From the Summa Theologica, I, 96, 1 ad 2: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1096.htm I assume we can agree St. Thomas was not a modernist.

.
True, St. Thomas was not a modernist. Just the same, St. Thomas was not free from error. He made several serious errors in his writings. He awoke from a dream in which he had been shown the consequences of his errors and immediately ordered his servant to burn the Summa in the fireplace. Fortunately for us, his servant disobeyed him.
.
St. Thomas does not have to be "a modernist" in order to make a mistake. 
.
You'll have to try a lot harder.

What an incredible story!  I've never heard it before.  Hard to believe it actually happened (without very strong and solid docuмentation for same) assuming the saint was a very disciplined and discerning one.  (I've never heard anything to indicate otherwise.)  You would think he would check with others (at least a spiritual adviser) before he took such a drastic and immediate action and an action of such grave magnitude.

Neil, would you be able to provide some docuмentation for the story?

.
Sorry, no source, going on memory. So don't quote me. I did a quick check and found some vaguely similar stories saying he had had a vision while saying Mass and then told his assistant that all his writings were as so much straw. That isn't a directive to burn them, but what do you do with straw but use it to start a fire? Ironically, that's the same kind of reasoning he used to say that "there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals," and the nature of animals was not changed by the sin of Adam. He has no reference for those, if you didn't notice. Perhaps because there isn't any. But footnotes and sources were not his strong points. Anyway, St. Thomas is entitled to his theological opinions, but he doesn't have the authority to demand that everyone agrees with him is the point. There is nothing in Scripture or Tradition that says we are to believe that animals of today known to be carnivorous animals were in the Garden of Eden as carnivorous as well. When Adam and Eve were cast out, what happened to the animals -- were they cast out too? Not a word of that. Were they all destroyed? Don't know. Do they still exist? Don't know that either. Did they all perish in the Flood? Was the still-existing Garden of Eden in any way unprotected from the Flood waters? Lots of unanswered questions.
.
From our present point of view the Garden of Eden couldn't have been much fun without a weekend barbecue of pork, beef or perhaps chicken. But it's not all about our present point of view, because theology is not an exercise in subjective reality.
.
Saints and mystics have said that no snake or scorpion could have harmed Adam in his state of perfection. St. Thomas has no mention of that topic. Nor does he weigh in on whether the animals in the Garden of Eden were subject to disease. He mentions the feeding of a falcon with what would seem to be raw meat (today falconers feed their birds little slices of raw rats or mice -- not the most fun part of the whole gig), but curiously has no way of being sure whether Adam was a falconer. Who knows, maybe he was. It is a great example of man's superiority over exotic animals! Falcons are extremely cool birds. But one would think that to become a falconer, Adam would have needed a lot more than one day, because it generally takes about 2 years for someone to train for that, and that's WITH supervision, which Adam did not have. It could easily have taken the whole first day just to catch a falcon so he could get started.

.
Have you ever heard how it is we can be absolutely 100% certain that Adam was not a black man?

No, but if Christ was the second Adam in appearance, and we know from the shroud he looked European.

.
 St. Thomas was not free from error. He made several serious errors in his writings.

Neil, could you state for the record what they were, (where they can be found in his writings if you have the time), and whether he retracted them before he died?

St. Thomas was not free from error. He made several serious errors in his writings.

One week later -- 2nd request:

Neil, could you state for the record what they were, (where they can be found in his writings if you have the time), and whether he retracted them before he died?

P.S. Sorry, if this is giving you any grief Neil, but after all that's a pretty heavy duty assertion you are making. 

But let's be a little careful about saying St. Thomas "denied" the Immaculate Conception.

Absolutely agreed.  He didn't deny this doctrine, he only proposed details about the "how", as you pointed out.  In the common understanding, we can say that he was "wrong", but in reality, he was only wrong in a few details.  Substantially, he didn't deny the dogma.

Apparently, it is not a problem now for a SSPX priest to throw into question traditional Catholic exegesis of the Book of Genesis.  Such thought may even be lauded by the new (and improved?!) SSPX via its promotion of the priest's book pushing same.  On the other hand, a cleric (even a bishop) may be severely dealt with by this new (and improved?!) SSPX for exposing the tenets of the "sacred" h0Ɩ0h0αx.  (A veritable and major disconnect if there ever was one!)  See SSPX Bishop Fellay: If Bishop Williamson 'Denies the h0Ɩ0cαųst' again he will be Expelled from the Society

Just to bring the thread to its climax: Hitler.