De Erroribus Novi Catechismi--Primae parti objectiones et responsa

De Erroribus Novi Catechismi--Primae parti objectiones et responsa

I. Gratias tibi refero propter haec exempla quae tu tam benigniter nobis praebuisti, haud dubium est quin diu profundeque meditatus sis his de rebus. Pariter autem, mea saltem sententia, haud dubium est quin hae res notae erant et theologis qui catechismum renovavit et papae qui eundem approbaverit, vulgaverit.

-Distinguo. Tam doctrinam de notis theologicis quam consensum patrum, theologorum, fideliumque necnon sententias Magisterii Ecclesiastici de sorte eorum qui sine baptismo abierunt, et Cardinali Schönborn (idest, editori Novi Catechismi) et PP. Joanni Paulo II notae erant—concedo. Ei easdem doctrinas credent—nego.

Probo. Cardinalis Schönborn et PP. Joannes Paulus II sunt inter adhaerentes “Novae Theologiae” (gallice, “La Nouvelle Theologie”). Unum ex primis principiis huius theologiae est locos theologicos ita reinterpretare ut eius consensus auctoritasque destruantur et sic doctrinae quae super hos locos fundantur minus certae videantur—cf. libellum ab Hans Urs Von Balthasar scriptum, et ab ipso Cardinale Schönborn praefatum, nomine “Schleifung der Bastionen: Von der Kirche in Dieser Zeit” (Demolitio Castellorum: De Ecclesia in Hoc Tempore). Adhaerentes istae Novae Theologiae, etiam si doctrinas stricte fide divina credendas credant, plures tamen doctrinas catholicas assensu religioso tenendas (vide notas theologicas) vel reiciunt vel ignorant vel tergiversantur vel nove reinterpretantur. Notas igitur Theologicas, ut prius docebantur in Ecclesia, minime tenere volunt. Et ipsum consensum patrum, theologorum, fideliumque “de-construunt,” arguendo contra eorum unanimitatem (vide infra explicationem notionis “consensus” in theologia traditionali catholica). Sic, fundamentum theologiae traditionalis destruentes, novitates doctrinales in theologiam mittunt. (P. Garrigou-Lagrange articulum optimum de nova theologia gallice scripsit: "La Nouvelle Théologie: Où va-t-elle?."

II. Quos credo non tantum novam doctrinam promulgare quantum confirmare nullam esse salutem praeter Christum cuius misericordiae concredendae sint animae omnium defunctorum.

-Distinguo. Novam doctrinam in Novo Catechismo promulgare (lege, “definire”) noluerunt—concedo. Firmiter assere nullam esse salutem praeter Christum et Ecclesiam sensu antiquo et vero quo in Concilio Florentino et alibi invenies—nego.

Probo. Concilium Oecumenicum Florentinum “firmiter credit, profitetur et praedicat, 'nullos extra catholicam Ecclesiam exsistentes, non solum paganos', sed nec Judaeos aut haereticos atque schismaticos, aeternae vitae fieri posse participes; sed in ignem aeternum ituros, 'qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius' (Mt 25, 41), nisi ante finem vitae eidem fuerint aggregati: tantumque valere ecclesiastici corporis unitatem, ut solum in ea manentibus ad salutem ecclesiastica sacramenta proficiant, et ieiunia, eleemosynae ac cetera pietatis officia et exercitia militiae christianae praemia aeterna parturiant. 'Neminemque, quantascumque eleemosynas fecerit, etsi pro Christi nomine sanguinem effuderit, posse salvari, nisi in catholicae Ecclesiae gremio et unitate permanserit' (Decretum pro Iacobitis; vide Denzinger 714 [1351]).”

Nullus autem eorum qui adhaerunt Novae Theologiae hoc ad verbum credit. Hoc est una ex doctrinis (etiam, unum ex dogmatibus) quae nove interpretare cupiunt. Alterum enim principium Novae Theologiae est modernismum quantum possibile in theologiam catholicam accomodare. Modernismus autem omnes acatholicos “bonae voluntatis” salvos esse ponit. Ergo, et adhaerentes Novae Theologiae hoc saltem sperare volunt (cf. praesertim Hans Urs Von Balthasar “Was dürfen wir hoffen?” ubi auctor rhetorice percontat “An sperare audemus omnes homines salvos esse?” Et respondet affirmative.) Ei saltem concedere volunt extra ecclesiam nullam salutem esse (hac enim doctrina de fide est). Sed ut hoc dogma nove reinterpretari possit et sic videatur merus flatus vocis esse, id ad veritatem modernarum aurium minus offensivam reducere student—e.g., ad has veritates: “Nullam esse salutem praeter Christum,” vel “Nullam esse salutem nisi PER Christum,” quasi dicens acatholicos “per Christum” salvari posse. Sed falsitas huius interpretationis probatur ex locis theologicis, qui firmiter testantur quoniam ei qui extra ecclesiam moriuntur salvari nequeunt (quod post paucos dies demonstrare cogitabam). Et si extra ecclesiam vere nulla salus, minime tunc salutem OMNIUM defunctorum sperare possumus, quia manifeste non omnes moriuntur intra ecclesiam.

III. Mihi mirum est quod tu memoravisti Originem qui, nisi fallor, credidit omnes etiam diabolum et angelos eius salvi servati fore, quae doctrina graece vocatur apokatastasis . Lege, quaeso, quod scripsit in libro De Principiis 2. 10. 6-8 "quanto magis intellegendum est medicum nostrum deum volentem diluere vitia animarum nostrarum, quae ex peccatorum et scelerum diversitate collegerant, uti huiuscemodi poenalibus curis, insuper etiam ignis inferre supplicium his, qui sanitatem animae perdiderunt?" Re vera vis tu Origena nitier? Et Tertulliano? Iste Montanista??

-Distinguo. Origines et alii qui primis saeculis Ecclesiae libros de re theologica scripserunt aliquas doctrinas heterodoxas docuerunt—concedo. Hoc destruxit argumentum ex consensu patrum—nego.

Probo. Licet hi non sint “Patres ecclesiae” sensu stricto, sed “Antiqui Scriptores Ecclesiastici” tantum (quia aliquas doctrinas heterodoxas docuerunt), si tamen cum Patribus (sensu stricto) consentiunt, argumentum ex consensu Patrum roborare possunt. Unde theologi scholastici eorum sententias inter testimonia Patrum computare solent. (Cf. Patres Societatis Jesu in Hispania Professores, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Vol. 1, p. 756-766.)

IV. Scripseras: <> Sed contra: "Episcopi qui sunt in communione cum Collegii capite et membris, sive singuli sive in conferentiis Episcoporum aut in concilliis particularibus... infallibilitate in docendo non polleant..." Canon. 753

-Distinguo: Haec sententia est vera—concedo. Interpretationem—nego.

Probo. Haec sententia ait de episcopis in “conferentiis episcoporum” et in “conciliis particularibus,” quae doctrinas infallibiliter definire nequeunt. Concilium autem Tridentinum est Concilium Oecumenicum sive Universale. Est ergo capax infallibiliter definiendi.

V. [Scripseras:] <> Plane tibi licet scribere de quolibet, ego autem malo ei confidere cui dati sint claves regni caelorum.

-Distinguo: Eum cui datae sunt claves regni caelorum audiendum est–concedo et firmiter profiteor. Catechismus Novus vocem eius cui datae sunt claves regni caelorum repraesentat—firmiter nego.

Probo. Finis Novi Catechismi (sicut et Concilii cuius Catechismus est) nihil aliud fuit quam antiquam fidem Catholicam ad hujus aetatis morem componere. PP. Joannes Paulus II novas doctrinas definire noluit, sed antiquas doctrinas nove exprimere voluit. Novum Catechismum ut dogmatice tenendum non praentendit, sed practice tantum, ut “regula ad fidem docendam,” intendit (cf. Fidei Depositum). Cum ergo eum non infallibiliter proclamavit, nihil prohibet ut hic Catechismus a precisionibus theologicis doctrinarum antiquarum aberret.

Conclusio: Si mihi audire noles, sic fiat. Sed audi saltem eum qui claves regni caelorum exercet cum definit:

“Illorum autem animas, qui in mortali peccato vel cum solo originali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen disparibus puniendas.” (Concilium Oecumenicum Florentinum; vide Denzinger 693 [1306].)

Vale, valete!

Vale et tu.

Vide:

De Erroribus Novi Catechismi--Prima pars.
De Erroribus Novi Catechismi--Commentum ad Primam Partem.

Disputed Question on Limbo--Positive Exposition.

Disputed Question on Limbo--Positive Exposition.

1) IT IS ASKED: Whether we can hope for the salvation of those people (especially infants) who die without baptism?

2) THESIS: No, because:

-That baptism is necessary to all (even babies) for their salvation is de fide divina et catholica definita. (Cf. Theological notes.)

-Moreover, that the souls of those who die in original sin go immediately to hell (and undergo different “punishments”) is also de fide divina et catholica definita.

-Moreover, the doctrine of the “limbus puerorum” is at least at the level of doctrina tenenda and sententia communis (there are some theologians who consider it theologice certa or even doctrina catholica).

3) PROOF from the loci theologici, that is:

a) From Sacred Scripture: “Amen, Amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)

b) From Sacred Tradition, that is:

From the consensus of the Fathers:

Tertulian says: “It is prescribed that no one, without baptism can attain salvation from that highest pronouncement of the Lord: Unless one is born of water, he will have no life.” (On Baptism 12.)

Origen: “Whichever soul is born in the flesh is polluted by the stain of iniquity and sin... according to the observance of the Church to give baptism even to little ones; since if there were nothing in little ones that owed to remission and pertained to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” (On Leviticus, Homily 8.3.)

St. Ambrose: “Unless one were reborn from the water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. He, thus, does not make an exception for anyone, not the infant, no one is excused from the necessity. Unless they have that immunity of punishment open to them, I do not know that they can enter the honor of the kingdom.” (On Abraham II, 11.79.84.)

St. Augustine: “Whosoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer baptism to infant children, because it is believed, as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ. Now he that is not made alive in Christ must necessarily remain under the condemnation, of which the apostle says, that "by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation. That infants are born under the guilt of this offense is believed by the whole Church.” (Letter 166.7/21.)

Idem: “If you wish to be a catholic, refrain from believing, or saying, or teaching that ‘infants which are forestalled by death before they are baptized may yet attain to forgiveness of their original sins’.” (On the Soul and its Origin III.9/12.)

St. Prosper of Aquitaine: “It is obvious that all who die without baptism are lost.” (On the vocation of all peoples II.24)

And the rest of the fathers are in agreement.

From the consensus of the theologians:

S. Thomas teaches: “The limbo of the Fathers and the limbo of children, without any doubt, differ as to the quality of punishment or reward. For children have no hope of the blessed life, as the Fathers in limbo had, in whom, moreover, shone forth the light of faith and grace. But as regards their situation, there is reason to believe that the place of both is the same; except that the limbo of the Fathers is placed higher than the limbo of children, just as we have stated in reference to limbo and hell.” (ST III-Supp. 69.6)

Idem: “The souls of children are not without natural knowledge such as is proper to a separated soul according to its nature, but they are without supernatural knowledge, which is here implanted in us by faith, because in this life they neither actually had faith nor received the sacrament of faith. Now it pertains to natural knowledge that the soul knows it was created for happiness and that happiness consists in the attainment of the perfect good. But that that perfect good for which man was made is that glory which the saints possess is beyond natural knowledge. Hence the Apostle says in the First Epistle to the Corinthians 2, 9 that "Eye has not seen nor ear heard neither has it entered into the heart of man, what things God has prepared for those who love him," and afterwards in verse 10, he adds "But to us God has revealed them through His Spirit." Which revelation pertains to faith. And therefore the souls of children do not know that they are deprived of such a good, and do not grieve on account of this; but this knowledge which they have by nature, they possess without grief.” (On Evil 5.3c.)

Idem: “[Whether Baptism is to be Deferred]: I answer that... if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism.” (ST III.68.3c.)

St. Bonaventure says: “ . . . the punishment of being deprived of the sight of God and the loss of heavenly glory affects both adults and children who are unbaptized. The children are punished with the others, but by the mildest punishment because they deserve punishment of loss, but not the punishment of the senses. ” (St. Bonaventure, Breviloquium, Part III, Ch. V, n. 2.)

Likewise St. Albert as well as Scotus, and almost all the scholastics, in their commentaries on Peter Lombard’s Book of the Sentences, Book II, distinction 33, question 2, articule 3), agree. Also almost all theologians who had Magisterial sanction before the 1960’s agree as well. (But I have not had the chance to collect their passages on the subject.)

From the doctrine of the extraordinary Magisterium:

PP. Gregory X, in the 2nd Council of Lyons, declared: “Now, the souls of those who depart in mortal sin, or only with original sin, immediately descend into hell, but to be punished differently.” (Denzinger 464 [858].) This doctrine was infallibly defined and ratified by Eugenius IV, in the Concil of Florence. (Denzinger 693 [1306].)

The Concilium of Trent infallibly taught the following: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.” (Denzinger 861 [1618]).

From the doctrine of the ordinary Magisterium:

PP. Siricius says “we want to succour with all haste those infants who yet could not speak... [by bringing them to] the sacred waves of baptism, lest Our own soul be in danger if, as a result being denied the saving font, ... each one of them, on leaving the world, loses both [eternal] life and the kingdom.” (Denzinger [184].)

PP. Innocent I says: “That children can receive the reward of eternal life without the grace of baptism is utterly foolish. For if they do not eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of his blood, they will not have life within themselves [cf. Io. 6:53]. Those who claim they will without regeneration seem to me to want to render baptism itself vain, by preaching that they have what the faith professes is conferred only by baptism. If, therefore, they do not want to impede anyone from being reborn, then they necessarily profess that the holy waters of regeneration are useless.” (Denzinger [219].)

Council of Carthage XVI: “Not one of our children is held innocent until he is freed through baptism.” (Denzinger 109a [232].)

PP. Innocent III moreover distinguished between the poena sensus (the physical suffering of those who descend into hell with actual sins) and the poena damni (the deprivation of vision of all those who are in hell, even of children who descended there only with original sin): “The penalty of original sin is the loss of the vision of God; the penalty of actual sin is the torment of everlasting Hell.” (Maiores Ecclesiae Causas, AD 1201; Denzinger 410 [780].)

PP. Pius IX: “God, who sees distinctly, who searches into and knows the mind, spirit, habits and thoughts of all men, would never of His supreme goodness and mercy permit anyone to be punished with eternal torments (aeternis puniri supplicis), who has not incurred the guilt of voluntary sin.” (Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur, 10 Aug. 1863; Denzinger 1677.)

The Council of Florence declared: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the souns of God, it [the synod] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently.” (Denzinger 712 [1348].)

The provincial Council of Cologne: “Faith teaches us that infants, since they are not capable of this desire, are excluded from the kingdom of heaven if they die [unbaptized].” (Collectio Lacensis, V. 320.)

PP. Pius VI also condemned as temeraria the doctrine of those who deny the existence of the “limbum puerorum”: “The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,—false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.” (Auctorem Fidei; Denzinger 1526 [2626].)

Pope Pius XII: “All that we have said about the protection and care of natural life is with even greater reason true of the supernatural life, which the newborn child receives with baptism. In the present dispensation there is no other means of communicating this life to the child, who has not yet the use of reason. And yet the state of grace is absolutely necessary for salvation: without it supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God, cannot be attained. In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of baptism; to the child still unborn, or newly born, this way is not open. If therefore we remember that charity towards our neighbor obliges us to assist him in case of necessity; that this obligation is graver and more urgent according to the greatness of the good to be procured or the evil to be avoided, and according to the inability of the needy one to help himself; then it is easy to understand the importance of providing for the baptism of a child, devoid of the use of reason and in grave danger or even certainty of death.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, December 20, 1951, p. 854.)

From the consensus of the faithful:

(As is known through the catechisms, both universal and particular.)

The Roman Catechism teaches: “[On the necessity of baptism] If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. [Necessity of Infant Baptism] That this law extends not only to adults but also to infants and children, and that the Church has received this from Apostolic tradition, is confirmed by the unanimous teaching and authority of the Fathers. If, then, through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This, however, cannot be effected otherwise than by Baptism. Pastors, therefore, should inculcate the absolute necessity of administering Baptism to infants.... The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.”

The Baltimore Catechism (n. 3): “Q. 631. Is Baptism necessary to salvation? A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism? A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.... Q. 642. Is it wrong to defer the baptism of an infant? A. It is wrong to defer the baptism of an infant, because we thereby expose the child to the danger of dying without the Sacrament.” Catechisms nos. 1 & 2 also taught the same, although less explicitly.

The Greater Catechism of PP. St. Pius X: “11 Q. When should infants be brought to the Church to be baptised? A. Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptised as soon as possible. 12 Q. Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism? A. There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptised because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism. 13 Q. Do parents sin, then, who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism, or who defer it? A. Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life; and they also sin grievously by putting off Baptism for a long time, because they expose them to danger of dying without having received it.... 16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation? A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” His Lesser Catechism (for children) teaches the same, although less explicitly.

And many others teach likewise.

5) CONCLUSION:

Even if the doctrine of the “limbus puerorum” is not itself de fide (i.e. to be believed with the theological virtue of faith), nevertheless it is sententia communis, doctrina tenenda and doctrina catholica, and as such, it is to be held by all with religious assent—such that a doctrine that is opposed to it is, at the very least, offensiva piarum aurium, temeraria and iniuriosa scholis catholicis, and perhaps savoring of a greater error.

De Erroribus Novi Catechismi--Prima pars.

De Erroribus Novi Catechismi--Prima pars.

De spe viae salutis pro infantibus mortuis sine Baptismo

1) Doctrina quae videtur temeraria: In Novo Catechismo §1261 legitur: “Relate ad infantes mortuos sine Baptismo, Ecclesia non potest nisi eos misericordiae Dei concredere, sicut ipsa in ritu pro eis facit exsequiarum. Re vera, magna misericordia Dei, « qui omnes homines vult salvos fieri » (1 Tim 2,4), et Iesu teneritas erga infantes, propter quam dixit: « Sinite parvulos venire ad me. Ne prohibueritis eos » (Mc 10,14), nobis permittunt sperare, viam haberi salutis pro infantibus mortuis sine Baptismo.”

2) Thesis: Hoc verum esse non potest, quia:

-Necessitatem baptismi (etiam puerorum) ad salutem est doctrina de fide et catholica definita. (Vide notas theologicas.)

-Item, Ecclesia docet, etiam ut doctrina de fide divina et catholica definita, animas eorum qui cum peccato originali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere.

-Item, doctrina limbi puerorum saltem tenenda et communis est. (Sunt autem quaedam theologi qui hanc doctrinam “theologice certam” vel etiam “catholicam” esse ponunt.)

3) Quod constat ex locis theologicis:

-Ex Sacra Scriptura: “Nisi qui renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei.” (Jo. 3:5)

-Ex Sacra Traditione, scilicet:

a) Ex consensu patrum:

Tertulianus ait: “Praescribitur nemini sine baptismo competere salutem, ex illa maxima pronuntiatione Domini: Nisi natus ex aqua quis sit, non habet vitam.”

Origenes: “Quaecumque anim ain carne nascitur, iniquitatis et peccati sorde polluitur... Addi his etiam illud potest, ut requiratur quid causae sit, cum baptisma Ecclesiae pro remissione peccatorum detur, secundum Ecclesiae observantiam etiam parvulis baptismum dari; cum utique si nihil esset in parvulis quod ad remissionem deberet et indulgentiam pertinere, gratia baptismi superflua videretur.”

S. Ambrosius: “Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Utique nullum excipit, non infantem, non aliqua praeventum necessitate. Habeant tamen illam opertam poenarum immunitatem, nescio an habeant regni honorem.”

S. Augustinus: “Quisquis dixerit quod in Christo vivificabuntur etiam parvuli, qui sine sacramenti eius participatione de vita exeunt, hic profecto contra Apostoli praedicationem venit, et totam condemnat Ecclesiam, ubi propterea cum baptizandis parvulis festinatur et curritur, quia sine dubio creditur aliter eos in Christo vivificari omnino non posse.”

Item: “Noli credere, nec dicere, nec docere infantes antequam baptizantur morte praeventos pervenire posse ad originalium indulgentiam peccatorum, si vis esse catholicus.”

Et ceteri inter patres consentiunt.

b) Ex consensu theologorum:

S. Thomas docet: “Dico ergo, quod omnis homo usum liberi arbitrii habens proportionatus est ad vitam aeternam consequendam, quia potest se ad gratiam praeparare, per quam vitam aeternam merebitur; et ideo si ab hoc deficiant, maximus erit dolor eis, quia amittunt illud quod suum esse possibile fuit. Pueri autem nunquam fuerunt proportionati ad hoc quod vitam aeternam haberent; quia nec eis debebatur ex principiis naturae, cum omnem facultatem naturae excedat, nec actus proprios habere potuerunt quibus tantum bonum consequerentur; et ideo nihil omnino dolebunt de carentia visionis divinae; immo magis gaudebunt de hoc quod participabunt multum de divina bonitate, et perfectionibus naturalibus. Nec potest dici, quod fuerunt proportionati ad vitam aeternam consequendam, quamvis non per actionem suam, tamen per actionem aliorum circa eos: quia potuerunt ab aliis baptizari, sicut et multi pueri ejusdem conditionis baptizati, vitam aeternam consecuti sunt: hoc enim est superexcedentis gratiae ut aliquis sine actu proprio praemietur; unde defectus talis gratiae non magis tristitiam causat in pueris decedentibus non baptizatis quam in sapientibus hoc quod eis multae gratiae non fiunt quae aliis similibus factae sunt.” (II Sent. 33.2.2c)

Idem: “Animae puerorum naturali quidem cognitione non carent, qualis debetur animae separatae secundum suam naturam, sed carent supernaturali cognitione, quae hic in nobis per fidem plantatur, eo quod nec hic fidem habuerunt in actu, nec sacramentum fidei susceperunt. Pertinet autem ad naturalem cognitionem quod anima sciat se propter beatitudinem creatam, et quod beatitudo consistit in adeptione perfecti boni; sed quod illud bonum perfectum, ad quod homo factus est, sit illa gloria quam sancti possident, est supra cognitionem naturalem. Unde apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. II, 9, quod nec oculus vidit, nec auris audivit, nec in cor hominis ascendit quae praeparavit Deus diligentibus se: et postea subdit: nobis autem revelavit Deus per spiritum suum: quae quidem revelatio ad fidem pertinet. Et ideo se privari tali bono, animae puerorum non cognoscunt, et propter hoc non dolent; sed hoc quod per naturam habent, absque dolore possident.” (De Malo 5.3c.)

Idem: “Sacramentum Baptismi dupliciter potest alicui deesse. Uno modo, et re et voto, quod contingit in illis qui nec baptizantur nec baptizari volunt. Quod manifeste ad contemptum sacramenti pertinet, quantum ad illos qui habent usum liberi arbitrii. Et ideo hi quibus hoc modo deest Baptismus, salutem consequi non possunt, quia nec sacramentaliter nec mentaliter Christo incorporantur, per quem solum est salus.” (ST III.68.2c)

Idem: “[Utrum] Baptismus sit differendus: Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc distinguendum est utrum sint baptizandi pueri vel adulti. Si enim pueri sint baptizandi, non est differendum Baptisma. Primo quidem, quia non expectatur in eis maior instructio, aut etiam plenior conversio. Secundo, propter periculum mortis, quia non potest alio remedio subveniri nisi per sacramentum Baptismi.” (ST III.68.2c)

Idem sentiunt S. Albertus, S. Bonaventura, Scotus, et fere omnes scholastici in eorum commentaria super II Sententiarum, distinctio 33, quaestio 2, articulus 3. Sic et fere omnes theologi ante Concilium Vaticanum Secundum. (Sed eorum textus non modo habeo.)

c) Ex doctrina Magisterii extraordinarii:

PP. Gregorius X, in Secundo Concilio Lugdunense, declaravit: “Illorum autem animas, qui in mortali peccato vel cum solo originali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen disparibus puniendas.” (Denzinger 464 [858].) Hanc doctrinam, ipsissimis verbis, PP. Eugenius IV, in Concilio Oecumenico Florentino infallibiliter definivit et ratificavit. (Denzinger 693 [1306].)

Concilium Tridentinum sic infallibiliter docuit: “Si quis dixerit, baptismum liberum esse, hoc est, non necessarium ad salutem: anathema, sit” (Denzinger 861 [1618]).

d) Ex doctrina Magisterii ordinarii:

PP. Siricius declarat: “Infantibus qui necdum loqui poterunt per aetatem vel his, quibus in qualibet necessitate opus fuerit sacri unda baptismatis, omni volumus celeritate succurri, ne ad nostram perniciem tendat animarum, si negato desiderantibus fonte salutari exiens unusquisque de saeculo et regnum perdat et vitam.” (Denzinger [184].)

PP. Innocens I dicit: “Parvulos aeternae vitae praemiis etiam sine baptismatis gratia posse donari, perfatuum est. Nisi enim manducaverint carnem Filii hominis et biberint sanguinem eius, non habebunt vitam in semet ipsis [cf. Io. 6:53] Qui autem hanc eis sine regeneratione defendunt, videntur mihi ipsum baptismum velle cassare, cum praedicant nos habere, quod in eos creditur non nisi baptismate conferendum. Si ergo nihil volunt officere, non renasci fateantur necesse est nec regenerationis sacra fluenta prodesse.” (Denzinger [219].)

PP. Innocens III item distinguit inter poena sensus (eorum qui cum peccata actualia in infernum descendunt) et poena damni (omnium qui in inferno sunt, etiam parvulorum qui solo cum peccato originale mortuis sunt): “Dicimus distinguendum, quod peccatum est duplex: originale scilicet et actuale: originale, quod absque consensu contrahitur, et actuale, quod committitur cum consensu. Originale igitur, quod sine consensu contrahitur, sine consensu per vim remittitur sacramenti; actuale vero, quod cum consensu contrahitur, sine consensu minime relaxatur.... Poena originalis peccati est carentia visionis Dei, actualis vero poena peccati est gehennae perpetuae cruciatus...” (Denzinger 410 [780].)

PP. Pius VI etiam condemnavit ut temeraria doctrinam eorum qui “limbum puerorum” reiciunt: “Doctrina, quae velut fabulam Pelagianam explodit locum illum inferorum (quem limbi puerorum nomine fideles passim designant), in quo animae decedentium cum sola originali culpa poena damni citra poenam ignis puniantur; perinde ac si hoc ipso, quod, qui poenam ignis removent, inducerent locum illum et statum medium expertem culpae et poenae inter regnum Dei et damnationem aeternam, qualem fabulantur Pelagiani: falsa, temeraria, in scholas catholicas iniuriosa.” (Denzinger 1526 [2626].)

e) Ex consensu fidelium, ut cognoscitur per catechismos tam universales quam particulares:

Catechismus Romanus etiam docet: “[Quaestio XXV: Baptismus ad salutem omnibus necessarius.] Sed quum caeterarum rerum cognitio, quae hactenus expositae sunt, fidelibus utilissima habenda sit: tum vero nihil magis necessarium videri potest, quam ut doceantur, omnibus hominibus Baptismi legem a Domino praescriptam esse, ita ut, nisi per Baptismi gratiam Deo renascantur, in sempiternam miseriam et interitum a parentibus, sive illi fideles, sive infideles sint, procreentur. Igitur saepius a Pastoribus explicandum erit, quod apud Evangelistam legitur (Jo. 3:5): “Nisi qui renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei.” [Quaestio XXVI: Infantes Omnino sunt baptizandi.] Quam legem baptismi non solum de iis, qui adulta aetate sunt, sed etiam de pueris infantibus intelligendum esse, idque ab Apostolica traditione Ecclesiam accepise, communis Patrum sententia et auctoritas confirmat....”

Idem: “[Quaestio XXVIII: Infantium Baptismus non differendus] Hortandi autem sunt magnopere fideles, ut liberos suos, quamprimum id sine periculo facere liceat, ad ecclesiam deferendos, et solemnibus caeremoniis baptizandos curent. Nam quum pueris infantibus nulla alia salutis comparandae ratio, nisi eis Baptismus praebeatur, relicta sit: facile intelligitur, quam gravi culpa illi sese obstringant, qui eos Sacramenti gratia diutius, quam necessitas postulet, carere patiuntur; quum praesertim propter aetatis imbecilitatem infinita pene vitae pericula illis impendeant.”

Catechismus Baltimorensis (n. 3): Q. 631. Estne baptismus necessarius ad salutem? R. Baptismus est necessarius ad salutem, quia sine ipso in regnum caelorum intrare non possumus. Q. 632. Quo vadunt ei qui, sicut infantes, nondum peccatum actualem commissi sunt et qui, sine culpa, absque baptismo mortui sunt? R. Ei qui, sicut infantes, nondum peccatum actualem commissi sunt et qui, sine culpa, absque baptismo mortui sunt, in caelum intrare non possunt; sed est sententia communis eos ire ad locum similis Limbo, ubi erunt absque dolore, etiamsi exclusi a beatitudo caelestis.... Q. 642. Estne iniuriosus baptismum infantis protrahere? R. Iniuriosus est baptismum infantis protrahere, quoniam sic puerum exponimus ad periculum mortis absque baptismo." Catechismi nn. 1 et 2 ita docent, sed minus expresse.

Catechismus Maior PP. S. Pii X: 561. Q. Quando infantes ad ecclesiam ferendi sunt ut baptizentur? R. Infantes ad ecclesiam ferendi sunt ut baptizentur quantum primum. 562. Q. Quare tanta anxietas de baptismo puerorum? R. Maximam anxietatem habere debemus de baptismo puerorum quia, propter eorum teneram aetatem, exponuntur ad multa pericula mortis, et sine baptismo salvi esse nequeunt. 563. Q. Peccant ergo parentes qui ex negligentia sinunt eorum infantes mori sine baptismo, vel qui baptismum protrahunt? R. Etiam, patres et matres qui sinunt liberos suos mori sine baptismo graviter peccant, quia privant liberos suos vitae aeternae; et ei quoque graviter peccant qui baptismum diu protrahunt, quia exponunt eos ad periculum moriendi sine baptismo.... 566. Q. Estne baptismus necessarius ad salutem? Baptismus est absolute necessarius ad salutem, Dominus enim Noster expresse dixit: “Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua, et Spiritu Sancto, non potest videre regnum Dei.” Catechismus Minor (pro pueris) ita docet, sed minus expresse.

Et alii quoque sic docent.

Conclusio:

Etiamsi doctrina “limbi puerorum” non de fide sit, nihilominus tam sententia communis certaque quam doctrina catholica et tenenda esse videtur. Ideo, doctrina huic opposita est saltem offensiva piarum aurium, temeraria ac iniuriosa scholis catholicis, sed fortasse graviorem errorem sapiens.

Vide:
De Erroribus Novi Catechismi--Primae parti objectiones et responsa.
De Erroribus Novi Catechismi--Commentum ad Primam Partem.

Quaeritur: Can Non-Thomists be Good Catholics? Pt. 1

Quaeritur: Can Non-Thomists be Good Catholics? Pt. 1

Quaeritur: Can one really be a good Catholic if he is not a Thomist? If one is not an adherent of the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, can we say his Catholicity is suspect?

Respondeo: Great question! Let me distinguish your question into a threefold division (in the old scholastic style).

1. Whether one can be a good theologian without adhering to (i.e., and reject) the teachings of St. Thomas?

Respondeo: Negative.

a) Demostratio quia (proof of the fact, or "proof that"): Pope St. Pius X, who prescribed the main tenets of Thomism in The 24 Thomistic Theses, warned in Pascendi that "to deviate from St. Thomas, especially in metaphysical questions, is always attended by grave detriment."

b) Demonstratio propter quid (proof of the reasoned fact, or "proof why"):

Maj.: All doctrines to be held with assensu religioso ("religious assent") are held by all good theologians.

Min.: Many of Aquinas' teachings are doctrines to be held with assensu religioso.

Conc.: Many of Aquinas' teachings are held by all good theologians.

Probo Maj. ("I prove the major"): Per se patet ("it is self-evident"). Cf. Bl. Pius IX, Tuas libenter (1863), in Denzinger no. 1684:

For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith. But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.

Probo min. ("I prove the minor"): A great many of the teachings of St. Thomas, particularly his principles, have become, in the seven hundred years since his death, official church doctrines which, even if not de fide, are nevertheless taught authoritatively and, thus, are to be held with assensu religioso (e.g., some are sententiae communes, some are doctrinae tenendae, others are doctrinae catholicae, and a few even de fide---cf. the post on the Notae Theologicae).

2. Whether one can be a good Catholic without adhering to (i.e., being ignorant of) the teachings of St. Thomas?

Respondeo: Affirmative.

a) Quia: The lives of many saints, especially the "simple saints," testify to this: e.g., St. Bernadette of Soubirous, St. Jean Vianney, The Little Flower, St. Thomas Kempis, etc.

b) Propter quid:

Maj.: Whatever is not necessary for salvation is not necessary for a life of sanctity.

Min.: Theology is not necessary for salvation.

Conc.: Ergo, theology is not necessary for a life of sanctity.

Probo Maj.: Per se patet. Cf. Prima lex salus animarum.

Probo Min.: Theology is a science. No science is required for salvation (rather, faith is). Ergo, etc.

3. Whether one can be a good Catholic without adhereing to (i.e., and reject) the teachings of St. Thomas?

Respondeo: Negative.

a) Quia: cf. no. 1 above.

Propter quid:

Maj.: All doctrines to be held with assensu religioso are held by a good learned Catholic.

Min.: Some of Aquinas' teachings are doctrines to be held with assensu religioso.

Conc.: Ergo, a good learned Catholic is one who adheres to the teachings of St. Thomas.

Probo: What was stated in no. 1 above applies not only to theologians but to all learned Catholics. Ergo, etc.

PS. In addition to Pope Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris (on the Restoration of Christian Philosophy), which you probably have already read, I wholeheartedly recommend Pope Pius IX's Studiorum Ducem (on St. Thomas).

Usque ad hilaritatem...

Usque ad hilaritatem...

Quaeritur: Perhaps you could help me with this: YEARS ago I remember perusing St. Thomas--I don't even know what work I was reading at the time--about drunkeness, and recall him saying that one could drink "usque ad hilaritatem". For the life of me, now, I can't remember where it was that I found that. Do you have any idea???

-I looked and looked for that phrase "usque ad hilaritatem" in Aquinas and didn't find it. I looked on the internet and found only "bloggers" attributing it to Aquinas, but none of them gave references. But one blogger said that that phrase came from the "old Manuals." So, since I do have a good dozen of those manuals, I started searching... And most of those that were popular in seminaries before Vatican II (viz., Noldin-Schmidt, Aertnys, Tanquerey, Merkelbach, etc.) did not have the phrase---they did have the basic idea, but expressed differently (e.g., non licet inebriari usque ad ammisionem usus rationis).

But right when I was getting ready to give up, I found Prummer. Eureka!

Here's the text (with the relevant phrase highlighted):

2. Ebrietas imperfecta est ex se solum peccatum veniale. Ratio est, quia talis ebrietas est ex se deordinatio levis non destruens usum rationis. Existente sufficienti causa etiam extrinseca, e. gr. ad melancholiam pellendam, in nuptiis aliisque festivitatibus mundanis, ebrietas imperfecta ex se nullum est peccatum, nisi tamen inde scandalum aliudve grave incommodum oriatur. Hinc bibere usque ad hilaritatem per se quidem non est illicitum, sed clericus, paterfamilias aliaeque personae in dignitate constitutae evitare debent huiusmodi hilaritatem, quoniam facile exinde oriri possunt grave scandalum, aliaque gravia incommoda. (Dominicus Prummer, O.P. Manuale Theologiae Moralis: Secundum Principia S. Thomae Aquinatis, Tomus II, p. 520)

As the other blogger put it, this phrase represents an "eminently Catholic attitude" towards drinking. After all... in vino veritas!

O, hispanici semper viriles!

O, hispanici semper viriles!

Salutem in Domino! Gratias tibi ago ob epistulam [de blogo] tuam multas. Nunc autem mihi tempus brevissimum; post paulum iterum tibi quid scribebo. Situs meus est hic. Si optimum virum Hispanicum Juan Donoso y Cortés non jam cognovisti, peto ut scripta sua perlegas, praesertim ejus "Ensayo" et ut summulam ejusdem epistulam ad Cardinalem Fornari missam. Valeto in Domino -- Joannes Ricket, FSSP

"No hay hombre ninguno que, sabiéndolo o ignorándolo, no sea combatiente en este recio combate; ninguno que no tenga una parte activa en la responsabilidad del vencimiento o de la victoria. Lo mismo combate el forzado en su cadena que el rey en su trono; lo mismo el pobre que el rico, el sano que el doliente, el sabio que el necio, el cautivo que el libre, el viejo que el mozo, el civilizado que el salvaje. Toda palabra que se pronuncia, o está inspirada por Dios o inspirada por el mundo, y proclama forzosamente, de una manera implícita o explícita, pero siempre clara, la gloria del uno o el triunfo del otro. En esta singular milicia todos combatimos por alistamiento forzoso; aquí no tiene lugar ni el sistema de los sustitutos ni el de los alistamientos voluntarios. En ella no se conoce ni la excepción de sexo ni la de la edad; aquí no se escucha al que dice: «Soy hijo de viuda pobre», ni a la madre del paralítico, ni a la mujer del estropeado. De esta milicia son soldados todos los nacidos.

Y no me digas que no quieres combatir, porque en el instante mismo en que me lo dices estás combatiendo; ni que ignoras a qué lado inclinarte, porque en el momento mismo en que eso dices ya te inclinaste a un lado; ni me afirmes que quieres ser neutral, porque, cuando piensas serlo, ya no lo eres; ni me asegures que permanecerás indiferente, porque me burlaré de ti, como quiera que al pronunciar esa palabra ya tomaste tu partido. No te canses en buscar asilo seguro contra los azares de la guerra, porque te cansas vanamente; esa guerra se dilata tanto como el espacio y se prolonga tanto como el tiempo. Sólo en la eternidad, patria de los justos, puede encontrar descanso, porque sólo allí no hay combate; no presumas, empero, que se abran para ti las puertas de la eternidad, si no muestras antes las cicatrices que llevas; aquellas puertas no se abren sino para los que combatieron aquí los combates del Señor gloriosamente y para los que van, como el Señor, crucificados."

Juan Donoso Cortés
Ensayo sobre el Catolicismo, el Liberalismo, y el Socialismo, II.3.

Notae Theologicae

Notae Theologicae

(For an English version of this post, click here.)

Revera, fere omnes controversiae theologicae hodiernae ad theologiam fundamentalem reduci possunt! “Notas theologicas” (seu “valores” seu “gradus doctrinarum ecclesiae”) dissere debemus iuxta manuale patrum Societatis Iesu olim in Hispania Professores, Sacrae Theologiae Summa (Matriti: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, MCMLII; p. 7-8). Vide etiam: Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Intr., § 8, “The Theological Grades of Certainty”; Encyclopaediam Catholicam, articulo De censuris theologicis; et Joannis a Turrecremata, Summam de Ecclesia, L. 4, pars 2, cap. 8-12, cuius textus mox in hoc blogo invenies. (Hac submissio lingua anglica verti, hic.)

A. Credenda assensu fidei divinae:

1) Doctrina de fide, quae est triplex:

• a. Doctrina de fide divina, simpliciter loquendo, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continetur: e.g., Christus descendit ad inferos. Doctrina his contraria error in fide vocatur.


• b. Doctrina de fide divina et catholica, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continetur et ab Ecclesia sive sollemni iudicio sive ordinario et universali magisterio tamquam divinitus revelata credenda proponitur: e.g., Foeminae sacramentum ordinis suscipere non possunt (vide Joannes Paulus II, Inter Insigniores). Doctrina contraria: haeresis.


• c. Doctrina de fide divina et catholica definita, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continetur et ab Ecclesia sollemni iudicio, idest, magisterio suo infallibili, modo extraordinario exercito, sive in concilio oecumenico sive per Romanum Pontificem ex cathedra loquentem, tamquam divinitus revelata credenda proponitur: e.g., Immaculata Conceptio Beatae Mariae Virginis. Contraria: haeresis.

2) Doctrina fidei proxima, idest veritas quae unanime fere consensu theologorum in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continetur: e.g., Votum Baptismi ad salutem sufficit. Contraria: proxima haeresi vel errori in fide seu haeresim sapiens.

B. Tenenda assensu fidei ecclesiasticae:*

3) Doctrina de fide ecclesiastica, idest veritas non formaliter revelata, quae per magisterium ecclesiasticum infallibiliter proponitur: e.g., Anima est forma corporis. Contraria: error in fide ecclesiastica. (N.B. Non omnes theologi traditionales has veritates “de fide ecclesiastica” vocant.)

C. Tenenda assensu religioso:*

4) Doctrina catholica, idest veritas quae in tota Ecclesia docetur, non tamen infallibiliter proponuntur, scilicet ea quae Romani Pontifices expresse in encyclicis et in aliis huiusmodi documentis, docere volunt; e.g., Beata Maria Virginis est mediatrix omnium gratiarum. Contraria: error in doctrina catholica.

5) Doctrina theologice certa, idest veritas quae in scholis theologicis certo agnoscitur tamquam necessario connexa cum revelatis: e.g., Deus omnia futura, etiam contingentia, scit. Contraria: error in theologia.

6) Sexto loco est duplex genus doctrinarum:

• a. Doctrina tenenda, idest veritas proposita a Congregationibus romanis, quae tamen propositio speciali approbatione Romani Pontificis non gaudet: e.g., Primum Evangelium a Sancto Matthaeo vere scriptum est. Contraria: temeraria.


• b. Sententia communis, idest veritas quae communi theologorum consensu in scholis ut bene fundata proponitur: e.g., Susceptio Dominici Corporis peccata venialia remittit. Contraria: in scholas catholicas iniuriosa seu falsa in theologia.
  

*Notandum quod, licet tantum doctrinae de fide divina credendae sint, aliae tamen aliter tenendae sunt.

D. Credibilia sed non Stricte Credenda:

7) Sententia pia, quae a sensu religioso fidelium creditur: e.g., Beata Maria Virginis est sponsa Spiritus Sancti. Contraria: scandalosa seu male sonans seu offensiva piarum aurium.

8) Opinio theologica seu sententia probabilis: e.g., Si homo non pecasset, Filius Dei homo factus non fuisset. Contraria: tuta.

9) Sententia tolerata, quae licet male fundata sit, tamen ab Ecclesia toleratur: e.g., Deus "scientiam mediam" futurorum contingentium habet (iuxta Molinam).

Sanctus Pius V, Confessor (Duplex)

Sanctus Pius V, Confessor (Duplex)

Tertio Nonas Maji
Sanctus Pius V, Confessor (Duplex)
Ex II Nocturno.

May 5
Saint Pius V, Confessor (Double)
From the 2nd Nocturn.

Pius in oppido Insubriæ, quod Boschum vocant, natus, sed e Bonónia oriundus ex nobili Ghisleriórum família, cum quatuordecim esset annórum, ordinem Prædicatórum ingréssus est. Erat in eo admirábilis patiéntia, profúnda humilitas, summa vitæ austeritas, continuum oratiónis studium, et regularis observántiæ ac divini honoris ardentíssimus zelus. Philosophíæ vero ac theologíæ incumbens, adeo in iis excelluit, ut illas docéndi munus magna cum laude per multos annos exercúerit. Sacras conciónes plúribus in locis cum ingénti auditórum fructu hábuit. Inquisitoris offícium ínviolábili animi fortitúdine diu sustínuit ; multasque civitátes, non sine vitæ discrimine, ab hæresi tunc grassante immunes servávit.

Pius was born in a town called Bosco in Lombardy, but was descended from the Ghisleri, a noble family of Bologna. At the age of fourteen years he entered the order of Friars Preachers. He was a man marked by a wonderful long-suffering, a deep lowliness, a great hardness of living, an unwavering earnestness in prayer, and a most strong zeal for the perfect observance of the Rule of his Order, and for the greater glory of God. He gave himself to the study of Philosophy and Theology, and was so learned in both, that he discharged for many years with great reputation the duties of a Professor of those sciences. He preached publicly in many places, to the great profit of his hearers. He long did the work of Inquisitor with unflinching spirit, and preserved many cities, not without risk to his own life, from the heresy which was then creeping in everywhere.

A Paulo quarto, cui ob exímias virtútes caríssimus erat, ad Nepesínum et Sutrinum episcopátum promotus, et post biennium inter Romanæ Ecclésiæ presbyteros cardinales adscriptus fuit. Tum ad ecclésiam Montis Regalis in Subalpinis a Pio quarto translatus, cum plures in eam abusus irrepsisse cognovísset, totam diœcesim lustrávit ; rebusque compositis Romam revérsus, gravíssimis expediéndis negotiis applicatus, quod justum erat, apostolica libertáte et constántia decernebat. Mortuo autem Pio, præter ómnium exspectatiónem electus Póntifex, nihil in vitæ ratióne, excepto exteriori habitu, immutávit. Fuit in eo religiónis propagandæ perpétuum studium, in ecclesiástica disciplína restítuenda indeféssus labor, in exstirpandis erróribus assidua vigilantia, in sublevandis egéntium necessitátibus indeficiens beneficéntia, in Sedis apostolicæ júribus víndicandis robur invictum.

Paul IV, to whom his virtues had greatly endeared him, raised him to the united Bishopricks of Nepi and Sutri, and after two years he was enrolled among the Cardinal Priests of the Roman Church. Pius IV translated him to the Church of Mondóvi in Piedmont, wherein, on his coming, he found that many corruptions had crept in. He reformed the whole of his diocese, and, after settling his affairs, returned to Rome, where his attention was called to matters of the gravest business, in detérmining which he used Apostolic boldness and firmness. After the death of Pius IV, the fifth Pius, to the astonishment of all men, was elected to succeed him. On becoming Pope he changed his way of life in no respect except as regarded his raiment. The Propagation of Religion was to him the object of unceasing care ; the restoration of the Discipline of the Church, of unwearied toil ; the uprooting of error, of sleepless watchfulness ; the relieving the needs of the poor, of unfailing charity ; the maintenance of the rights of the Apostolic See, of adamantine firmness.

Selímum Turcárum tyrannum multis elátum victoriis, ingénti comparáta classe, ad Echínadas ínsulas non tam armis quam fusis ad Deum precibus devicit. Quam victóriam ea ipsa hora, qua obténta fuit, Deo revelante, cognóvit suisque famíliaribus indicávit. Dum vero novam in ipsos Turcas expeditiónem molirétur, in gravem morbum incidit ; et, acerbíssimis dolóribus patientíssime tolerátis, ad extrema deveniens, cum sacraménta de more suscepísset, ánimam Deo placidíssime réddidit, anno millésimo quingentésimo septuagésimo secundo, ætátis suæ sexagésimo octavo, cum sedísset annos sex, menses tres, dies viginti quatuor. Corpus ejus in basilica sanctæ Maríæ ad Præsépe summa fidélium veneratióne colitur, multis a Deo ejus intercessióne patrátis miraculis. Quibus rite probátis, a Cleménte undecimo, Pontifice máximo, Sanctórum número adscriptus est.

The Turkish Sultan Selim was bloated with many victories, and had got together a huge fleet in the Gulf of Lepanto, but Pius V crushed him, not so much by force of arms as by dint of the prayers wherein he pleaded with God. At the hour that the victory was won, Pius knew it by the inward revelation of God, and stated the fact to his servants. He was busied with the preparations for a new expedition against the Turks, when he was laid down by grievous sickness. He bore most sharp sufferings with the gentlest patience, and when the end came, he received the Sacraments as is usual, and with great peace yielded his spirit to God in the year of salvation 1572, and of his own age the 68th, having sat as Pope six years, three months, and twenty-four days. His body is buried in the Church of St. Mary, where the Manger from Bethlehem is, and is there held in great respect by the faithful, who have obtained from God by his prayers, many evident miracles. The said miracles having been proved by a júdicial investigation Pope Clement XI enrolled his name among those of the Saints.

Sancte Pie, ora pro nobis!
Saint Pius, pray for us!

Amici Veri Ecclesiae Traditionalistae Sunt

Amici Veri Ecclesiae Traditionalistae Sunt

Illustrissime Domne: gratias ago tibi pro notitia tua de blogo! Blogus tuus est valde utilis et necessarius catholicis Christicolis Sanctae Catholicae et Apostolicae Ecclesiae ad veritatem fidei divinae capiendam, quippe ac Divus Pius X Papa dixit, “Amici veri Ecclesiae Traditionalistae sunt” (cf. Notre Charge Apostolique). Linguam latinam, ac legere potes, non ample beneque scribere possum, sed probo ac legere ac scribere quandocumque possibile mihi sit. Veniam ergo multis defectibus contentis in epistulis meis tibi peto. Interim vade foelix, Magister Francisce Romere! Oremus pro invicem, et pro operibus nostris, ad majorem Dei gloriam! Addictissimus in Domino, Marcus.

Franciscus Marco, salus et pax! Maxima ambitio mea est linguam latinam in scholis theologicis, praesertim in seminariis, restituere. Peritus autem linguae latinae minime sum; saepe igitur erro. Sed cum fere quotidie litteras electronicas viris latine loquentibus mitto (vide Gregem latine loquentium), paulatim artem bene scribendi acquiro. Latine mihi scribere semper potes, etiamsi erras! Epistulas tuas tunc in blogo (cum lituris) in blogum mittam.

Feria sexta post Dom. III post Pascha, AD MMVI scribebam.

Notae Theologicae

Notae Theologicae

(For an English version of this post, click here.)

Revera, fere omnes controversiae theologicae hodiernae ad theologiam fundamentalem reduci possunt! “Notas theologicas” (seu “valores” seu “gradus doctrinarum ecclesiae”) dissere debemus iuxta manuale patrum Societatis Iesu olim in Hispania Professores, Sacrae Theologiae Summa (Matriti: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, MCMLII; p. 7-8). Vide etiam: Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Intr., § 8, “The Theological Grades of Certainty”; Encyclopaediam Catholicam, articulo De censuris theologicis; et Joannis a Turrecremata, Summam de Ecclesia, L. 4, pars 2, cap. 8-12, cuius textus mox in hoc blogo invenies. (Hac submissio lingua anglica verti, hic.)

A. Credenda assensu fidei divinae:

1) Doctrina de fide, quae est triplex:

• a. Doctrina de fide divina, simpliciter loquendo, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continetur: e.g., Christus descendit ad inferos. Doctrina his contraria error in fide vocatur.


• b. Doctrina de fide divina et catholica, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continetur et ab Ecclesia sive sollemni iudicio sive ordinario et universali magisterio tamquam divinitus revelata credenda proponitur: e.g., Foeminae sacramentum ordinis suscipere non possunt (vide Joannes Paulus II, Inter Insigniores). Doctrina contraria: haeresis.


• c. Doctrina de fide divina et catholica definita, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continetur et ab Ecclesia sollemni iudicio, idest, magisterio suo infallibili, modo extraordinario exercito, sive in concilio oecumenico sive per Romanum Pontificem ex cathedra loquentem, tamquam divinitus revelata credenda proponitur: e.g., Immaculata Conceptio Beatae Mariae Virginis. Contraria: haeresis.

2) Doctrina fidei proxima, idest veritas quae unanime fere consensu theologorum in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continetur: e.g., Votum Baptismi ad salutem sufficit. Contraria: proxima haeresi vel errori in fide seu haeresim sapiens.

B. Tenenda assensu fidei ecclesiasticae:*

3) Doctrina de fide ecclesiastica, idest veritas non formaliter revelata, quae per magisterium ecclesiasticum infallibiliter proponitur: e.g., Anima est forma corporis. Contraria: error in fide ecclesiastica. (N.B. Non omnes theologi traditionales has veritates “de fide ecclesiastica” vocant.)

C. Tenenda assensu religioso:*

4) Doctrina catholica, idest veritas quae in tota Ecclesia docetur, non tamen infallibiliter proponuntur, scilicet ea quae Romani Pontifices expresse in encyclicis et in aliis huiusmodi documentis, docere volunt; e.g., Beata Maria Virginis est mediatrix omnium gratiarum. Contraria: error in doctrina catholica.

5) Doctrina theologice certa, idest veritas quae in scholis theologicis certo agnoscitur tamquam necessario connexa cum revelatis: e.g., Deus omnia futura, etiam contingentia, scit. Contraria: error in theologia.

6) Sexto loco est duplex genus doctrinarum:

• a. Doctrina tenenda, idest veritas proposita a Congregationibus romanis, quae tamen propositio speciali approbatione Romani Pontificis non gaudet: e.g., Primum Evangelium a Sancto Matthaeo vere scriptum est. Contraria: temeraria.


• b. Sententia communis, idest veritas quae communi theologorum consensu in scholis ut bene fundata proponitur: e.g., Susceptio Dominici Corporis peccata venialia remittit. Contraria: in scholas catholicas iniuriosa seu falsa in theologia.
  

*Notandum quod, licet tantum doctrinae de fide divina credendae sint, aliae tamen aliter tenendae sunt.

D. Credibilia sed non Stricte Credenda:

7) Sententia pia, quae a sensu religioso fidelium creditur: e.g., Beata Maria Virginis est sponsa Spiritus Sancti. Contraria: scandalosa seu male sonans seu offensiva piarum aurium.

8) Opinio theologica seu sententia probabilis: e.g., Si homo non pecasset, Filius Dei homo factus non fuisset. Contraria: tuta.

9) Sententia tolerata, quae licet male fundata sit, tamen ab Ecclesia toleratur: e.g., Deus "scientiam mediam" futurorum contingentium habet (iuxta Molinam).

Definition of Theology

Definition of Theology

The Definition of Sacred Theology*

A. Nominal Definition. The word "theology," according to its etymology (λογος περι θεοû), means de divinitate ratio sive sermo ("teaching concerning God": St. Augustine, De civitate Dei VIII.1). Thus theology is "the science of God." It is also "the science of faith," as is seen from St. Anselm's defintion, fides quaerens intellectum ("faith seeking understanding").

B. Real Definition: "Science about God and his creatures under the aspect of Deity, as He falls under virtual revelation" (Scientia de Deo eiusque creaturis sub ratione deitatis, ut cadit sub revelatione virtuali: Garrigou-Lagrange, De Revelatione Vol. 1, pp. 8ff). This definition can be analyzed into four points:

1) Genus: The genus of Sacred Theology is "science"; that is, Sacred Theology is within the group of things we call "sciences." Definition of Science: "A science is a speculative intellectual virtue that enables its possessor to demonstrate or deduce conclusions concerning an object by using the object's causes as principles of demonstration." E.g., An isoceles triangle is a triangle with two equal angles; triangles with two equal angles have two equal sides; therefore, an isoceles triangle has two equal sides. General Classification of Sacred Science: Since Sacred Theology is a science, it follows that it is a quality of (accident in) the mind: a science is a speculative intellectual virtue; a virtue is a good operative habit; and a habit is a quality, that is, one of the nine accidents within the ten categories or ultimate genera (Cf., Aristotle, Categories 2).

Aquinas on Sacred Theology as a Science, ST I.1.2: Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.

2) Obiectum materiale ("material object"): The objectum materiale, that is, the thing that is considered by this science (its "subject") is "God and his creatures." It is primarily God, and secondarily, created things: Omnia pertractantur in sacra doctrina sub ratione Dei, vel quia sunt ipse Deus, vel quia habent ordinem ad Deum ut ad principium et finem. ("In sacred science all things are considered under the aspect of God, either because they are God Himself or because they refer to God as their beginning and end." ST I.1.7.)

3) Obiectum formale quod ("formal object which"): The material object (God and creatures) is considered "under the aspect of Deity, as He falls under virtual revelation." This aspect is called the objectum formale quod. The objectum formale quod serves to explain why Sacred Theology is one science and not a collection of many sciences: despite having multiple material objects (God and creatures), it nevertheless has one formal object, since creatures considered formally, are reducible to one sole object: Deity.

Aquinas on the Object of Sacred Theology, ST I.1.7: “God is the object of this science. The relation between a science and its object is the same as that between a habit or faculty and its object. Now properly speaking, the [formal] object of a faculty or habit is the thing under the aspect of which all things are referred to that faculty or habit, as man and stone are referred to the faculty of sight in that they are colored. Hence colored things are the proper objects of sight. But in Sacred Science, all things are treated of under the aspect of God: either because they are God Himself or because they refer to God as their beginning and end. Hence it follows that God is in very truth the object of this science. This is clear also from the principles of this science, namely, the articles of faith, for faith is about God. The object of the principles and of the whole science must be the same, since the whole science is contained virtually in its principles. Some, however, looking to what is treated of in this science, and not to the aspect under which it is treated, have asserted the object of this science to be something other than God--that is, either things and signs; or the works of salvation; or the whole Christ, as the head and members. Of all these things, in truth, we treat in this science, but so far as they have reference to God."

Aquinas on the Unity of Sacred Doctrine, ST I.1.3: "Sacred doctrine is one science. The unity of a faculty or habit is to be gauged by its object, not indeed, in its material aspect, but as regards the precise formality under which it is an object. For example, man, ass, stone agree in the one precise formality of being colored; and color is the formal object of sight. Therefore, because Sacred Scripture considers things precisely under the formality of being divinely revealed, whatever has been divinely revealed possesses the one precise formality of the object of this science; and therefore is included under sacred doctrine as under one science.

4) Obiectum formale quo ("formal object under which"): In Sacred Theology, The Deity, which is the formal object "which," is not considered in itself, simply, in every way that it is knowable to us. Rather, Sacred Theology studies God and creatures under the aspect of Deity, insofar as they are knowable to us through divine revelation.

Now, a distinction must be made between formal and virtual revelation. Formal revelation is that which is contained in the sources of revelation (Scripture and Tradition), whether explicitly or implicitly. Virtual revelation is that which is not, per se, contained in the sources, but which can be deduced therefrom through a theological argument, that is, by combining a naturally-known premise with the premise from formal revelation; e.g.:

P1: Our Lady exists in Heaven in a healthy bodily state (formally revealed).
P2: People who exist in a healthy bodily state can perform sense acts (premise from reason).
C: Therefore, Our Lady can perform sense acts in Heaven (virtually revealed).

This type of conclusion, properly speaking, is the objectum formale quo of Sacred Theology. This objectum formale quo serves to distinguish Sacred Theology from natural theology. First expounded by Plato, developped by Aristotle and his tradition, natural theology (as is called by St. Augustine and Varro) or Theodicy (as has been called since the 19th century) is a philosophical investigation of truths about God. As such, it is indeed, like Sacred Theology, a "science concerning God." However, in natural theology God only insofar as He can be known by natural reason. Sacred theology, on the other hand, considers God under the light of Divine Revelation. (cf. St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei VI.5).

Fully expressed, then, the complete object of Sacred Theology is: "God and his creatures under the aspect of Deity, as He falls under virtual revelation." This complete object of Sacred Theology serves as the differentia (specific difference) in the definition; it sets apart Sacred Theology from other sciences:

Aquinas on Natural and Sacred Theology, ST I.1.1 ad 2: Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.

*Note: These notes are adapted primarily from Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Introduction. Other traditional scholastic sources were used to expand the text: particularly Aquinas' Summa Theologiae I.1 and Garrigou-Lagrange, De Revelatione Vol. 1, pp. 8ff.

Traditional Dogmatic Theology in English.

Traditional Dogmatic Theology in English.

Can you please recommend really good textbooks in dogmatic theology?

-Certainly! In English, it's quite easy: Aquinas's Summa with Garrigou-Lagrange's commentaries (plus a few other authors). There isn't much more in English translation. (If you want to go deeper you should go into the old Latin Manuals.*)

Here is a bibliography of Dogmatic works in English. Note: For everything that is listed here as "available online" there is also a corresponding permanent link on the sidebar of the blog (to the right). See especially Section IV ("Opera Scholastica / Scholastic Works").


I. Reference Works, Dogmatic Manuals, and Aquinas.

• Catholic Encyclopedia. Available online.
• The New Catholic Dictionary. Available online.
• Denzinger, Henry. The Sources of Catholic Dogma. New Hampshire: Loretto Publications, 1955.
• Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Cork, Ireland: Mercier Press, 1955. (Introduction available online.) Reprint available from TAN Books.
• Tanquerey, Adolphe. Manual of Dogmatic Theology. Tournai: Desclée, 1959.
• Thomas Aquinas. Summa Contra Gentiles. Available online (abridged).
• -----------. Summa Theologiae. Available online.

II. Introductions & Fundamental Theology (cf. ST I.1)**

• Garrigou-Lagrange, Reginald. Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought. St. Louis: Herder, 1950. Out-of-print. Also available online.
• ----------. "Where is the New Theology Leading Us?" Catholic Family News, October 1998. Original French version available online.
• Walsche, T.J. The Principles of Catholic Apologetics: A Study of Modernism Based Chiefly on the Lectures of Pere Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. London: Sans & Co., 1926. Out-of-print.
• Agius, George. Tradition and the Church. Boston: Stratford, 1928. Reprint available from TAN Books.

III. De Deo Uno, Trino, et Creatore (cf. ST Ia)

• Garrigou-Lagrange, Reginald. The One God: A Commentary on the First Part of St. Thomas’ Theological Summa. St. Louis: Herder, 1943. Out-of-print.
• ----------. The Trinity and God the Creator. Commentary on St. Thomas’ Theological Summa. St. Louis: B. Herder, 1952. Out-of-print. Available online.
• ----------. Predestination. St. Louis: Herder, 1943. Reprint available from TAN Books.
• ----------. Providence. St. Louis: Herder, 1937. Reprint available from TAN Books. Also available online.

IV. Christology, Mariology, Eschatology (cf. ST IIIa)***

• Garrigou-Lagrange, Reginald. Christ the Savior: A Commentary on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas. St. Louis: Herder, 1952. Reprint available from TAN Books. Also available online.
• -----------. Life Everlasting. St. Louis: Herder, 1952. Reprint available from TAN Books. Reprint available from TAN Books. Also available online.

*Click here for a very impressive seminary curriculum based on the traditional Latin Manuals (which seminary, nevertheless, I cannot in itself recommend, due to doctrinal reasons).

** I do not know of any solid full-scale ecclesiology textbooks available in English--and neither Aquinas nor Garrigou wrote extensively on that subject. However, you will find good ecclesiological treatises in the manuals of Ludwig Ott and Adolphe Tanquerey (under "Section I" above).

*** Garrigou's commentary on the Sacraments in the Tertia Pars has not been translated into English yet. For a solid exposition on the Sacraments, see Aquinas ST III.60-90 & Supplement 1-68, as well as Ludwig Ott's and Adolphe Tanquerey's manuals.