[OLD REGGIE]

You made one point which sums up your entire argument. All the rest is fluff.

1. The views of no one theologian, even Aquinas, may be held in preference to what the Church later establishes.

That says it all. Sort and sift by your later criteria.

Are you, perchance, being a little defensive? What teachings of Aquinas did I list which you feel the necessity to defend? Why It's almost as if I said he advocated the killing of heretics. BTW, would you find it necessary to defend this position?

[pegleg]

You made one point which sums up your entire argument. (1. The views of no one theologian, even Aquinas, may be held in preference to what the Church later establishes

The concept is called the development of doctrine.

All the rest is fluff.

No, its all true.

Are you, perchance, being a little defensive? What teachings of Aquinas did I list which you feel the necessity to defend?

None. However you did state I needed to accept all the writings of Aquinas as "official". I pointed out I need to do no such thing and I used the example of the Immaculate Conception.

Why It's almost as if I said he advocated the killing of heretics. BTW, would you find it necessary to defend this position?

No, heretics need to be evangelized.

BTW you sure go off topic quickly. In your original post you asked me where the official teaching was on Latria, Hyperdulia, Dulia. I responded with a link to the Summa Theologica. Then you said that wouldn't do unless I was willing to accept all the writings of Aquinas as "official. I then responded with the reasons why that is not case and you call my answers fluff. Now you're asking me if I want to defend killing heretics. Sheesh.