Blessed John Duns Scotus, The Blessed Virgin Mary, The Franciscans

A Brief Summary of Scotus’s Position on the Immaculate Conception

Blessed John Duns Scotus Turning From the SummaThe Marian dogma of the Immaculate Conception was first successfully defended by the Franciscan friar, Bl. John Duns Scotus. He was able to maneuver his way through the intellectual deadlock surrounding this theological issue and paved the way for its eventual proclamation in 1854, by Pope Pius IX.

This summary is taken from the book, Blessed John Duns Scotus: Marian Doctor, by Fr. Stefano M. Manelli, Fl (Pg. 84-88).


The two chief objections to the radical immunity from original sin in Mary were based on two truths of faith.

  1. The universality of original sin: If it is true, as it is very true, that all the children of Adam ‘have sinned’ in him (Rm 5:12), then Mary Most Holy must also have sinned in Adam as she too is his descendant.
  2. The universality of redemption: If it is true, as it is very true, that the redemption of Christ is universal, i.e., wrought for all men, it would not, in reality, have been universal were Mary conceived without original sin and so have had no need of redemption.

In the face of these indubitable truths of faith, even the great masters of Paris did not know how to explain the total immunity of Mary Most Holy from original sin.

Let us take, for example, the case of Saint Bonaventure. When he speaks of Our Lady, he uses sublime terms and images; he exalts her above the stars, and he contemplates her as all pure and radiant, more beautiful than the dawn and every flower of creation. In all this, Saint Bonaventure appears to be exactly in harmony with the Faith of the Fathers of the Church, and of the Christian people who believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

But Saint Bonaventure, speaking theologically, could not resolve the difficulties urged against the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and so he found himself on the side of theologians who admitted only the sanctification of Mary in her mother’s womb.

Such was the situation and the position of the renowned University of Paris up to that time. It is here that John Duns Scotus, the Subtle Doctor, the holy and magnificent knight of the Immaculate enters the scene. Enlightened by God, he succeeded in breaking the stalemate and theological paralysis in which the University of Paris – the greatest of the universities of higher learning – found itself with its rejection of the truth of the Immaculate Conception.

From the very start, we must affirm and understand that in defending the original purity of Mary Most Holy, Blessed John’s point of departure is the marvelous vision of the eternal predestination of Christ and Mary, of their absolute primacy over all celestial and terrestrial creation. In such a meta-historical vision, he could not but see Mary utterly immaculate from the first moment of her conception.

But apart from this absolute predestination of Mary with Christ before every creature, he relied upon the Scriptures and the authority of Saint Augustine and Saint Anselm to exclude any taint of sin from the all Holy Virgin, even of original sin.

St. Augustine said: ‘When speaking of Mary, I do not want to speak of sin.’ And St. Anselm: ‘It was fitting that the Virgin should enjoy a purity without equal after God.’

These are affirmations of capital importance, even if St. Augustine and St. Anselm did not expressly draw out their application to questions touching the holiness of Mary at her conception. But how can one concretely resolve the two critical problems which arise from the transmission of original sin through descent from Adam on the part of Mary, and of the universality of the redemption which cannot exclude a descendant of Adam such as Mary?

Blessed Scotus approached the two difficulties with depth and subtlety of argument.

‘Mary Most Holy,’ argues Blessed Scotus, ‘is a daughter of Adam like all mankind, yet she did not contract original sin.’

How can he affirm this? He can affirm this because he maintains that Mary was preserved from contracting original sin, i.e., she was redeemed not by a liberative action (as happens for all other men), but by a preservative action. She was not freed from sin already contracted (as in the case of St. John the Baptist in his mother’s womb), but she was preserved from contracting original sin that threatened to stain her.

But is this preservative redemption in fact redemption? ‘Certainly,’ responds Blessed John Duns Scotus! It is, in fact, a more perfect redemption than liberative redemption, because it is more perfect to preserve a person from a fall than to lift him up after falling. ‘It is a more excellent benefit’ writes Blessed Scotus, ‘to preserve someone from evil, rather than permit him to sin and need to be freed from it.’

But was such a preservative redemption only something of benefit to Our Lady? ‘No,’ responds Blessed Scotus. It was above all benefit to Jesus, because in this way, He has achieved a most perfect redemption; whereas had He not accomplished this preservative redemption, such perfection in His work would have been lacking: ‘Therefore,’ writes the Blessed, ‘if Christ is the most perfect Reconciler, He must have merited that someone be preserved from sin. Such a person is none other than His Mother.’

Precisely with regard to His Mother, therefore, Jesus has been the most perfect Redeemer. Applying the merits of the redemption to her in advance is a sign of His immense love and filial veneration. In such a way, this solution to the difficulties not only harmonized with faith in the dogma of the universality of original sin and redemption, but also made the figure and work of Jesus, most perfect Redeemer, shine more brightly in the figure and privilege of Holy Mary, daughter of Adam, pre-redeemed, dazzling with the fullness of grace from the first instant of her conception.


 

– Lucas G. Westman

Standard

6 thoughts on “A Brief Summary of Scotus’s Position on the Immaculate Conception

  1. Jim Given says:

    One of the Bible Christians central attacks on the Church is to accuse Catholics of Mary-worship. You write:
    “From the very start, we must affirm and understand that in defending the original purity of Mary Most Holy, Blessed John’s point of departure is the marvelous vision of the eternal predestination of Christ and Mary, of their absolute primacy over all celestial and terrestrial creation. In such a meta-historical vision, he could not but see Mary utterly immaculate from the first moment of her conception.”

    One can be concerned about language like “the eternal predestination of Christ and Mary”; and “their absolute primacy over all … creation”. It does seem to suggest the “co-redemptrix” language that the Church rejects.

    I am reading the “Newman-Scotus Reader”. While I find it to be extremely important and beautifully written, I have these same concerns about the Academy of the Immaculate, who I believe sponsored the conference upon which this book is based.

    How exactly are the positions adopted in this book, and in the text you quote to be distinguished from and contrasted with the “co-redemptrix” position which I believe we disagree with? Is it Church doctrine that Mary never sinned during her lifetime?
    Was Mary incapable of sin by her very nature?

    Like

  2. I guess I don’t see the problem with the language being used to describe how the Scotus developed his stance on the Immaculate conception given the theological situation at the time.

    I am unaware of the Church rejecting the “co-redemptrix” language. I think it is still a debated issue. Some are in favor of it and want it to be dogmatically defined, and others disagree.

    Like

    • Jim Given says:

      I have been studying this topic in detail and see that my initial response did not take into accounts all of the complexity, theological and metaphysical, of Mariology.

      My central concern is that, under the description provided by the Co-Redemptrix language, with the imagery and narrative it makes most natural to the typical Catholic; Mary seems to become a demiurge, a supernatural sort of human being. To the extent that Mary is less human; Jesus is less fully Man. We speak here not in terms of affirmation and denial; but rather as an interpretation of uniquely Catholic type; one that preserves the essential tensions in Cristian belief, and thus in Western thought.
      In metaphysical terms, the Co-Redemptrix language seems to promote a very complex relation between God In Himself: eternally Trinitarian; and God With Us: inherently Fourfold. Fourfold as Father, Holy Spirit, Son as Human, and Son as Divine. Equivalently, Father, Holy Spirit, Jesus and Mary. God With Us then becomes the central example of the fourfold Sign, as described in detail by later Scholastics, in particular John of St. Thomas. Truly the Word Made Flesh.
      Nothing here contradicts established Church teaching:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix

      But much here seems to me to be unexplored. You probably can advise your readers here concerning the best treatments of the tensions and complexities of this theology.
      In particular, did Mary see Things As They Are; as Adam and Eve did before the Fall? Because she bore no vestige of that Fall; and had no temptation to sin. Mary was the second Eve.

      Like

      • Eric Vanderburg says:

        I think this link my be helpful in regards to this particular subject.

        http://absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/

        From the Thomistic perspective, the Incarnation was a result of fall. Scotists take a different position on the matter. A beautiful position in my opinion. I’m not sure if I’d call myself a Scotist, but I definitely find Scotus’s position on the Incarnation to be logically coherent and beautiful.

        P.S. For what it’s worth, St. Albert the Great (A Dominican) fell on the side of Scotus on the subject of the reason for the Incarnation.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Jim Given says:

    Thanks. I will read this text. I have long seen Duns Scotus as completing and perfecting the metaphysics of Aquinas. To the extent that the two have alternative accounts of Being, Time, Love and Will, I would like the reconcile the two. I find myself nearly alone in this wish. I am very enthusiastic about Lucas’ suggestion that Bonaventure may be valuable in this endeavor.

    I had never properly appreciated the connections between the various theses of Scotism, and their proper context within the Franciscan tradition. I have always read Duns Scotus in the context of Giles of Rome and Thomas Aquinas.

    I agree with you about Duns Scotus position on the Incarnation. I also agree with him about the Eucharist (consubstantiation and transubstantiation). If left to unaided reason I would have chosen the former, but the Church teaches the latter, so it must be correct. This may be relevant to the discussion of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. It may be logically and metaphysically clear, but potentially misleading to believers, as I note above, because it might de-emphasize to them the universality and uniqueness of Christ’s redemptive power. Similarly, I wonder if the Church did not adopt the teaching of Transubstantiation in order to most clearly emphasize the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, a fact which Consubstantiation might de-emphasize.

    We must reason together as Catholics in the full limitation of human Fallenness. How to best describe or picture for believers the fullness of the Light when we live so much in Darknesss?

    A question related to this thread: Is Mary as Co-Redemptrix not the first and most perfect Priest? She offer up her only Son – together with her entire life – and accepts, on behalf of all of us, the gift of Eternal Salvation as one fully worthy to do this-

    Like

  4. Pingback: Socratic Catholic Archive | Defense for the Hope

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s