Did St. Thomas Aquinas believe in the Immaculate Conception?

[Roman_Army]

In St. Thomas’ day the Immaculate Conception was a theological speculation. Just like how in the early church there was speculation on the incarnation and Jesus’ two natures. St. Athanansius took a view that the Coptic Church followed after Jesus’ nature had been declared. Disagreeing with a theological speculation prior to when it was declared dogmatic does not invalidate them being a Saint, it was not a dogma at that time. Just like how Mary being co-redemptrix and mediatrix of all graces are not dogmas, they are theological speculations. Maybe they might be declared dogmas, maybe not. Let’s say in the future they are, someone at present does not believe in them and dies, this person is delcared a Saint, 30 years later these two speculations are declared dogmas. It does not invalidate this person’s sainthood, at the time of the person no one was required to believe in them.

I agree that the doctrine of “Co-Redemptrix” is not dogma. However, “Mediatrix” is in fact dogma.

By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and cultics, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.(16*) This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.(17*) (Pope Paul VI, Lumen Gentium, 62)

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I agree that the doctrine of “Co-Redemptrix” is not dogma. However, “Mediatrix” is in fact dogma.

Mary as the Co-Redemptrix is not doctrine, it is theological speculation. Although there is good reasoning that it is true.

 

[Roman_Army]

Mary as the Co-Redemptrix is not doctrine, it is theological speculation. Although there is good reasoning that it is true.

It is not official doctrine, but it is an unofficial and optional doctrine. But, the reasoning used behind it is already expressed in Church teaching. It’s just a question of how to express it. Should we add another title? There is really no need to add a title. The theology behind it can be expressed without adding a title.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The “fomes peccati” is more than the “capacity” to sin (which Adam and Eve had, obviously, though they did not have the fomes). It’s a tendency toward sinning though it is not itself necessarily sinful.

If it is still Catholic teaching that the BVM possessed this until the coming of Christ, then that needs to be promulgated more widely, because it would do something toward reconciling Protestants to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Edwin

I’ll have to look more into fomes peccati because admittedly I don’t know too much about it and this is the first time I have heard the term.

 

[Contarini]

I’ll have to look more into fomes peccati because admittedly I don’t know too much about it and this is the first time I have heard the term.

It was one of the big issues in the Reformation, because the Protestants didn’t distinguish between it and original sin. Catholics believe that everything properly sinful was taken away in baptism and the “tinder of sin” that remained was not itself sin. Protestants said that the “tinder of sin” was itself original sin and that original sin was never in any sense removed (only covered by Christ’s righteousness) until death. That’s really what that whole “snow-covered dunghill” business was all about, not the idea that you could go out and deliberately commit serious sins with impunity (which neither Luther nor any of the other major Reformers believed).

Edwin