Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Conference on Aristotelian Science


Share/Bookmark
MARQUETTE SUMMER SEMINAR IN ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL PHILOSOPHY


The Posterior Analytics and Aristotelian Sciences

Raynor Library, Conference Center A
Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI
June 8-9, 2006

Presented by the Midwest Seminar in Ancient and Medieval Philosophy and
The Aquinas and the Arabs Project.



The Conference is intended to provide a formal occasion and central location for philosophers and scholars of the Midwest region (and elsewhere) to present and discuss their current work on the Posterior Analytics and Aristotelian Sciences in ancient and medieval philosophy.

ATTENDING ONLY:
There are no conference fees. However, if you are attending the conference but not presenting, please email Richard.Taylor@Marquette.edu so that he can have a reasonable count for seating. The Library also needs a list of names of visitors.


CONFERENCE SCHEDULE:

All sessions will be held in the Conference Center in the basement of Raynor Library (1355 W. Wisconsin Ave.).


THURSDAY JUNE 8

(1) 9-10:55 am Prof. Robert Bolton, Rutgers University, "Causal Explanation and Demonstrative Knowledge in Aristotelian Science"

(2) 11:00 am -12:30 pm Ms Mariska Leunissen, Leiden University, "The Structure of Teleological Explanations: Theory and Practice"

(3) 2-3:30 pm Prof. Richard Tierney, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, "Aristotle on the Necessity of Demonstrative Propositions (Posterior Analytics I.4)"

(4) 3:45-4:55 Prof. Owen Goldin, Marquette University, "Why are the Posterior Analytics analytic? Thoughts from the Commentators"

(5) 5:00-6:45 Prof. Christina Van Dyke, Calvin College, "An Aristotelian Theory of Divine Illumination: Robert Grosseteste's Commentary on the Posterior Analytics" with Comment by Jeremiah Hackett, University of South Carolina.

FRIDAY JUNE 9

(6) 9-10:55 am Prof. John Longeway, UW Parkside. "On the role of ekthesis inAristotle's account of science and demonstration"

(7) 11:00 am -1:00 pm James South, Marquette University, "Zabarella and Demonstration"

(8) 2:30-4:00 pm Chad Wiener, University of Georgia, "Science, Nature, and Essence in Aristotle's Parts of Animals."

(9) 4:00-5:30 pm Dr Isabelle Moulin, "The Moving Activity of the Aristotelian Prime Mover. Some Perspectives"

For details, see http://homepage.mac.com/mistertea/Personal45.html,
or contact: Owen.Goldin@Marquette.edu

Monday, May 29, 2006

Omnes imitandi, nemo imitandus... (Ex Grege Latine Loquentium)


Share/Bookmark
Ioannes Oleastrensis consociis suis sdp.

In Grege Latine Loquentium suffragium fit de hac sententia:

OMNES IMITANDI, NEMO IMITANDVS.

Idest, "licet latinitas omnium auctorum imitanda sit, latinitas nullius (v.g. Ciceronis) imitanda est."

Sententia quae suffragio proponitur duabus constat propositionibus quae invicem opponuntur et contrariae mihi videntur, secundum veteris scholasticae logicae denominationem. Nunc autem contrariae propositiones, veritate respecta, ita se habent ut ambae simul verae esse non possint, falsae autem possint. Falsum enim est 'omnes imitandos esse', idemque falsum 'neminem imitandum'. E contra, propositiones particulares affirmativae 'aliqui imitandi sunt', 'aliqui imitandi non sunt', mihi veritati concordes videntur. Sunt certe qui imitatione digni videantur, alii vero indigni. Sic Socrates concives interrogans suos, ut ab eis veritatem ratione duce extorquere possit, imitatione dignus videbatur, eumque iuvenes imitare conabantur, ut ipse Socrates apud iudices declaraverat: 'pollakis emé mimountai' (Cf. Plat. Apol. Soc. 23c) Singillatim acceptae, propositiones contrariae quae sententiam suffragio propositam continent falsae sunt, mea quidem opinione. Nec coniunctio earum falsitatem in veritatem mutare potest.

Valete.


Franciscus Portudivitensis altero hispanico in grege, idest Ioanni Oleastrensi spd

Recte cogitas, Joannes. Vivat Scholastica inter hispanicos!

... Sed contra, logica scholastica traditionalis distinguit inter suppositionem "absolutam" (seu abstractam sive collectivam) et suppositionem "personalem" (seu individualem). Ecce explicatio Cardinalis Zigliarae, O.P. (1833-1893) in magno opere eius, Summa Philosophica, vol. 1 (p. 50):


"Suppositio universalis est, 'acceptio termini pro conceptu experimente rem pluribus communem, ut homo'. -- Sed animadverte quod homo (et idem dicito de aliis universalibus) potest accipi et simpliciter pro natura abstracte sumpta, prout nempe significat 'animal rationale', et pro suppositis seu individuis humanis, Petro, Paulo, Antonio, etc.: quod ex adjunctis dignoscitur. Ita, si dicam, 'homo est animal rationale', sumitur 'homo' in utroque sensu; at si dicam, 'omnis homo moritur', homo sumitur pro individuis: non enim moritur natura humana universaliter accepta, sed accepta ut in individuo existens. Suppositio priori sensu dicitur 'universalis absoluta'; posteriori dicitur 'universalis personalis'."


Ergo, in prima parte sententiae "omnes imitandi, nemo imitandus," subjectum "omnes" accipi potest cum suppositione absoluta seu abstracta sive collectiva, idest, ut significans totum collectivum auctorum latinorum et non singulos auctores. Subjectum vero secundae partis "nemo", quod "non omnes" interpretatur, cum suppositione personali seu individuali potest accipi, ut significans singulos auctores latinos, et non totum collectivum auctorum. Itaque non est necesse dicere quod hae duae sententiae (vel duae partes unius sententiae) sint contrariae vel contradictoriae.

Falsitas autem sententiae (saltem secundae partis) facile demonstratur per exempla. Omnis enim disciplina habet proprium exeplum et regula, ut per se patet in disciplinis ecclesiasticis. Latinitas enim Bibliae Vulgatae et Sacrae Liturgiae Romanae imitanda est in precibus. Latinitas Patrum latinorum, praesertim SS. Hieronymi, Augustini, Ambrosii et Gregorii Magni, imitanda est in exegesi, in sermonibus et in homiliis. S. Thomas etiam imitandus est in philosophia et theologia scholastica. Latinitas Codicis Iuris Canonici imitanda est in rebus canonicis, etc., etc.

Vale et tu.

Friday, May 26, 2006

Utrum sint Iesuitae latine loquentes? (Ex Grege Latine Loquentium)


Share/Bookmark
Thomas omnibus in Grege Latine Loquentium s.p.d.

Ad complures ordines Germanos epistulas interretiales misi et monachos sciscitatus sum, qui apud eos usus Latinitatis esset. Ordines contemplativi, qui dicuntur, sese Latine orare responderunt. At duas epistulas inter se contrarias ab Iesuitis accepi. Ad primam meam epistulam, quae Germanice scripta erat, Iesuitae apud se Latinitatem iacere responderunt et ad vitam suam in lingua Latina momenta esse maxima negaverunt. Haec omnia, quae compereram, et ad Gregem Latine Loquentium et exemplar epistulae meae ad Iesuitas misi. Tum praeter opinionem alteram epistulam ab Iesuitis accepi et eam quidem Latine conscriptam, quibus apud sese Latinitatem esse aliquo loco et numero contenderunt. Ecce textus epistulae latine conscriptae:

Societas Iesu non est quidem fundata ut Latinitatem in Ecclesia catholica excoleret, sed fidem ut promoveret in christianis. Illa nihilominus in aetate, qua dicta Societas nata est, ubique in Ecclesia adhuc vigebat immo florebat usus linguae Latinae, ideoque etiam documenta fundamentalia ordinis Latine conscripta sunt, et per saecula usque ad hunc diem omnes Societatis, vel saltem fere omnes, textus officiales Latine compositi sunt. Unde sequitur usum huius pervenerabilis linguae etiam in Iesuitarum ordine omnino non cecidisse in desuetudinem, econtrario florere et prosperare.

Vale!
Patres e Societate Iesu.

Qua de re quid cogitandum est? Iesuitaene opinionem suam semper commutant et ad ea, quae audire volumus, applicant? Quae cum ita sint, ego, si monachus essem, Iesuita esse nollem. Multo magis mihi placent coenobitae Latine orantes.


-Franciscus Thomae s.p.d.

Hoc tantum scio: "Non cum Iesu itis si cum Iesuitis itis."

Vale.

De latinitate in monasteriis (Ex Grege Latine Loquentium)


Share/Bookmark
Andreas spd Thomae.

Tua pace, si licet paululum hac de questione philosophari: cultus linguae, cuiuscumque linguae, spectat loquelam humanam quae pertinet ad os atque adaures. Loquela, per se, non pertinet ad oculos, id est, ad paginam scriptam. Quamvis studium litterarum magnopere adiuvat cultum linguisticum, per se, omnis lingua pendet ab auribus et a voce viva. Lingua quae tantummodo ad legendum vel scribendum adhibetur, aliquantulum dormitat, sine illo fundamento orationis (nota bene: dicitur "oratio" vel "orator" propter "os, oris").

His dictis, timeo non esse iam ullum coetum ecclesiasticum in toto terrarum orbe ubi cultus linguae latinae viget. Huc illuc, alius vel alius colit linguam latinam, privatim, sed nullum habemus iam ordinem religiosum ubi usus linguae latinae pergit, non tantummodo in celebrationibus liturgicis vel in breviario ceterisque exercitiis spiritualibus, sed etiam uti sermo prorsus communis aptus ad omnem studium, omnemque confabulationem cuiuscumque generis, tum in cotidianis laboribus tum in colloquiis sive privatis sive publicis tum in commercio epistularum, in apellationibus telephonicis, etc. Sola consociatio quae talem sibi proposuit finem est
Familia Sancti Hieronymi, de qua tibi fortasse placeret legere. Apud situm interretialem vide Constitutionem huius consociationis canonicae.

Vale.


Thomas Andreae s.p.d.

Recte dicis apud monachos usum linguae Latinae in rebus liturgicis esse, hoc est eos Latine orare. Iesuitae autem Latine scribere sciunt. Deest ordo catholicus, cuius participes inter sese Latine colloquuntur. Hoc soli ii privatim faciunt, quos "activistas" vere nominamus, ut Pater Caelestis Eichenseer aliique, qui ab eo profecti eius rationem sequuntur. Ego autem, si monachus essem, cum aliis coenobîtis Latine colloqui conarer et usum linguae Latinae a scriptis abstraherem et ad colloquia cottidiana traducerem, ut tota vita coenobiâlis Latina fieret. Quapropter monachorum maxime mihi placet Reginaldus Foster, qui diem noctemque in rebus Latinisita versatur, ut non solum Latine scribat scriptaque corrigat sed etiam loquatur. Idem quotannis tempore aestivo conventûs institutionesque Latine loquendi Romae agit; quibus ego conventibus, quod tempus defuit, nondum adfui; sed ab eis, qui intererant, eum optime Latine loqui accepi.

Cura, ut valeas!
Thomas tuus.

Thursday, May 25, 2006

De Erroribus Novi Catechismi -Commentum ad Primam Partem.


Share/Bookmark Rectissime scribebas, Francisce :

Quando autem de erroribus Novi Catechismi loquebar, tres "doctrinas saltem temerarias" in mente habebam :

A. De spe salutis pro infantibus mortuis sine Baptismo;
B. De spe salutis pro omnibus qui sunt extra ecclesiam;
C. De libertate religiosa (publica) etiam paganorum et idololatrae quicivitatem catholicam incolunt.

Secunda autem et tertia propositiones maioris momenti mihi videntur esse in quantum (ut aiunt scolastici!) ad multitudinem hominum quotidie pertinent necnon ad quaestionem veritatis. Si nulla enim est veritas, qua de causa inquirunt tot homines quid sit verum vel falsum in rebus scientificis, historicis cet.? Si quid verum est, praecipue quoad Deum atque vitam futuram, quomodo fieri potest ut veritas non maius momentum ac iura habeat quam error? Socrates de hac re multa iam dixit, suo tempore! De eadem re, Ecclesia perfecte atque definite iudicavit ab initio atque temporibus hodiernis, documentis etiam solemnibus Summorum Pontificum (videlicet Quanta cura vel Syllabus a Pio IX divulgata). Attamen, quisquis de his rebus curat, omnino catholicum esse eum oportet atque integrae fidei studiosissimum, nec tantum christianum, sensu lato, vel deistam, spiritualistam cet. Quaestio Catechismi pertinet tantum ad homines quibus disputationes theologicae pondus quoddam habent, propterea quod ad vitam aeternam et ad salutem adtinent. Si quis de salute aeterna non curat aut "salutem" nihil esse censet nisi modum dicendi Ecclesiae, sicut symbolum regni, pacis, humanitatis vel aliquid simile, quid interest disputare de definitionibus theologicis? Hae nugae sunt! At, ut bene scis, Francisce strenue, inter catholicos ipsos, permulti sunt hodie qui a distinctionibus antiquissimis atque definitionibus classicis abhorrent quia veritatem dogmaticam nimis severam esse iudicant! Itaque, facilius est iterum atque iterum clamare, urbi et orbi, "Deus est amor" vel "conscientia humana" regula rerum est suprema. Ut aliis verbis dicam, si universi homines iam salvi facti sunt eo quod Deus eos amat, quid necesse est Catechismum non solum legere, verum etiam... conscribere? Pudor maximus multos homines, de illis rebus, tenet qui sentiunt in quaestionibus illis theologicis, aliquid inesse "obscaeni"!


Gratias tibi ago pro commento. De his duabus rebus post paucos dies scribam.
-Franciscus.


Vide:
De Erroribus Novi Catechismi--Prima pars.
De Erroribus Novi Catechismi--Primae parti objectiones et responsa.

Friday, May 19, 2006

Les « notae theologicae »


Share/Bookmark Voici les « notae theologicae », c’est-à-dire, les différents niveaux de doctrines catholiques. (Cf. Societatis Iesu in Hispania Professores, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1952; pp. 7-8.)

1. D’abord, le plus haut niveau ce sont les doctrines « de fide divina et catholica » (“de foi divine et catholique”), c’est-à-dire, les doctrines définies solennellement par le Magistère comme appartenant au « fidei depositum » (“dépôt de la foi”) : par exemple, la divinité du Christ. Si une doctrine s’oppose à l’une des doctrines « de fide », alors elle est appelée à juste titre une « haeresis » (“hérésie”) : par exemple, l’Arianisme.

2. Ensuite, le niveau suivant, ce sont les doctrines « proximae fidei » (“proches de la foi”), c’est-à-dire, les doctrines qui n’ont pas encore été définies par le Magistère, mais que, selon le « consensus theologorum » (“consensus des théologiens”) appartiennent au « fidei depositum » (“dépôt de la foi”) : par exemple, la doctrine du « votum baptismi » (“le baptême de désir”). Si certaines doctrines s’opposent à l’une des doctrines « proximae fidei », alors elle est appelée à juste titre une doctrine « proxima haeresi » (“proche de l’hérésie”) : par exemple, la doctrine du Père Feeny.

3. Ensuite, il y a des doctrines qui sont « de fide ecclesiastica » (“de foi ecclésiastique”): ce sont les doctrines qui ne sont pas formellement révélées (et, donc, qui ne sont pas expressément contenues dans le « fidei depositum »), mais qui ont une connexion intime avec le « fidei depositum » : par exemple, la doctrine sur l’âme comme forme immédiate et substantielle du corps. Si une doctrine s’oppose à l’une des doctrines « de fide ecclesiastica », alors elle est appelée à juste titre une « error in fide ecclesiastica » (“erreur dans la foi ecclésiastique”) : par exemple, la doctrine des Averroïstes.

4. Ensuite, le niveau suivant, ce sont les « doctrinae catholicae » (“doctrines catholiques”), c’est-à-dire, celles qui sont enseignées par toute l’Église mais qui ne sont pas définies infailliblement par le Magistère: par exemple, ce qui se trouve dans plusieurs encycliques, etc. Si une doctrine s’oppose à l’une des « doctrinae catholicae », alors elle est appelée à juste titre une « error in doctrina catholica » (“erreur dans la doctrine catholique”) : par exemple, nier que la Vierge soit la médiatrice de toutes les grâces.

5. Ensuite, il y a les doctrines « theologice certae » (“théologiquement certaines”), qui sont enseignées dans les écoles catholiques comme reliées à la révélation (mais non comme contenues expressément dans la révélation): par exemple, la théorie de la privation du mal. Si une doctrine s’oppose à l’une des doctrines « theologice certae », alors elle est appelée à juste titre une « error in theologia » (“erreur en théologie”) : par exemple, nier que le mal est une privation de l’être, et dire qu’il est une réalité positive.

6. Ensuite, il y a des « doctrinae ita tenendae, ut contrariae sint temerariae » (“doctrines qu’il faut tenir, de telle sorte que les doctrines opposées soient téméraires”), c’est à dire, les vérités proposées par les Congrégations Romaines qui ne jouissent pas de l’approbation du Pontife Romain.

7. Ensuite, à l’avant-dernier niveau, il y a des doctrines « communes et certae in theologia » (“communes et certaines en théologie”), qui sont considérées comme bien fondées par le consensus des écoles théologiques (i.e., les théologiens scholastiques sanctionés par le Magistère avant Jean XXIII, qui a utilisé “le remède de la miséricorde” et non plus la condamnation des erreurs) . Les thèses opposées à celles-ci sont appelées « falsae in theologia » (“fausses en théologie”) ou bien « temerariae » (“téméraires”).

8. Enfin, il y a des doctrines « probabiles » (“probables”), « tutae » (“sauves”), ou bien « toleratae » (“tolérées”), dont la vérité est ouverte à la discussion.

On doit remarquer que le fait de nier une doctrine qui se trouve au premier niveau peut seul constituer une hérésie. Nier des doctrines qui sont entre le deuxième et le septième niveaux, c’est une offense grave contre la vertu de la foi et le premier commandment (et c’est aussi une erreur doctrinale grave), mais ce n’est pas une hérésie.

Pour une explication plus détaillé, voir aussi: "Valeur et censures des propositions en théologie" par l'abbé Bernard Lucien.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

The Salamanticenses on Economics -An Open Question.


Share/Bookmark I read articles posted on the Mises.org website every-so-often. Seeking to advance the economic principles of the Austrian School, it claims an intellectual heritage that goes back to the late Scholastics:


The story of the Austrian School begins in the fifteenth century, when the followers of St. Thomas Aquinas, writing and teaching at the University of Salamanca in Spain, sought to explain the full range of human action and social organization. These Late Scholastics observed the existence of economic law, inexorable forces of cause and effect that operate very much as other natural laws.Over the course of several generations, they discovered and explained thelaws of supply and demand, the cause of inflation, the operation of foreign exchange rates, and the subjective nature of economic value--allreasons Joseph Schumpeter celebrated them as the first real economists. The Late Scholastics were advocates of property rights and the freedom tocontract and trade. They celebrated the contribution of business tosociety, while doggedly opposing taxes, price controls, and regulationsthat inhibited enterprise. As moral theologians, they urged governments toobey ethical strictures against theft and murder. And they lived up to Ludwig von Mises's rule: the first job of an economist is to tell governments what they cannot do"

My question is, to what extent does the Austrian School represent a legitimate flowering of the Scholastic tradition? While I know that a good many traditional Catholics such as Thomas Woods supports the economictheory of the Austrian School, I also know that the Austrian School is typically identified with a Libertarian political philosophy, namely that not only ought the government practice a laissez faire relationship with respect to the economy but also with respect to "personal morality" (e.g. abortion). While I hesitate to lump all Libertarians -- there are many kinds such as anarcho-libertarians and conservative libertarians, for example--together, I am hesitatant to affirm too strongly the Austrian School. Have you any insights?


I'm afraid this one's way beyond my field! I do know that the Salamanca theologians (also known as the Salmanticenses) are one of the most eminently faithful Thomists of all history. Not that they were fundamentalist Thomists ("Sola Summa")--in fact, they are known for going beyond Aquinas in many ways, especially for asking more minute questions relating to the issues of modernity. But their reputation as faithful to the principles of the Master remains unsurpassed to this day. Here's what Garrigou-Lagrange has to say about them in his book Reality:


In their methods the Carmelites of Salamanca, the Salmanticenses, resemble John of St. Thomas. They first give, in summary, the letter of the article, then add disputationes and dubia on controverted questions, discussing opposed views in detail. Some of these dubia on secondary questions may seem superfluous. But he who consults the Salmanticenses on fundamental questions must recognize in them great theologians, in general very loyal to the teaching of St. Thomas. You may test this statement in the following list of subjects: the divine attributes, the natural desire to see God, the obediential potency, the absolute supernaturalness of the beatific vision, the intrinsic efficaciousness of divine decrees and of grace, the essential supernaturalness of infused virtues, particularly of the theological virtues, the personality of Christ, His liberty, the value, intrinsically infinite, of His merits and satisfaction, the causality of the sacraments, the essence of the sacrifice of the Mass.

In fact, back in the old days, their authority was so eminent in the theological world that if you could show that your theological argument was supported by the Salmanticenses, that automatically made your argument probabilior (more probable than the opposing argument). So I would be inclined to trust their orthodoxy and faithfulness to the principles of Aquinas in all their doctrines. In my view, they're "innocent until proven guilty."

But, specifically with regards to the question on economics, I put it on the table as an open question for anyone to offer an answer. Informative comments are most welcome!

Saturday, May 13, 2006

Sanctus Robertus Bellarminus, Confessor et Ecclesiae Doctor (Duplex)


Share/Bookmark Tertio Idus Maji.
Sanctus Robértus Bellarmínus, Confessor et Ecclesiæ Doctor (Duplex)

The Thirteenth Day of May.
Saint Robert Bellarmine, Confessor and Doctor of the Church (Double)


Ex Martyrologio
From the Martyrology

Sancti Robérti Bellarmíno, e Societáte Jesu, Cardinális atque olim Epíscopi Capuáni, Confessóris et Ecclésiæ Doctóris, cujus dies natális décimo quinto Kaléndas Octóbris recensétur.

St. Robert Bellarmine, of the Society of Jesus, cardinal and one time bishop of Capua, confessor and doctor of the Church, whose birthday is kept on the 17th of September.


Ex II Nocturno.
From the 2nd Nocturn.

Robertus, Politianus, e patrícia Bellarminórum gente, matrem pientíssimam hábuit Cynthiam Cervini, Marcelli Papæ secúndi sorórem. Eximia pietáte et castíssimis móribus quamprimum enituit, id unum exoptans, ut Deo soli placeret et ánimas Christo lucrifáceret. Patrium Societátis Jesu collegium summa cum ingenii et modéstiæ laude frequentávit ; ac duodeviginti annos natus, Romæ eamdem Societátem ingréssus, religiosárum virtútum ómnibus exemplo fuit. Emenso in Romano Collegio philosophíæ curriculo, missus est primum Floréntiam, tum Montem Regalem ; deinde Patavium ad sacram theologíam addiscéndam, ac póstea Lovanium, ubi concionatoris munere, nondum sacérdos, mirifice functus est. Lovanii præterea, sacerdotio auctus, theologíam ita dócuit, ut plurimos hæreticos ad Ecclésiæ unitátem reduxerit, ac theologus per Europam claríssimus haberétur, eumque Sanctus Cárolus Mediolanénsis epíscopus aliique veheménter sibi expéterent.

Robert, a native of Montepulciano and of the noble family of Bellarmine, had for his mother the most pious Cynthia Cervini, sister of Pope Marcellus II. From the first he was conspicuous for exemplary piety and most chaste manners, earnestly desiring this one thing, to please God alone and to win souls to Christ. He attended the college of the Society of Jesus in his native town where he was highly commended for his intelligence and modesty. At the age of eighteen he entered the same Society at Rome, and was a model of all religious virtues. Having passed through the course of philosophy at the Roman College, he was sent first to Florence, then to Monreale, later to Padua to teach sacred theology, and afterwards to Louvain where, not yet a priest, he ably discharged the office of preacher. After ordination at Louvain, he taught theology with such success that he brought back many heretics to the unity of the Church, and was regarded throughout Europe as a most brilliant theologian ; and St. Charles, Bishop of Milan, and others keenly sought after him.


Romam ex desidério Gregórii Papæ décimi tertii revocatus, theologicam controversiárum disciplínam trádidit in Collegio Romano : ibique vitæ spiritualis magister constitútus, angelicum juvenem Aloísium per sanctitátis sémitas moderátus est. Ipse Collegium Romanum ac deinde Neapolitanam Societátis Jesu Provinciam ad Sancti Ignatii mentem gubernávit. In Urbem íterum accersítus, a Cleménte octavo ad summa Ecclésiæ negotia, máximo cum christianæ rei emolumento, est adhibitus : tum invitus et frustra reluctans, in Cardinalium númerum cooptátus quia, ut palam asseruit ipse Póntifex, tunc non habebat parem Ecclésia Dei quod ad doctrínam. Ab eodem Pontifice consecrátus Epíscopus, Capuanam Archidiœcésim triennium sanctíssime administrávit : quo munere deposito, Romæ ad mortem usque degit, integérrimus ac fidelíssimus Summi Pontificis consiliarius. Multa præcláre scripsit, illud meritum adeptus in primis quod, sanctum Thomam ducem et magistrum secutus, de suórum necessitate témporum próvide cónscius, invicto doctrinæ róbore et amplíssima testimoniórum copia e Sacris Litteris et e Sanctórum Patrum ditíssimo fonte apte deprompta novos erróres debellávit, traditiónis catholicæ et Romani Pontificátus jurium strenuus præprimis adsertor. Complúribus étiam ad pietátem fovéndam libellis exstat insígnis ac præsertim aureo catechismo, quem licet aliis gravíssimis negotiis distentus, tum Capuæ tum Romæ púeros ac rudes docére non prætermittebat. Robertum æquævus Cardinalis a Deo missum judicávit, qui catholicos erudíret, pios cóleret, hæreticos profligaret ; Sanctus Franciscus Salesius doctrinæ fontem hábuit ; Summus Póntifex Benedíctus décimus quartus hæreticórum malleum dixit, ac Benedíctus décimus quintus catholicam religiónem propagántibus et tuéntibus exemplar indicávit.

Recalled to Rome at the wish of Pope Gregory XIII, he taught the science of controversial theology at the Roman College, and there, as spiritual diréctor he guided the angelic youth Aloysius in the paths of holiness. He governed the Roman College and then the Neapolitan province of the Society of Jesus in accordance with the spirit of St. Ignatius. Again summoned to Rome, he was employed by Clement VIII in the most important affairs of the Church, with the greatest advantage to the Christian state ; then against his will and in spite of opposition, he was admitted among the number of the cardinals, because, as the Pontiff publicly declared, he did not have his equal among theologians in the Church of God at the time. He was consecrated bishop by the same Pope, and administered the archdiocese of Capua in a most saintly manner for three years : having resigned this office, he lived in Rome until his death, as a most impartial and trusty counsellor to the Supreme Pontiff. He wrote much, and in an admirable manner. His principal merit lieth in his complete victory in the struggle against the new errors, during which he distinguished himself as a strenuous and outstanding víndicator of Catholic tradition and the rights of the Roman See. He gained this victory by following St. Thomas as his guide and teacher, by a prudent consideration of the needs of his times, by his irrefragable teaching, and by a most abundant wealth of testimony well-chosen from the sacred writings and from the very rich fountain of the Fathers of the Church. He is eminently noted for very numerous short works for fostering piety, and especially for that golden Catechism, which he never failed to explain to the young and ignorant both at Capua and at Rome, although preoccupied with other very important affairs. A contemporary cardinal declared that Robert was sent by God the instruction of Catholics, for the guidance of the good, and for the confusion of heretics ; St. Francis de Sales regarded him as a fountain of learning ; the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV called him the hammer of heretics ; and Benedict XV proclaimed him the model of promoters and defenders of the Catholic religion.


Vitæ religiosæ studiosíssimus, eam, inter purpuratos Patres adlectus, in exemplum servávit. Opes ultra necessarias nóluit ; módico famulatu, ténui cultu habituque contentus : suórum non studuit opuléntiæ, ac vix adduci pótuit ut inópiam idéntidem levaret. De se humillime sensit, et mira fuit animi simplicitate. Deíparam diléxit unice : plures horas quotídie oratióni tríbuebat. Parcíssime víctitans, ter in hebdomada jejunábat : in se constanter austérus, caritáte in próximum flagrávit, vocátus sæpenúmero Pater páuperum. E baptismate innocéntiam ne vel levi quidem culpa macularet strenue contendit. Prope octogenarius, ad Sancti Andréæ in Colle Quirinali, extremem in morbum íncidit, quem sólito virtútum fulgóre illustrávit. Moribundo Gregórius Papa décimus quintus et plures Cardinales adstitérunt, tantum Ecclésiæ cólumen éripi complorantes. Die sacrórum Stígmatum sancti Francisci, quorum memóriæ ubíque celebrandæ auctor fuerat, obdormívit in Dómino, anno millésimo sexcentésimo vigésimo primo. Mortuo tota cívitas parentávit, Sanctum uno ore conclámans. Eum vero Pius undecimus, Póntifex maximus, Beatórum primum ac deinde Sanctórum número adscripsit, et paulo post, ex Sacrórum Rituum Congregatiónis consulto, universalis Ecclésiæ Doctórem declarávit. Ejus corpus Romæ in templo Sancti Ignatii, apud sepúlcrum Sancti Aloísii, ut ipse optarat, pia veneratióne cólitur.

He was most zealous in the religious life and he maintained that manner of life after having been chosen as one of the empurpled cardinals. He did not want to any wealth beyond what was necessary ; he was satisfied with a móderate household, and scanty fare and clothing. He did not strive to enrich his relatives, and he could scarcely be induced to relieve their poverty even occasionally. He had the lowest opinion of himself, and was of wonderful simplicity of soul. He had an extraordinary love for the Mother of God ; he spent many hours daily in prayer. He ate very sparingly, and fasted three times a week. Uniformly austere with himself, he burned with charity towards his neighbour, and was often called the father of the poor. He earnestly strove that he might not stain his baptismal innocence to even the slightest fault. Almost eighty years old, he fell into his last illness at St. Andrew's on the Quirinal hill, and in it he shewed his usual radiant virtue. Pope Gregory XV and many cardinals visited him on his deathbed, lamenting the loss of such a great pillar of the Church. He fell asleep in the Lord in the year 1621, on the day of the sacred Stigmata of St. Francis, the memory of which he had been instrumental in having celebrated everywhere. The whole city mourned his death, unanimously proclaiming him a Saint. The Supreme Pontiff Pius XI inscribed his name, first, in the number of the Blessed, and then in that of the Saints, and shortly afterwards, by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, he declared him a Doctor of the universal Church. His body is honoured with pious veneration at Rome in the church of St. Ignatius, near the tomb of St. Aloysius, as he himself had desired.


Sancte Robérte Bellarmíne, ora pro nobis.
Saint Robert Bellarmine, pray for us.

O, Sancte Doctor Ecclesiæ, ora pro nobis.
O, Holy Doctor of the Church, pray for us.

O, Fons Doctrinæ, ora pro nobis.
O, Fount of Doctrine, pray for us.

O, Catholicam Religiónem Propagántibus et Tuéntibus Exemplar, ora pro nobis.
O, Model of Promoters and Defenders of the Catholic religion, pray for us.

O, Hæreticórum Malleus, ora pro nobis.
O, Hammer of Heretics, pray for us.

El Padre Harrison sobre "el limbo"


Share/Bookmark Queridos amigos:

Ultimamente ha habido mucha discusión -¡y mucha confusión!- entre los católicos sobre cuál es el destino eterno de los niños que mueren sinbautismo. En el artículo adjunto, comentando una respuesta que salió el domingo pasado en el periódico católico de Puerto Rico, "El Visitante", he intentado aclarar esta cuestión, para explicar lo que entiendo que es la verdadera posición de nuestra Santa Madre Iglesia. Es especialmente importante lo señalado sobre un error que hay en la traducción oficial al español del#1261 del Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica.

Su amigo en Jesucristo resucitado,
P. Brian Harrison, O.S.

---------------

¿ES CIERTO QUE EL LIMBO NO EXISTE?
Por el P. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., S.T.D.

En El Visitante del 7-13 de mayo, en la columna “Quiero saber” (p. 13), el P. Pedro Reyes ha contestado una lectora que le había preguntado sobre el por qué del bautismo de niños, si “no hay limbo” como destino de aquellos que mueren sin dicho sacramento.

El P. Pedro ha ofrecido en su contestación muchas citas muy apropiadas de nuestro Código de Derecho Canónico, de la Sagrada Escritura, y de varios documentos pertinentes del Magisterio de la Iglesia, que en su conjunto manifiestan la voluntad muy clara de la Iglesia al efecto de que los niños pequeños definitivamente deben ser bautizados. El Padre también nos dice, muy correctamente, que el “principio teológico” en el que “se fundamenta” la “necesidad de bautizar a los niños” es el siguiente: “la recepción de hecho o al menos de deseo [del bautismo] es necesaria para la salvación”. Exactamente. Y justamente porque los niños pequeños, a diferencia de los adultos, no son capaces de “desear” el bautismo, la gran tradición bimilenaria de la Iglesia, hasta hace muy poco, era prácticamente unánime en enseñar (aunque sin llegar a una definición dogmática) que bajo la Nueva Alianza de Cristo tales niños, por el pecado original que tienen, no se pueden salvar si mueren sin la recepción del sacramento.

Por eso quiero suplementar la respuesta del P. Pedro sobre este tema (al cual he dedicado investigaciones teológicas bastante extensas que se publicarán próximamente) con unas observaciones adicionales que creo son necesarias para una comprensión más completa y realista de la posición de la Iglesia sobre este asunto.

En el tercer párrafo de su artículo, el Padre observa que “ya se nos dice que no existe el limbo de los niños”. ¿”Se nos dice”? Pero la pregunta clave es, “¿Quién nos lo dice?” Muchos ya creen que es la misma Santa Madre Iglesia, pero eso no es cierto. La respuesta correcta es que muchos teólogos (en realidad, la gran mayoría de ellos) ya no creen en el limbo, y nos están asegurando que todo ser humano que muere antes de llegar al uso de la razón – bautizado o no bautizado – va a alcanzar la visión beatífica, es decir, la gloria del Cielo. En diciembre pasado, representantes de la Comisión Internacional de Teólogos, después de un congreso en Roma sobre el tema, hizo público su consenso sobre dicha conclusión optimista, la cual fue ampliamente reportada en la prensa, televisión e Internet.

Sin embargo, los teólogos, como tales, no son el magisterio de la Iglesia. Sus opiniones, aunque puedan llegar a constituir una mayoría abrumadora en un momento dado de la historia, siempre son falibles. Tales opiniones son especialmente cuestionables cuando nos resulta muy difícil, si no imposible, compaginarlas con numerosas declaraciones anteriores de los Sucesores de los Apóstolos – los papas y obispos. Pues, toda la credibilidad intelectual del catolicismo depende radicalmente de su coherencia doctrinal diacrónica: o sea, la ausencia de contradicción entre lo que la Iglesia eseñaba en siglos anteriores y lo que nos enseña hoy. Pues Jesucristo prometió que el Espíritu Santo estaría con los Apóstoles y sus sucesores “todos los días, hasta el fin del mundo” (Mateo 28, 20).

Ahora bien, para algunos teológos (entre los cuales este servidor–y reconozco que en este momento somos una pequeña minoría), el limbo sí existe para los niños que mueren sin bautismo. Y lo creemos porque la tradición constante de la Iglesia, por dieciocho siglos o más, fue unánime en negar rotundamente la tesis planteada por el dominante liberalismo teológico de hoy, a saber, que todos los infantes muertos, bautizados y no bautizados, van para el Cielo. Aquí no hay espacio para citar a todo lo que han afirmado los Papas y Concilios Ecuménicos para frenar tal optimismo exagerado, pero unos ejemplos son los siguientes.

En el remoto año 417, el Papa San Inocencio I escribió a los padres del Sínodo de Milevis, insistiendo a los católicos liberales de aquel entonces, “La idea de que los niños puedan llegar a los premios de la vida eterna aun sin la gracia del bautismo es totalmente necia” (latín perfatum est, cf. Denzinger-Schoenmetzer 219).

El Concilio Ecuménico de Florencia, en su Bula Cantate Domino del 4 de febrero de 1442, insiste enérgicamente en la gran importancia de bautizar a los niños lo antes posible, “por el peligro de muerte, que con frecuencia puede ocurrir, ya que no se les puede suministrar ningun otro remedio excepto el sacramento del bautismo, mediante el cual ellos son arrebatados del dominio del demonio y adoptados entre los hijos de Dios” (DS 1349).

Papa Sixto V, en su Constitucion Effrænatam del 29 de octubre de 1588 contra el aborto, subraya que lo lamentable de este delito no es tan sólo la destrucción de la vida corporal de las pequeñas víctimas no nacidas, sino también “el sacrificio indudable de [sus] almas” (animarum certa iactura), las cuales quedan “exclu[ídas] de la beata visión de Dios” (a beata Dei visione exclusit), justamente por haber muerto así sin bautismo. (Cf. P. Gasparri [ed.], Codex Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol. I, p. 308.)

En el 1794, el Sumo Pontífice Pio VI condena como “falsa y temeraria” la opinión de algunos que “califica[n] de fábula pelagiana aquel lugar, . . . [adonde van] las almas de los que mueren con la sola culpa del pecado original, que los fieles suelen llamar el limbo de los niños” (DS 2626). Bueno, ¿no es eso más o menos lo que están haciendo hoy la ‘ilustrada’ mayoría de nuestros teólogos? Ellos están rechazando el limbo, calificándolo, en efecto, de ‘fábula’, es decir, mito, leyenda, cuento – cosa que en realidad no existe.

Quizás alguien me dirá que el mismo Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica ya ha descartado el limbo. Pero eso sería una exageración. Más exactamente, el Catecismo refleja el hecho de que ya, en las décadas recientes, nuevas preguntas han surgido sobre el tema, con mucha discusión teológica por y contra la realidad del limbo. Por lo tanto, este reciente compendio autoritativo de doctrina católica, reconociendo que el mismo liderato de la Iglesia ya no está muy seguro sobre el verdadero destino de aquellos niños no bautizados, ha optado por dejar abierta esta cuestión, por lo menos temporalmente. En otras palabras, la Iglesia permite que la discusión pueda continuar, por el momento, entre los que creen, y no creen, en la existencia del limbo. La afirmación básica del Catecismo sobre tales niños es que “La Iglesia sólo puede confiarlos a la misericordia divina, como hace en el rito de las exequias por ellos” (art. 1261). Afirmación esencialmente ‘agnóstica’ sobre su destino eterno ¡y ciertamente muy lejos de una garantía de que todos van para el Cielo! Pues aunque esos niños vayan al limbo, eso también manifestará “la misericordia divina,” dado que en ese caso ellos disfrutarán una felicidad eterna (aunque natural, no sobrenatural), incluyendo la resurrección de sus cuerpos –ya adultos– a la inmortalidad en el día final, cuando Dios “destruirá a la muerte para siempre” y “enjugará toda lágrima de los ojos” (cf. Isaías 25, 8; Apoc. 21, 4).

Efectivamente, al examinar aquel “rito de las exequias”, lo encontramos muy reservado, sin la más mínima sugerencia de que esos niños muertos sin bautismo posiblemente puedan llegar a la gloria celestial. No hay oración alguna por su salvación (sólo por la consolación de sus familiares en luto). Y estoy hablando de la nueva edición oficial del Misal, publicada por el Vaticano en 2002 (diez años después del Catecismo), en la cual no se ha cambiado en nada el rito original de Pablo VI (Misal de 1969). De hecho, este rito desalienta toda clase de esperanza excesiva por la salvación de aquellos niños de parte de sus familiares. Pues, una rúbrica oficial recuerda al sacerdote o diácono que presida las exequias: “En la catequesis, es importante la vigilancia para que la doctrina sobre la necesidad del bautismo no se oscurezca en la mente de los fieles”. (“In catechesi autem advigilandum est, ne doctrina de necessitate baptismi in mentibus fidelium obscuretur”: Missale Romanum, 3era. editio typica, Ciudad del Vaticano: 2002, p. 1197.) Este testimonio de la sagrada liturgia es muy importante. Todo sacerdote y teólogo conoce bien el refrán, lex orandi, lex credendi (“El culto [oficial de la Iglesia] expresa confiablemente su fe”).

Un poquito más arriba en el Catecismo, en el art. 1257, se ha reafirmado, coerentemente con el 1261, que “La Iglesia no conoce otro medio que el Bautismo para asegurar la entrada en la bienaventuranza eterna” (énfasis mío). ¡Palabras que deben ser grabadas en la mente de los padres católicos para cuando nacen sus hijos! Además, debemos señalar aquí un error en la traducción oficial del Catecismo al español. Leemos también en art. 1261 que ciertos argumentos bíblicos “nos permiten confiar en que haya un camino de salvación para los niños que mueren sin bautismo” (énfasis mío). Esta es una exageración, pues el original del 1992 en francés emplea el verbo espoir, no confier. Y la versión definitiva en latín del 1997 también usa el verbo sperare: esperar. Este verbo, claro, es más cauteloso que confiar. Según el Diccionario de la Real Academia Española, este último significa “esperar con firmeza y seguridad”. Por lo tanto, la verdadera enseñanza del Catecismo es simplemente que se puede esperar – ¡pero no dice con ‘firmeza’ ni ‘seguridad’! – que haya tal ‘camino de salvación’ para aquellos niños.

En mi humilde opinión, estamos en una situación semejante a la de los años 1966-1968, cuando una gran mayoría de los teólogos, y hasta algunos obispos y cardenales, esparaban con mucha “firmeza y seguridad” (¡y algunos se atrevían a predicarlo públicamente!) que el Papa Pablo VI iba a avalar la recomendación de una Pontificia Comisión que había estudiado la cuestión del control de natalidad, y así cambiar la bimilenaria doctrina cristiana en contra del uso de prácticas antinaturales. Para sorpresa de casi todos, el Santo Padre no lo hizo, sino, dándole la razón a la pequeña minoría conservadora (¡pero correcta!), insistió nuevamente, mediante su encíclica Humanae vitae, en la sana doctrina tradicional en contra del uso de anticonceptivos. Asimismo, yo me atrevo a predecir que cuando el presente Pontífice, Benedicto XVI, llegue a emitir su juicio (probablemente dentro de uno o dos años) sobre las recomendaciones de la Comisión de teológos que le están instando a ‘abolir’ el limbo, el Santo Padre sorprenderá grandemente a todos, negándose a hacerlo.

Si algún lector tiene interés en un artículo mío más extenso sobre este tema, lo puede encontrar en la sección “articles” del sitio www.SeattleCatholic.com. Su título es “Could Limbo be ‘Abolished’?

Garrigou's De Revelatione: Is it about Apologetics or about Revelation?


Share/Bookmark You have a high regard for De Revelatione … what exactly is it about and why do you prize it so? It seems (in spite of its name) it is about apologetics. I gather this from a reference in the Monster of Thomism where the author asserts that a book by J. Walshe was largely a translation of De Revelatione. When I got that book I found it was all about apologetics so I guess it is about reason reflecting on revelation?

This work is not “apologetics” in our sense of the word. The best way to look at it is as Garrigou’s introduction to his commentaries to the Summa and—since the Summa, for him, represents the true order and methodology of theology—to theology itself.

The first hundred or so pages of the first volume consist in very fundamental issues. First, he gives a very thorough introduction to theology in general (the best I’ve ever seen, in fact), where he deals with the definition, division, object and methodology of Sacred Theology. Then he discusses the notion, methodology and division of fundamental theology, that is, the “branch” of theology that deals with the fundamentals of revelation: e.g., what is revelation, to what extent it can be defended, what are the sources of revelation, what is Scripture, what is Tradition, what is the Church, what is the extent of the authority of the Church, etc.

Then he begins “Apologetics” proper; but he does not conceive apologetics in the contemporary sense—that is, as an ultimately practical endeavor that consists in utilizing all means available (rhetoric if need be) to persuade non-Catholics of the truth of the Faith and bringing them to the Catholic Church. For Garrigou, on the other hand, “Apologetics” is a scientific (properly theological) task. Just as the job of any supreme science is partially to defend its principles against its opponents (e.g., Metaphysics defends the possibility for true intellectual knowledge of reality), so Theology must have some function that consists in defending its principles. So Garrigou’s primary goal in De Revelatione is to demonstrate, in a scientific way, the possibility and existence of revelation against its opponents, namely, rationalism, naturalism, pantheistic evolutionism, agnosticism, and especially modernism. This is why it is called “apologetics”: because he is defending the faith. But his is a thoroughly scientific/scholastic defense of the most fundamental theological subjects (all of which would fall outside of the scope of most works by popular apologists): the nature, possibility, existence, modes, necessity and credibility of revelation, the nature and development of dogma, the notion of mystery and its relationship to the intellect, the supernatural and its relationship to nature, the act of faith, etc.


Why I am so interested in De Revelatione? Because it is such a thorough exposition and defense of the fundamentals of the faith. I see it as the key to solving most of the problems in modern-day theology. Almost all the disputed issues that I ever deal with truly boil down the question of revelation. For example, the issue of Limbo boils down to what are the sources of revelation and what authority they have. If the consensus of the Church Fathers and the theologians is truly authoritative, then it is undisputable that the souls of infants who die without baptism cannot attain eternal salvation. Another issue is that of sedevacantism (the idea that Popes since John XXIII are not really popes, but anti-popes because they have taught heresy) can be solved given a proper understanding of the theological notes—that is, that there are different levels of Catholic doctrine and, even if some popes have taught questionable doctrines in the last few decades, nevertheless they are not heretics. And the list of issues is endless: the morality of contraception can be solved if we realize that the teaching of previous popes is biding, even though it is not de fide; the issue of ordination of women can easily be cast aside if we become aware of the fact that universal Church discipline is an infallible “organ” of tradition; and so on. And many of these fundamental issues and their philosophical underpinnings are dealt with in De Revelatione.

Friday, May 12, 2006

De Erroribus Novi Catechismi--Primae parti objectiones et responsa


Share/Bookmark

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.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Disputed Question on Limbo--Positive Exposition.


Share/Bookmark

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)

Item: “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.

Sunday, May 07, 2006

De Erroribus Novi Catechismi--Prima pars.


Share/Bookmark 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.

Saturday, May 06, 2006

Can Non-Thomists be Good Catholics?


Share/Bookmark 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?

-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...


Share/Bookmark
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!