Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ. --St. Jerome
Quote from: INPEFESS on February 20, 2018, 07:12:38 PMNot to split hairs, but St. Thomas is in agreement with the Church if we consider conception to be the two-fold act that it is. On the one hand, there is the physical conception of the body; on the other, there is the spiritual conception of the soul animating that body. Both of these conceptions (the conception of the body and soul) happen in exactly the same instant in time, but the conception of the body necessarily precedes the conception of the soul in the ontological order. God doesn't create the soul until the body is conceived, so in the order of creation the existence of the body is logically and ontologically prior to the existence of the soul, though they are both created in the same temporal instant. Therefore, it is entirely possible that our Lady was physically conceived in Original Sin but spiritually conceived exempt from it, such that, at the very instant the soul was infused into the body (the moment of conception), the body no longer manifested the effects of original sin, though it retained all of its physical characteristics.By the action of man, she is conceived in Original Sin and, hence, from this perspective, St. Thomas is correct is pointing out she needs to be redeemed as Scripture says all men do. But by the action of God, her soul is conceived exempt from it and so she is properly conceived without sin as the Immaculate Conception. Thus, Mary could in a sense physically appear to be like everyone else (and thus not draw undue attention to herself) while being free from the debilitating effects of Original Sin, both spiritual and physical.(source)
The Church speaks of "conception" as a temporal instant, in which case it truly was the Immaculate Conception. However, the philosophers (like St. Thomas) distinguished the temporal order from the ontological order. It is this order that a cause may precede an effect, which both happen at the same temporal instant. Perhaps St. Thomas' dilemma concerned the prevalent opinion of his generation concerning the time between conception and ensoulment, known as "quickening." It was commonly believed that the body was conceived for some time in the womb before the soul was created to animate that body. Progress in biological research has since shown us that there is every reason to believe that ensoulment takes place at the very instant of conception, though logically posterior to it (since the infusion of the soul logically necessitates the prior existence of the body). The language "conception" in St. Thomas' era would have referred to simple biological conception, anticipating the infusion of the soul. But if they happen simultaneously in time then the conception is truly immaculate, though in the ontological order the body is conceived in sin but sanctified in the same instant by the immaculate soul, free from Original Sin.
|Guéranger, Dom Prosper. The Liturgical Year: Septuagesima. Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications, 2000.|
|Manuscript page showing "littera inintelligibilis," written and autographed by St. Thomas Aquinas. --"St. Thomas Aquinas," New Catholic Encyclopedia|
Quote from: Kephapaulos on February 18, 2018, 09:22:59 PMSteve Allen mentions something in that video similar to what Charles Coulombe said about St. Bonaventure calling St. Thomas the "father of all heresies." Is there any truth to that though?I bet it's a myth. Torrell, O.P.'s Aquinas's Summa: Background, Structure, and Reception p. 13 says "The Franciscans were also implicated in this opposition [to Averroës's On the Unity of the Intellect] and Saint Bonaventure sided with Thomas."
Quote from: Kephapaulos on February 18, 2018, 08:44:36 PMAlong the lines of what you were saying, Geremia, about what St. Thomas meant in his explanation in the Summa Theologiae, here is an interesting passage concerning St. Bernard of Clairvaux on the subjectYes, Fr. Storff, O.F.M., argues that St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, and the majority of theologians at the time "denied" the Immaculate Conception. I wouldn't go so far as to say they denied it, but would argue more like Fr. Lumbreras, O.P., that there are several ways in which there can be an "immaculate conception" and that St. Thomas did not deny the sense of "immaculate conception" of Ineffabilis Deus.
Quote from: GeremiaAre you looking for a university, specifically? Why not a seminary program with a traditional seminary (e.g., FSSP's, SSPX's, ICRSS's, etc.)? Ralph McInerny's son teaches at the FSSP's Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary, for example. Those three seminaries have very good professors.
Quote from: GeremiaI've never heard of Dominicana. Is it similar to The Thomist