The essence of Cardinal CAJETAN’s stand is this: A “total”
preservation of Mary from original sin is out of the question; in fact, it
would be heretical. (Cajetan, O.P., Comment, in I-11, 81; 3) By “total”
preservation he means a conception without an infected flesh (caro infecta),
without concupiscence, and without a personal debitum. (Cajetan, De Conceptione
B. Maria Virginis ad Leonem Decimum Pontificem Maximum; ed. Opusc. omn.,
2 (Venetiis, 1596) 136b) There is, however, another kind of preservation
which he considers possible, namely, a conception in which Our Lady comes into
existence with a contaminated flesh and a personal debitum which, for
him, is already the “beginning” of original sin.
Only in this event could it be said that Mary was
personally redeemed by Christ. (Cajetan, op. cit., ed. cit., 137) From
the way the author answers the arguments of the advocates of the Immaculate Conception,
it is evident that he personally does not share their views. In a word: he
remains a maculist. Why? The teaching of the Saints and the Doctors of the Church—he
claims—do not distinguish between original sin and its debitum. They
simply declare that Mary was conceived in original sin, without any conditions
or mitigating language. (Cajetan, op. cit., 170-172) (Juniper B. Carol, A
History of the Controversy over the “Debitum Peccati” [Theology Series 9; New
York: The Franciscan Institute, 1978], 27-28)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
