and perhaps paralleling the excesses of Marian devotion that Protestants so fear, it is clear that Aquinas cannot be said to be a representative of the latter. He did not share the popular enthusiasm for the various myths and legends associated with the person of Mary and he was theologically far more reticent about Mary’s role in salvation, always wishing to maintain the union with Christ that gave Mary her significance. The popular view on the other hand concentrated more and more on Mary as an individual in her own right, to the extent that she appeared at times to take on a role of equivalent value to that of Jesus Christ. It might not be going to far to say that had Aquinas’ more sober approach been able to better infiltrate the popular mindset, the Reformers’ backlash against what they saw as the excessive and unbiblical attention given to Mary may not have been so great, and may not have caused them to abandon Mariology altogether as they eventually occurred in the Protestant tradition (Luther at least, had quite a 'high' Mariology). Aquinas’ entire attitude towards Mariology is encapsulated perfectly in his closing sentence from his lecture in Naples: “So therefore is the Virgin blessed, but far more blessed is the fruit of her womb.” (Exposition of the Angelic Salutation)
A reply given to a certain Friar Gerard when asked whether it was true that the Blessed Virgin repeated the words “a sword will pierce my heart” is characteristic of Aquinas’ attitude to what he saw as the excessive Marian devotion of his time: “In my opinion such frivolities ought not to be preached, seeing there are so many subjects for preaching that are absolutely true.” (quoted in H. Graef, 'Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion') Aquinas follows his teacher St. Albert the Great whose Mariology represented the authentic tradition and who maintained the close link between Mariology and Christology: “the cause of her veneration, of her glorification, is not her own person, but Christ.” (quoted in Graef) In this Aquinas differs greatly from the popular view which increasingly developed an emphasis on Mary as an individual with no attention paid to either her union with Christ or with the Church. On the other hand, whilst Aquinas’ Mariology clearly differed significantly from the popular view there are certain points of contact between them. His Mariology may have been far more restrained but he certainly had a strong devotion to her. He had no problem placing her above the angels and would surely have been happy to call her the ‘Queen of Angels’ and ‘Mother of Mercy’. She was ‘in some way’ Mediatrix of all graces and one could profitably pray to her to intercede on one’s behalf.
Having surveyed both Aquinas’ Mariology and the popular view, typical in his time and perhaps paralleling the excesses of Marian devotion that Protestants so fear, it is clear that Aquinas cannot be said to be a representative of the latter. He did not share the popular enthusiasm for the various myths and legends associated with the person of Mary and he was theologically far more reticent about Mary’s role in salvation, always wishing to maintain the union with Christ that gave Mary her significance. The popular view on the other hand concentrated more and more on Mary as an individual in her own right, to the extent that she appeared at times to take on a role of equivalent value to that of Jesus Christ. It might not be going to far to say that had Aquinas’ more sober approach been able to better infiltrate the popular mindset, the Reformers’ backlash against what they saw as the excessive and unbiblical attention given to Mary may not have been so great, and may not have caused them to abandon Mariology altogether as they eventually occurred in the Protestant tradition (Luther at least, had quite a 'high' Mariology). Aquinas’ entire attitude towards Mariology is encapsulated perfectly in his closing sentence from his lecture in Naples: “So therefore is the Virgin blessed, but far more blessed is the fruit of her womb.” (Exposition of the Angelic Salutation)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment