The Immaculate Conception: The Teaching of St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure and Bl. J. Duns Scotus on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary

cf. "[St. Thomas affirming the Immaculate Conception!](https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=119.msg333#msg333)" Storff's book is a fairly rambling, redundant attempt at refuting: Pedro Lumbreras O.P., "[Saint Thomas and the Immaculate Conception](https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/lumbreras-aquinas-immaculate.pdf)," *Homiletic and Pastoral Review* 24, no. 3 (1923): 253-63. * He enumerates 9 different ways someone can be immaculately conceived. He shows St. Thomas denied the first 8 possibilities and *Ineffabilis Deus* affirmed the last. * He argues that St. Thomas's work on the Immaculate Conception led directly to the formulation of the dogma in *Ineffabilis Deus*. * He shows that St. Thomas (not Scotus) was responsible for the distinction between priority in nature vs. priority in time. * His article provoked a Franciscan to write a whole book in response: * [*The Immaculate Conception: The Teaching of St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure and Bl. J. Duns Scotus on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary*](https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=6691) (1925) * Its author seems to think her Immaculate Conception, not her Divine Maternity, is her greatest prerogative. Still, it seems to be a good summary of the views of these three authors; it contains indices of the original Latin documents. Norbert del Prado O.P., [*Divus Thomas et bulla dogmatica "Ineffabilis Deus"*](https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=6689) (Friburgi Helvetiorum: Ex typis Consociationis sancti Pauli, 1919). * Fr. Lumbreras cites this. It's quite magisterial. * * * used random download command similar to [this one](https://stackoverflow.com/a/48724349/1429450) with HathiTrust