I’m a lifelong Catholic, 69 years. Something on the back burner has started to boil – I understand a dogma to be something that the Church has believed everywhere for all times.
But the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed around 1858. BUT back in the day of St, Thomas Aquinas, a doctor of the church (i think), he did not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary.
Recently I heard a priest dodge the issues by saying that if the Church had proclaimed the dogma, then he would have supposedly accepted it. But, that’s looking at the issue from the wrong direction. Thomas, a doctor of the church, seems to break the rule of a dogma being believed everywhere at all times. As a consequence, this also seems to contradict the infallibility of the Pope who proclaimed that this teaching was everywhere all the time. Yes, it was not a settled issue. In fact, The “dogma” was proclaimed hundreds of years after Duns Scotus proposed it.
Even that seems problematical. Scotus argued that it was necessary for Mary to be sinless for her to be able to give birth to the Messiah. If i ever knew from logic class what this is called, it seems to be an error of logic of some sort. Why was it necessary for Mary to be sinless, even free of original sin?
One basis of such necessity might be scripture – she would have to be sinless perhaps to fulfill some prophecy. However, I can’t seem to put that in focus – what prophecy? So, there seems to be several obstacles, contradictions, inconsistencies, or historical aberrations here. Any help would be appreciated.