Garrigou's Summary of Aristotelian Politics

Garrigou's Summary of Aristotelian Politics

From Garrigou-Lagrange, Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought, Ch. 1: Philosophical Writings.

The Politica

St. Thomas commented the first two books, and the first six chapters of the third book [of Aristotle's Politica]. What follows in the printed commentary comes from Peter of Auvergne. [75].

We note at once how Aristotle differs from Plato. Plato, constructing a priori his ideal Republic, conceives the state as a being whose elements are the citizens and whose organs are the classes. To eliminate egoism, Plato suppresses family and property. Aristotle on the contrary, based on observation and experience, starts from the study of the family, the first human community. The father, who rules the family, must deal, in one fashion with his wife, in another with his children, in still another with his slaves. He remarks that affection is possible only between determinate individuals. Hence, if the family were destroyed there would be no one to take care of children, who, since they would belong to everybody, would belong to nobody, just as, where property is held in common, everyone finds that he himself works too much and others too little.
Aristotle, presupposing that private ownership is a right, finds legitimate titles to property in traditional occupation, in conquest, in labor. He also holds that man is by his nature destined to live in society, since he has need of his fellow men for defense, for full use of exterior goods, for acquiring even elementary knowledge. Language itself shows that man is destined for society. Hence families unite to form the political unity of the city, which has for its purpose a good common to all, a good that is not merely useful and pleasurable, but is in itself good, since it is a good characteristic of rational beings, a good based on justice and equity, virtues that are indispensable in social life.

These are the principal ideas proposed by Aristotle in the first books of the Politica, and deeply expounded by St. Thomas. In the Summa [76] he modifies Aristotle's view of slavery. Still, he says, the man who cannot provide for himself should work for, and be directed by, one wiser than himself.

In the second book of the Politica we study the constitutions of the various Greek states. Thomas accepts Aristotle's inductive bases, and will employ them in his work De regimine principum. [77] In the nature of man he finds the origin and the necessity of a social authority, represented in varying degree by the father in the family, by the leader in the community, by the sovereign in the kingdom.

He distinguishes, further, good government from bad. Good government has three forms: monarchical, where one alone rules, aristocratic, where several rule, democratic, where the rule is by representatives elected by the multitude. But each of these forms may degenerate: monarchy into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy, democracy into mob-rule The best form of government he finds in monarchy, but, to exclude tyranny, he commends a mixed constitution, which provides, at the monarch's side, aristocratic and democratic elements in the administration of public affairs. [78] Yet, he adds, if monarchy in fact degenerates into tyranny, the tyranny, to avoid greater evils, should be patiently tolerated. If, however, tyranny becomes unbearable, the people may intervene, particularly in an elective monarchy. It is wrong to kill the tyrant. [79] He must be left to the judgment of God, who, with infinite wisdom, rewards or punishes all rulers of men.

On the evils of election by a degenerate people, where demagogues obtain the suffrages, he remarks, citing St. Augustine, that the elective power should, if it be possible, be taken from the multitude and restored to those who are good. St. Augustine's words run thus: "If a people gradually becomes depraved, if it sells its votes, if it hands over the government to wicked and criminal men, then that power of conferring honors is rightly taken from such a people and restored to those few who are good." [80].

Notes:

75. Cf. Msgr. Grabmann, Phil. Jahrbuch, 1915 pp. 373-78.

76. IIae, q. 94, a. 5, ad 3; IIa IIae, q. 10, a. 10; q. 104, a. 5.

77. See the first chapter of that work.

78. See the Summa, Ia IIae, q. 105, a. 1.

79. De regimine principum I, 6.

80. Si paulatim idem populus depravatus habeat venale suffragium, et regimen flagitiosis, sceleratisque committat, recte adimitur populo talis potestas dandi honores, et ad paucorum bonorum redit arbitrium.

Tanquerey on the Object of the Magisterium

Tanquerey on the Object of the Magisterium

From Adolphe Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, transl. by Rev. Msgr. John J. Byrnes, Desclee, New York, 1959, pp. 144-147. (All emphasis in the original.)

Tract IV, The Constitution of the Catholic Church.

CHAPTER II, THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH ARTICLE I THE OBJECT OF THE POWER OR AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.

I. THE OBJECT OF THE DOCTRINAL MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH [1].

249 State of the Question: This magisterium comprises all the rights which are necessary for teaching revelation and for guarding and defending the deposit of faith: for example, the power of defining infallibly, of setting up schools, of prohibiting certain books [2].

250 Thesis: The direct object of the infallibility of the Church includes all the religious truths and each individual truth which are formally contained in the sources of revelation; the indirect object embraces all those things which are required in order that the deposit of faith may be preserved entire. The first part of this thesis is de fide; the second part is certain.

251, 1. Explanation and proof of thesis. The Church was given infallibility for the purpose of protecting Christ’s teaching. And the object of this infallibility is either direct or indirect (Refer to thesis.)

a. It is a matter of faith that the Church is infallible in defining revealed truths (section 199). It is certain that it is infallible also in regard to truths that are closely joined to revealed truths. Otherwise the prerogative of infallibility would be purposeless and ineffectual since the Church would not be able to preserve, to defend, and to set forth the deposit of faith.

b. There is a vast distinction between the direct object of infallibility and the indirect object: if a truth formally revealed is defined by an infallible authority, it is the object of divine and of Catholic faith because this truth is believed on the authority of God Who is revealing. When infallible power is exercised in respect to truths connected with revelation, truths of this kind are the object of ecclesiastical faith only.

252, 2. The direct object of infallibility. This object is to define what has been revealed, to decide on the words of the definition, to establish the canon of Scripture, to condemn heresy, etc.

253, 3. The indirect object of infallibility. This comprises all that is intimately united with what has been revealed.

The Church is infallible:

a. In regard to truths of the natural order connected with dogma, which are necessary for protecting the deposit of faith; for example, the existence of God. [3]

b. The Church is infallible in regard to theological conclusions. (This is certain.) A theological conclusion is one which is certainly and manifestly deduced from two premises, one of which is formally revealed and the other is known naturally. It is necessary that the Church be infallible in regard to these theological conclusions in order to preserve the deposit of faith. If false theological conclusions are propagated, dogma is endangered because of the logical connection which the mind naturally perceives between the principles and the conclusions deduced from these principles. Whether theological conclusions are the object of divine faith we shall consider later in section 326.

254 c. The Church is infallible when it condemns a certain proposition with some doctrinal censure. A doctrinal censure is “a qualification or restriction which indicates that a proposition is opposed, in some way, to faith or morals”. It is de fide that the Church is infallible when she specifies that a doctrine is heretical; it is certain that the Church is infallible when she states that a doctrine approaches heresy, or that a doctrine errs in a matter of faith, or that it is false. All this is apparent from the consensus of theologians, and from the practice of the Church since its earliest days. The Church always made judgments against false propositions and also imposed upon the faithful the obligation of adhering to these judgments. Many assert that in all doctrinal censures the Church is infallible.[4]

255 d. The Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts. A dogmatic fact is one which is so much connected with a doctrine of the Church that knowledge of it is necessary in order to understand the doctrine and to preserve it safely.

Dogmatic facts can be threefold: historical, doctrinal and hagiographical. Thus, dogmatic facts are the legitimacy of the Holy Pontiff, the ecumenical (universal) nature of a Council.

That the Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts is certain. For if the Church could make a mistake concerning the authority of the Holy Pontiff or of a Council, then there would always be grounds for doubting whether their decisions were infallible and accordingly for rejecting these decisions. So, too, for the question of whether a certain book contains orthodox teaching or heretical doctrine. Theologians commonly teach that the Church can infallibly determine what sense or meaning the words of a book convey once the context has been considered [5]; also whether this sense is orthodox or not. Otherwise, the Church would not be able to prevent heretics from spreading their errors and from avoiding condemnation. The heretics could say that the meaning of the book has not been correctly understood. Thus Clement XI declared "the sense (or meaning) conveyed by the five afore-said propositions of Jansenius’ book is condemned; this sense, as is evident, must be rejected and censured as heretical by all Christ’s faithful not only by word of mouth but also in the heart." [6]

256 e. The Church is infallible in regard to moral precepts since general laws for the universal Church cannot be in opposition to the natural or positive divine law, for the Church has received the obligation of leading souls to salvation. Therefore, it can enjoin nothing which has not been approved by God.

f. For a similar reason the Church is infallible in the matter of giving definitive approbation to a religious Order.

g. The Church is infallible in regard to canonization of saints, but not to beatification. This opinion is true and common: truly the Church cannot make a mistake in matters which concern a profession of faith and morals, when she is making known a definitive judgment and is imposing a precept on the faithful.

Notes:

1. Major Synopsis, n. 818-826.

2. Code of Canon Law, can. 1322-1408.

3. Syllabus, prop. II D.B., 1711; Vatican Council, D.B., 1798.

4. QUILLIET, a. Censures doctrinales, in Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique.

5. When propositions are condemned according to the meaning intended by the author, the condemnation results not from the subjective meaning which the author probably had in mind, but from the natural and obvious sense or meaning, as it is taken from the book itself after everything has been duly considered.

6. Denzinger, 1350.

Early Condemnation of Religious Liberty

Early Condemnation of Religious Liberty

Brief of Pope Pius VII to Mgr. De Boulogne Bishop Of Troyes

(29 April 1814)

"For how can We tolerate with equanimity that the Catholic religion ... this most holy religion, We say, should not only not be declared to be the only one in the whole of France supported by the bulwark of the laws and by the authority of the Government, but should even, in the very restoration of the monarchy, be entirely passed over? But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me."

(Source.)

Tanquerey on the Consensus of Theologians

Tanquerey on the Consensus of Theologians

From Adolphe Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae Fundamentalis, 24th ed. (1937) pp. 748-51:

(Click on images to enlarge.)

There is, in a sense, a Philosophy of the Church...

There is, in a sense, a Philosophy of the Church...

Garrigou-Lagrange, Le sens commun (4th ed., 1936), pp. 394-7:

§6. Il y a en un sens une philosophie de l’Eglise.

Le Christianisme est une vie plus particulièrement vécue par ceux dont l’âme est plus pure et plus détachée du monde ; mais la racine de la vivante volonté qui se porte vers le bien est l’intelligence qui connaît et juge ce bien ; pour être une vie, le Christianisme doit être une doctrine. Cette doctrine est plus explicitement connue par ceux dont l’esprit est plus pénétrant et plus cultivé. Exprimée d’abord en termes de sens commun, elle s’explicite, se précise peu à peu en des formules dogmatiques qui montrent plus clairement les rapports des dogmes entre eux et avec les grandes vérités de l’ordre naturel. Par là se constitue ce qu’on peut appeler en un sens la philosophie de l’Eglise, ou la philosophie chrétienne ; élaboration du sens commun dans la lumière de la foi, cette philosophie n’est pas un système proprement dit, elle n’en a pas moins sa solution sur les principaux problèmes philosophiques, sur la connaissance sensible et intellectuelle, sur Dieu, sur l’âme humaine, sur la substance corporelle. - Pour l’Eglise, la connaissance sensible a une valeur objective : les accidents eucharistiques sont réels et existent même lorsqu’ils ne sont pas objets actuels de sensation dans un tabernacle fermé ; négation du esse est percipi (111). La connaissance intellectuelle qui seule atteint directement la substance au delà des données des sens est aussi objective, la substance existe réellement distincte des accidents sensibles, celle du pain a été convertie en celle du corps du Christ. - Cette connaissance intellectuelle naturelle nous permet d’affirmer avec certitude l’existence de Dieu (Conc. Vatic.). - Ce Dieu est essentiellement distinct du monde, absolument simple, immuable, éternel, infiniment parfait, omniscient, souverainement bon, absolument libre, provident, juste et miséricordieux. Il a créé librement de rien, dans le temps (112), des substances spirituelles, des substances corporelles et l’homme composé d’esprit et de corps. Il peut agir en dehors de l’ordre des lois naturelles qu’Il a établies. – Dans l’homme l’âme raisonnable est aussi principe de vie sensitive et végétative. Cette âme est spécialement créée par Dieu, et non pas engendrée par les parents. Elle est immortelle, elle reprendra son corps après avoir été séparée de lui. Elle sera éternellement récompensée ou punie. Elle est libre, la liberté nécessaire, pour mériter n’est pas seulement spontanéité (Denz., 1904). Il y a une personnalité ontologique racine de la conscience de soi et de la liberté. - Telles sont les principales assertions de la philosophie chrétienne, elles proviennent en grande partie de la précision du donné révélé.

Le dogme, en évoluant, condamne des systèmes. Faut-il se plaindre que l’erreur soit jugée ce qu’elle est et que le domaine éclairé par la lumière divine grandisse ? Mgr Duchesne a très bien exprimé cette vérité en comparant le développement du dogme catholique au voyage d’un navire parti sur lest et qui se charge peu à peu de marchandises. « La ligne de flottaison s’élève le long de la coque ; autrement dit, il s’enfonce dans la mer. Telle déchirure qui d’abord n’eût pas atteint les œuvres vives les atteindrait maintenant que le niveau s’est élevé, et le navire serait mis en danger par une avarie qui au commencement du voyage eût été sans conséquence… Dans son long voyage, le vaisseau de la tradition a pris une possession plus ample de l’océan ; la surface immergée est devenue plus large qu’à l’origine, bien que ce soit toujours la même doctrine, le même navire. Au second, au troisième siècle on pouvait impunément l’atteindre à certains endroits qui maintenant sont sous les eaux et doivent être respectés sous peine de tout compromettre (113)» C’est pourquoi nous ne devons pas nous étonner de lire dans l’Encyclique Pascendi, après la condamnation de l’agnosticisme, de l’immanentisme et de l’évolutionnisme : « Magistros autem monemus ut rite hoc teneant, Aquinatem deserere, praesertim in re metaphysica, non sine magno detrimento esse. » De même qu’il y a « une métaphysique naturelle de l’intelligence humaine (114)», il y a, au sens où nous l’avons dit, une philosophie de l’Eglise.

Notes:

111. Cf. chez les théologiens, par exemple BILLUART, t. IX, p. 79, la réfutation de l’opinion cartésienne d’après laquelle les accidents eucharistiques ne sont que des impressions subjectives produites par Dieu dans nos sens.

112. Cf. DENZINGER, n° 501-503, la condamnation des propositions d’Eckard où est affirmée la création ab aeterno. Voir aussi n° 391, 428, 1783.

113. Mgr DUCHESNE, Les Témoins anténicéens du dogme de la Trinité (Revue des sciences eccl., V°série, t. VI, déc. 1882).

114. BERGSON, Evolution créatrice, p. 352.

In Festo Sanctissimi Corporis Christi

In Festo Sanctissimi Corporis Christi

Sermo sancti Thomæ Aquinátis (ex II Nocturno)

The Lesson is taken from a Sermon by St. Thomas Aquinas

Opusc. 57: Imménsa divínæ largitátis benefícia, exhíbita pópulo christiáno, inæstimábilem ei cónferunt dignitátem. Neque enim est, aut fuit aliquándo tam grandis nátio, quæ hábeat deos appropinquántes sibi, sicut adest nobis Deus noster. Unigénitus síquidem Dei Fílius, suæ divinitátis volens nos esse partícipes, natúram nostram assúmpsit, ut hómines deos fáceret factus homo. Et hoc ínsuper, quod de nostro assúmpsit, totum nobis cóntulit ad salútem. Corpus namque suum pro nostra reconcilatióne in ara crucis hóstiam óbtulit Deo Patri, sánguinem suum fudit in prétium simul et lavácrum ; ut redémpti a miserábili servitúte, a peccátis ómnibus mundarémur. Ut autem tanti benefícii jugis in nobis manéret memória, corpus suum in cibum, et sánguinem suum in potum, sub spécie panis et vini suméndum fidélibus derelíquit.

Among the immeasurable benefits, which the goodness of God hath bestowed on the Christian people, is a dignity beyond all price. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is unto us? The only-begotten Son of God was pleased to make us partakers of his divine nature ; that is, he took our nature upon him, being himself made man that he might, as it were, make men into gods. And this body, which he took from us, he gave wholly unto our salvation. For, on the Altar of the Cross, he offered up his body to God the Father, as a sacrifice for our reconciliation, and thereon he shed his own blood for our redemption ; that is, his blood is the price whereby he redeemeth us from wretchedness and bondage, and the washing whereby he cleanseth us from all sin. And for a noble and abiding Memórial of this his so great work of goodness, he hath left unto his faithful ones the same his very Body for Meat, and the same his very Blood for Drink, with which we are fed under the forms of Bread and Wine.

O pretiósum et admirándum convívium, salutíferum et omni suavitáte replétum ! Quid enim hoc convívio pretiósius esse potest? in quo non carnes vitulórum et hircórum, ut olim in lege, sed nobis Christus suméndus propónitur verus Deus. Quid hoc Sacraménto mirabílius? In ipso namque panis et vinum in Christi corpus et sánguinem substantiáliter convertúntur ; ideóque Christus, Deus et homo perféctus, sub módici panis et vini spécie continétur. Manducátur ítaque a fidélibus, sed mínime lacerátur ; quinímmo, divíso Sacraménto, sub quálibet divisiónis partícula ínteger persevérat. Accidéntia autem sine subjécto in eódem subsístunt, ut fides locum hábeat, dum visíbile invisibíliter súmitur aliéna spécie occultátum ; et sensus a deceptióne reddántur immúnes, qui de accidéntibus júdicant sibi notis.

O how precious a thing then, how marvellous, how health-giving, yielding royal dainties, is the Supper of the Lord. Than this Supper can anything be more precious? Therein there is put before us for meat, not as of old time, the flesh of bulls and of goats, but Christ himself, our very God. Than this Sacrament can anything be more marvellous? Therein it is that Bread and Wine become unto us the very Body and and Blood of Christ ; that is to say, perfect God and perfect Man, Christ himself, is there under the veils of a little bread and wine. His faithful ones eat him, but he is not mangled ; nay, when the veil which shroudeth him in the Sacrament is broken, in each broken fragment thereof remaineth the whole Christ himself, perfect God and perfect Man. All that the senses can reach in this Sacrament, all these abide of bread and wine, but the Thing is not bread and wine. And thus room is left for faith. For Christ, who hath a Form that can be seen, is herein taken and received not only unseen, but seeming to be bread and wine, and the senses, which judge by the wonted look, are warranted against error.

Nullum étiam sacraméntum est isto salúbrius, quo purgántur peccáta, virtútes augéntur, et mens ómnium spirituálium charísmatum abundántia impinguátur. Offértur in Ecclésia pro vivis et mórtuis, ut ómnibus prosit, quod est pro salúte ómnium institútum. Suavitátem dénique hujus Sacraménti nullus exprímere súfficit, per quod spirituális dulcédo in suo fonte gustátur ; et recólitur memória illíus, quam in sua passióne Christus monstrávit, excellentíssimæ caritátis. Unde, ut árctius hujus caritátis imménsitas fidélium córdibus infigerétur, in última cœna, quando Pascha cum discípulis celebráto, transitúrus erat de hoc mundo ad Patrem, hoc Sacraméntum instítuit, tamquam passiónis suæ memoriále perénne, figurárum véterum impletívum, miraculórum ab ipso factórum máximum ; et de sua contristátis abséntia solátium singuláre relíquit.

Than this Sacrament can anything be more health-giving? Thereby are sins purged away, strength is renewed, and the soul fed upon the fatness of spiritual gifts. This Supper is offered up in the Church, both for the quick and the dead ; it was ordained to the health of all, all get the good of it. Than this Sacrament can anything yield more of royal dainties? The glorious sweetness thereof is of a truth such that no man can fully tell it. Therein ghostly comfort is sucked from its very well-head. Therein a Memorial is made of that exceeding great love which Christ shewed in time of his sufferings. It was in order that the boundless goodness of that his great love might be driven home into the hearts of his faithful ones, that when he had celebrated the Passover with his disciples, and the Last Supper was ended, then, knowing that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end, and instituted this Sacrament. For this Sacrament is the everlasting forth-shewing of his death until he come again ; this Sacrament is the embodied fulfilment of all the ancient types and figures ; this Sacrament is is the greatest wonder which ever he wrought, and the one mighty joy of them that now have sorrow, till he shall come again ; and thereby their heart shall rejoice, and their joy no man take from them.

Garrigou-Lagrange on the 'Theology' of Heretics

Garrigou-Lagrange on the 'Theology' of Heretics

From On Revelation, V. I, pp. 16-17:

C. Whether Sacred Theology is a supernatural habit. [...]

a) Sacred Theology is not an entitatively or intrinsically supernatural habit, for "it is acquired through human effort," as St. Thomas says in ST II-II.45.1 ad 2 and I.1.6 ad 3; it differs thus from the gift of Wisdom, which is given by the Holy Ghost through infusion. No entitatively and intrinsically supernatural habit is acquired through human effort, through the exercise of reason; rather, it demands per se a supernatural cause.

b) Sacred Theology is nonetheless a radically and originatively supernatural habit, because it deals with conclusions that are to be deduced from the principles of the Faith, and depends per se on the supernatural habit of Faith, in which it is contained as in its root. Hence, the 'theology' of heretics is not true Theology and is different in species from Catholic Theology, because these do not have the same formal motive, namely, virtual revelation.

The formal heretic does not deduce conclusions from principles believed by Divine Faith, for, insofar as he pertinaciously rejects the authority of God and of the Church regarding one article, he does not conserve Divine Faith regarding the other articles, but only human faith or opinion based on his own judgment and will (ST II-II.5.3). Therefore, the Faith being absent, Sacred Theology is necessarily destroyed; certain theological concepts remain materially coordinated in the heretical theologian, but without the light of Faith from which their formal connection proceeds--just as, when the soul has left [the body], the parts of the human body remain materially ordered for a certain time in the corpse, but it is no longer a human body, [for] the substantial form is lacking. Therefore, in formal heretics there can only be the corpse of Sacred Theology, or better a sophistical dialectic that mixes itself with divine things; for, the exterior authority of God and of the Church having been rejected, and the interior light of Faith having been abandoned, heretics lack the rule and cognitive principle for making judgments regarding the things of the Faith, and therefore, they often confuse the supernatural with the natural and, thus, frequently err.* Nor is it surprising, then, that they say that theology is not a science, but a collection of opinions, for truly their own theology is nothing other than that.

*Even if the formal heretic can sometimes attain to true theological conclusions, and to write about them without error, nevertheless he only knows those conclusions materially, not in the same way as the Catholic theologian. For in a theological conclusion, the formal link between subject and predicate depends on the light of the Revelation as it is proposed by the Church and on the interior light of Faith; but the formal heretic abandons the light of Faith, and believes only the dogmas that are pleasing to him according to his own judgment and will.

(Trans. Francisco Romero-Carrasquillo)

Ex De Revelatione, T. I, pp. 16-17:

C. An S. Theologia sit habitus supernaturalis. [...]

a) Sacra Theologia non est habitus entitative seu intrinsice supernaturalis, nam "acquiritur studio humano," ut dicit S. Thomas II.a II.ae q. 45, a. 1, ad 2 et I.a q. 1, a. 6, ad 3, sic differt a dono Sapientiae, quod datur a Spiritu Sancto per infusionem. Nullus autem habitus entitative et intrinsice supernaturalis acquiritur studio humano, per exercitum rationis, sed per se petit causam supernaturalem.

b) Sacra Theologia tamen est habitus radicaliter et originative supernaturalis, quia versatur circa conclusiones deducendas ex principiis fidei, et per se dependet ab habitu supernaturali fidei, in quo tanquam in radice continetur. Unde theologia haereticorum non est vera Theologia et specie distinguitur a Theologia catholica, quia non habet idem motivum formale, scilicet revealationem virtualem.

Haereticus enim formalis non deducit conclusiones ex principiis fide divina creditis, nam dum reiicit pertinaticter auctoritatem Dei et Ecclesiae circa unum articulum, non conservat fidem divinam de aliis articulis, sed solum fidem humanam seu opinionem ex proprio iudicio et propria voluntate (II.a II.ae q. 5, a. 3). Proinde pereunte fide, Sacram Theologiam destrui necesse est; remanent quidem in theologo haeretico conceptus theologici materialiter coordinati sed sine lumine fidei ex quo procedit eorum formalis connexio, sicut recedente anima remanent certo tempore in cadavere partes corporis humani materialiter ordinatae, sed non est amplius corpus humanum, deest forma substantialis. Non potest igitur esse in haereticis formalibus nisi cadaver Sacrae Theologiae, seu melius dialectica sophistica rebus divinis sese immiscens; nam, reiecta externa auctoritate Dei et Ecclesiae, et amisso interno lumine fidei, haeretici carent regula et principio cognoscitivo ad recte iudicandum de rebus fidei, ideoque saepe confundunt supernaturalia cum naturalibus, et frequenter errant.* Nec proinde mirum est quod dicant theologiam non esse scientiam, sed collectionem opinionum, nam revera nihil aliud est eorum theologia.

*Etsi haereticus formalis possit pervenire quandoque ad veras conclusiones theologicas, et de eis sine errore scribere; attamen non cognoscit conclusiones nisi materialiter, non eodem modo ac theologus catholicus. In conclusione enim theologica nexus formalis inter subiectum et praedicatum pendet a lumine revelationis ab Ecclesia propositae et a lumine interno fidei. Haereticus autem formalis amisit lumen fidei, et credit solum dogmata quae sibi placent ex proprio iudicio et propria voluntate.

Dominica in festo Sanctissimae Trinitatis

Dominica in festo Sanctissimae Trinitatis

Introitus (mp3/part.)

Benedicta sit sancta Trinitas atque indivisa Unitas: confitebimur ei,quia fecit nobiscum misericordiam suam. Ps. 8, 2 Domine Dominus noster, quam admirabile est nomen tuum in universa terra! V. Gloria Patri.

Oratio

Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui dedisti famulis tuis, in confessione verse fidei, aeternae Trinitatis gloriam agnoscere, et in potentia maiestatis adorare Unitatem: quaesumus; ut, eiusdem fidei firmitate, ab omnibus semper muniamur adversis. Per Dominum.

Lectio Epistolse beati Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos (Rom. 11, 33-36)

O altitudo divitiarum sapientiae et scientiae Dei: quam incomprehensibilia sunt iudicia eius, et investigabiles viae eius! Quis enim cognovit sensum Domini? Aut quis consiliarius eius fuit? Aut quis prior dedit illi, et retribuitur ei? Quoniam ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia: ipsi gloria in saecula. Amen.

Graduale (mp3/part.)

Benedictus es, Domine, qui intueris abyssos, et sedes super Cherubim. V. Benedictus es, Domine, in firmamento caeli, et laudabilis in saecula.

Alleluia (mp3/part.)

Alleluia, alleluia. V. Ibid., 52 Benedictus es, Domine, Deus patrum nostrorum, et laudabilis in saecula. Alleluia.

Sequentia sancti Evangelii secundum Matthaeum (Mt. 28,18-20)

In illo tempore: Dixit Iesus discipulis suis: Data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in terra. Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti: docentes eos servare omnia quaecumque mandavi vobis. Et ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus, usque ad consummationem saeculi.

Sermo ex libro sancti Fulgéntii Epíscopi, de fide ad Petrum
The Lesson is taken from the Book on the Faith, addressed to Peter by St. Fulgentius (Inter Opera Augustini, tom. 3)

Fides, quam sancti Patriárchæ atque Prophétæ ante incarnatiónem Fílii Dei divínitus accepérunt, quam étiam sancti Apóstoli ab ipso Dómino in carne pósito audiérunt, et Spíritus Sanctus magistério instrúcti non solum sermóne prædicavérunt, verum étiam ad instructiónem salubérrimam posterórum scriptis suis índitam reliquérunt ; unum Deum prædicat Trinitátem, id est, Patrem, et Fílium, et Spíritum Sanctum. Sed Trínitas vera non esset, si una eadémque persóna dicerétur Pater et Fílius et Spíritus Sanctus.

The Faith which the holy Patriarchs and Prophets received from God before his Son was made Flesh, the Faith which the holy Apostles heard from the Lord himself present in the Flesh, the Faith which the same Apostles learnt by the teaching of the Holy Ghost not only to preach by word of mouth, but also to leave behind them in their writings for the healthful instruction of all that should come after, that Faith teacheth that the Trinity, that is to say, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is but one God. But we could not truly call the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost a Trinity, if One and the Selfsame Person were named Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Si enim, sicut est Patris, et Fílii, et Spíritus Sancti una substántia, sic esset una persóna ; nihil omníno esset in quo veráciter Trínitas dicerétur. Rursus quidem Trínitas esset vera, sed unus Deus Trínitas ipsa non esset, si quemádmodum Pater, et Fílius, et Spíritus Sanctus personárum sunt ab ínvicem proprietáte distíncti, sic fuíssent naturárum quoque diversitáte discréti. Sed quia in illo uno vero Deo Trinitáte, non solum quod unus Deus est, sed étiam quod Trínitas est, naturáliter verum est ; proptérea ipse verus Deus in persónis Trínitas est, et in una natúra unus est.

For if as the Being of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is One Being, so were there but One Person, then were it untrue to say that God is a Trinity. On the other hand, if, as the Persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are distinguished One from Another by that which is proper to Each, so were they diverse by difference of nature, then were it untrue to say that God in One. But since concerning the nature of the One True God, who is a Trinity, it is the Truth to say that God is One, and the Truth to say that God is a Trinity, therefore the True God is a Trinity in Persons, and an Unity in nature.

Per hanc unitátem naturálem totus Pater in Fílio et Spíritu Sancto est, totus Fílius in Patre et Spíritu Sancto est, totus quoque Spíritus Sanctus in Patre et Fílio. Nullus horum extra quémlibet ipsórum est : quia nemo álium aut præcédit æternitáte, aut excédit magnitúdine, aut súperat potestáte: quia nec Fílio nec Spíritu Sancto, quantum ad natúræ divínæ unitátem pértinet, aut antérior aut major Pater est ; nec Fílii ætérnitas atque imménsitas, velut antérior aut major, Spíritus Sancti immensitátem æternitatémque aut præcédere aut excédere naturáliter potest.

Through the Oneness of nature all that the Father is is in the Son and the Holy Ghost. All that the Son is is in the Father and the Holy Ghost, and all that the Holy Ghost is is in the Father and the Son. Of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, None is without Other, None is before Other, None is greater than Other, None is mightier than Other. The Father, as touching the One Divine Nature, is neither before nor greater than the Son and the Holy Ghost : neither is it possible that the Eternity and Infinity of the Son, whether as before or greater, should be before or greater than the Eternity and Infinity of the Spirit.

Homilía sancti Gregórii Nazianzéni in Evangelium (ex III Nocturno, lect. vii-viii)
A Homily by St. Gregory Nazianzen

Tractatus de fide, post initium: Quis catholicórum ignórat Patrem vere esse Patrem, Fílium vere esse Fílium, et Spíritum Sanctum vere esse Spíritum Sanctum? sicut ipse Dóminus ad Apóstolos suos dicit : Eúntes baptizáte omnes Gentes in nómine Patris, et Fílii, et Spíritus Sancti. Hæc est perfécta Trínitas in unitáte consístens, quam scílicet uníus substántiæ profitémur. Non enim nos secúndum córporum conditiónem, divisiónem in Deo fácimus ; sed secúndum divínæ natúræ poténtiam, quæ in matéria non est, et nóminum persónas vere constáre crédimus, et unitátem divinitátis esse testámur.

There is no Catholic but knoweth that the Father is a very Father, the Son a very Son, and the Holy Ghost a very Holy Ghost, even as the Lord himself saith unto his Apostles : Go ye and baptize all nations in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This is that perfect Trinity who is but One Being, and of whom therefore we testify that his Substance is One. For we make no division in God, as divísions are made in bodies, but we testify, that, according to the power of the Divine Nature, which standeth not in matter, the Persons named have a real existence, and that God is One.

Nec extensiónem partis alicújus ex parte, ut quidam putavérunt, Dei Fílium dícimus : nec verbum sine re, velut sonum vocis, accípimus : sed tria nómina et tres persónas uníus esse esséntiæ, uníus majestátis atque poténtiæ crédimus. Et ídeo unum Deum confitémur : quia únitas majestátis, plúrium vocábulo deos próhibet appellári. Dénique Patrem et Fílium cathólice nominámus ; duos autem Deos dícere, nec póssumus, nec debémus. Non quod Fílius Dei Deus non sit, immo verus Deus de Deo vero ; sed quia non aliúnde, quam de ipso uno Patre, Dei Fílium nóvimus, perínde unum Deum dícimus. Hoc enim Prophétæ, hoc Apóstoli tradidérunt : hoc ipse Dóminus dócuit, cum dicit : Ego et Pater unum sumus. Unum ad unitátem divinitátis, ut dixi, refert ; Sumus autem, persónis assígnat.

We do not say, as some have dreamt, that the Begetting of the Son of God is an outgrowing from one part to another part : neither do we say that he is the Word in the sense of a mere sound uttered by a voice, but we do believe that these three Names and the Persons meant by them are all of only One Being, One Majesty, and One Power. And therefore we testify that God is One, because this One-ness of his Majesty forbiddeth that we should use the plural form of speech and say Gods. It is Catholic language to say Father and Son, but we cannot and must not say that the Father and the Son are two gods. And that, not because the Son of God is not by himself God, yea, he is Very God of Very God, but because we know that the Son of God is not from elsewhere, but from the One Father himself. Therefore we say that God is One. This is the doctrine which Prophets and Apostles have delivered ; this is the doctrine which the Lord himself taught when he said : I and the Father are One. That is, he meant, as touching the One Divine Being, but as touching Persons, we are distinct.

Homilía sancti Augustíni Epíscopi in Evangelium (ex III Nocturno, lect. ix)
A Homily by St. Augustine the Bishop

Sermo 15 in Evang. Matthæi de verbis Dómini, post initium: Duo sunt ópera misericórdiæ, quæ nos líberant, quæ bréviter ipse Dóminus pósuit in Evangélio : Dimíttite, et dimittétur vobis : date, et dábitur vobis. Dimíttite, et dimittétur vobis, ad ignoscéndum pértinet : Date, et dábitur vobis, ad præstándum benefícium pértinet. Quod ait de ignoscéndo, et tu vis tibi ignósci quod peccas, et habes álium, cui tu possis ignóscere. Rursus, quod pértinet ad tribuéndum benefícium, petit te mendícus, et tu es Dei mendícus. Omnes enim quando orámus, mendíci Dei sumus : ante jánuam magni Patrisfamílias stamus, immo et prostérnimur, súpplices ingemíscimus, áliquid voléntes accípere ; et ipsum áliquid ipse Deus est. Quid a te petit mendícus? Panem. Et tu quid petis a Deo, nisi Christum, qui dicit : Ego sum panis vivus, qui de cælo descéndi? Ignósci vobis vultis? ignóscite : Remíttite, et remittétur vobis. Accípere vultis? date, et dábitur vobis.

There are two works of mercy which free us, and which the Lord himself hath briefly named in the Gospel : Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven : give, and it shall be given unto you. Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven : such is the promise of pardon. Give, and it shall be given unto you : such is the promise of favour. As touching forgiveness ; thou hast trespasses which thou wouldest fain have forgiven, and them which have trespassed against thee, whom thou canst forgive. As touching favour, there are beggars that beg from thee, and thou art a beggar to God. When we pray, we are all beggars to God, standing at the door of the great Householder, yea, falling down on our knees, and beseeching him to give us somewhat ; and that somewhat is God himself. What doth a beggar ask of thee? Bread. And what dost thou ask of God but that Christ who saith : I am the Living Bread which came down from heaven. If ye will be forgiven, forgive ye. If ye will be pardoned, pardon ye. If ye will receive, give, and it shall be given unto you.

Symbolum Quicumque Vult

The Athanasian Creed

Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith.
Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem:

For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever.
Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternam peribit.

This is what the catholic faith teaches: we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity.
Fides autem catholica haec est: ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur.

Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance.
Neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam seperantes.

For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit.
Alia est enim persona Patris alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti:

But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty.
Sed Patris, et Fili, et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coeterna maiestas.

What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is.
Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis Spiritus Sanctus.

The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus Spiritus Sanctus.

The Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and the Holy Spirit is boundless.
Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus Spiritus Sanctus.

The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal.
Aeternus Pater, aeternus Filius, aeternus Spiritus Sanctus.

Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being.
Et tamen non tres aeterni, sed unus aeternus.

So there are not three uncreated beings, nor three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless being.
Sicut non tres increati, nec tres immensi, sed unus increatus, et unus immensus.

Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, the Holy Spirit is omnipotent.
Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens Spiritus Sanctus.

Yet there are not three omnipotent beings, but one omnipotent being.
Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens.

Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus Sanctus.

However, there are not three gods, but one God.
Et tamen non tres dii, sed unus est Deus.

The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Ita Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus Spiritus Sanctus.

However, there as not three lords, but one Lord.
Et tamen non tres Domini, sed unus est Dominus.

For as we are obliged by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person singly to be God and Lord, so too are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords.
Quia, sicut singillatim unamquamque personam Deum ac Dominum confiteri christiana veritate compelimur: ita tres Deos aut Dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur.

The Father was not made, nor created, nor generated by anyone.
Pater a nullo est factus: nec creatus, nec genitus.

The Son is not made, nor created, but begotten by the Father alone.
Filius a Patre solo est: non factus, nec creatus, sed genitus.

The Holy Spirit is not made, nor created, nor generated, but proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens.

There is, then, one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres: unus Filius, non tres Filii: unus Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus Sancti.

In this Trinity, there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less. The entire three Persons are coeternal and coequal with one another.
Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus: sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales.

So that in all things, as is has been said above, the Unity is to be worshipped in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity.
Ita ut per omnia, sicut iam supra dictum est, et unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit.

He, therefore, who wishes to be saved, must believe thus about the Trinity.
Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat.

It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believes steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Sed necessarium est ad aeternam salutem, ut incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Iesu Christi fideliter credat.

Thus the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man.
Est ergo fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Iesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus et homo est.

As God, He was begotten of the substance of the Father before time; as man, He was born in time of the substance of His Mother.
Deus est ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus: et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus.

He is perfect God; and He is perfect man, with a rational soul and human flesh.
Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo: ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens.

He is equal to the Father in His divinity, but inferior to the Father in His humanity.
Aequalis Patri secundum divinitatem: minor Patre secundum humanitatem.

Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ.
Qui licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus.

And He is one, not because His divinity was changed into flesh, but because His humanity was assumed unto God.
Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum.

He is one, not by a mingling of substances, but by unity of person.
Unus omnino, non confusione substantiae, sed unitate personae.

As a rational soul and flesh are one man: so God and man are one Christ.
Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo: ita Deus et homo unus est Christus.

He died for our salvation, descended into hell, and rose from the dead on the third day.
Qui passus est pro salute nostra: descendit ad inferos: tertia die resurrexit a mortuis.

He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
Ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis: inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos.

At His coming, all men are to arise with their own bodies; and they are to give an account of their own deeds.
Ad cuius adventum omnes homines resurgere habent cum corporibus suis: et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem.

Those who have done good deeds will go into eternal life; those who have done evil will go into the everlasting fire.
Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam aeternam: qui vero mala, in ignem aeternum.

This is the Catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved. Amen.
Haec est fides catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit. Amen.

Offertorium (mp3/part.)

Benedictus sit Deus Pater, unigenitusque Dei Filius, Sanctus quoque Spiritus: quia fecit nobiscum misericordiam suam.

Secreta

Sanctifica, quaesumus, Domine Deus O noster, per tui sancti nominis invocationem, huius oblationis hostiam: et per earn nosmetipsos tibi perfice munus seternum. Per Dominum.

Communio (mp3/part.)

Benedicimus Deum caeli, et coram omnibus viventibus confitebimur ei: quia fecit nobiscum misericordiam suam.

Postcommunio

Proficiat nobis ad salutem corporis et animae, Domine Deus noster, huius sacramenti susceptio: et sempiternae sanctae Trinitatis eiusdemque individuae Unitatis confessio. Per Dominum.

P. Santiago 'Jacobus' Ramírez, O.P. (1891-1967)

P. Santiago 'Jacobus' Ramírez, O.P. (1891-1967)

Biografía y Obras

por Juan Antonio Hevia Echevarría
(Fuente: www.filosofia.org)

Filósofo y teólogo español, seguramente el filósofo neotomista más importante del siglo XX. Hijo de labradores, Santiago María Ramírez y Ruiz de Dulanto nació el 25 de julio de 1891 en Samiano, pueblo de la caput castellae, en el condado de Treviño (Burgos). Vive en casa de sus padres hasta 1906, en que su padre encomienda su educación a un amigo maestro. En un año y medio aprende latín. En 1908 entra en el Seminario Mayor de Logroño, donde estudia Filosofía hasta 1911, logrando en todas las asignaturas la calificación de Meritissimus. Tras decidir tomar los hábitos de Santo Domingo, en el verano de 1911 se traslada a Corias (Asturias), donde se encontraban el Noviciado y el Studium de Filosofía que la Orden dominicana regentaba en su provincia de España. Una vez convalidados sus estudios de Humanidades y Filosofía, cursados en el Seminario de Logroño, hace su profesión de dominico y en agosto de 1911 toma el hábito. Realiza estudios superiores en Roma, en la Pontifica Universidad de Santo Tomás, más conocida como Angelicum. Recibe la tonsura el 7 de marzo de 1914, en la Basílica de San Juan de Letrán. Se ordena sacerdote el 16 de julio de 1916 en la iglesia de San Apolinar de Roma y celebra su primera Misa en la capilla de Santo Domingo del convento de Santa Sabina en Roma. Realiza su examen de Lector, equivalente al Doctorado de la Orden, el 27 de junio de 1917, defendiendo una tesis de quidditate Incarnationis. Entre 1917 y 1920 imparte clases de Filosofía en el Angelicum, que incluyen Lógica, Ontología, Cosmología, Psicología e Historia de la Filosofía Moderna. En 1920 sus superiores lo trasladan al convento de San Esteban de Salamanca, donde durante tres años imparte clases de Teología: dos cursos de divina revelatione, un curso de Ecclesia y un curso de Teología Dogmática. En 1923 se traslada por orden de sus superiores a la Universidad de Friburgo, donde profesa Teología moral especulativa hasta 1945, en que vuelve a España para hacerse cargo –de nuevo, por orden del provincial de su orden, el P. José Cuervo– de la dirección del Instituto «Luis Vives» de Filosofía, dependiente del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, tras haber rechazado la cátedra de Metafísica de la Universidad de Madrid. En 1947 cesa de su cargo como director del Instituto de Filosofía «Luis Vives», al ser nombrado Regente de Estudios de la Provincia Dominicana en España. Fruto de su labor es la creación, en 1947, de la Facultad de Teología del convento de San Esteban, así como la elevación, en 1966, del Estudio General de Filosofía de las Caldas de Besaya (Cantabria) a Instituto Superior de Filosofía, equivalente a una Facultad de Filosofía dependiente de la Universidad de Santo Tomás de Roma. En 1949 el P. Ramírez viaja a los Estados Unidos, donde imparte una serie de conferencias en Cincinnati, Ohio, River Forest y Washington. En 1952 interviene en el Congreso Eucarístico de Barcelona y en 1956 en el Congreso Internacional Pax Christi. En 1958, a requerimiento de sus superiores, escribe La filosofía de Ortega y Gasset, que recibirá la crítica de Laín, Aranguren, Marías y Maravall, a los que a su vez el P. Ramírez responde en sendos libros, ¿Un orteguismo católico? (1958) y La zona de seguridad (1959). Interviene en el Concilio Vaticano II como perito experto en la comisión de mayor rango doctrinal del concilio, la Comisión Teológica, en cuyas discusiones participa muy activamente, siendo suya la fórmula definitiva sobre la muy discutida Colegialidad Episcopal. Muere el 18 de diciembre de 1967 en su celda de San Esteban de Salamanca. Sus restos descansan en el Panteón de los Teólogos, junto a los de Vitoria, Soto y demás glorias de la orden de predicadores.

Doctrinalmente el P. Ramírez descuella como tomista acendrado y metafísico de altura, especialmente con su filosofía del orden y de la analogía. Frente a la filosofía existencialista tan en boga en los años 50 y 60, el P. Ramírez defiende los fueros de un esencialismo y de una realidad ordenada a partir de los principios del ser genérico. Su concepción ontológica de la realidad descansa sobre el concepto clave de orden, como producto del juicio de la razón basado en una consideración analógica del ser. La Filosofía podría incluso reducirse a la idea de orden. En su obra De ordine, el P. Ramírez nos presenta como objeto propio de la Metafísica el ser real en cuanto esencia común a los diez predicamentos. Además, el orden debe entenderse de manera analógica, como relación de cosas distintas y desiguales, pero coincidentes de algún modo en algo único y fundamental, ya sea en términos de anterioridad o posterioridad, ya sea en términos de más o menos. Termina el P. Ramírez asimilando el orden a un modo de analogía, a saber, la analogía de atribución intrínseca, que sería el primer analogado dentro del conjunto de los distintos modos de analogía. El orden también representaría la esencia del tomismo y Santo Tomás sería doctor ordinis. Por otra parte, el P. Ramírez defiende una doctrina antropológica según la cual la persona humana no puede reducirse a su esencia o naturaleza, porque el yo añade algo a éstas. El constitutivo formal de la persona sería algo positivo, distinto de la naturaleza individual y de la existencia en acto; sería su término substancial y el sujeto inmediato y propio del acto de existir.

En 1935 el P. Ramírez mantuvo una polémica con Jacques Maritain sobre el valor de la filosofía moral. Según el francés, no puede haber una ética natural o filosófica independiente de la Teología; el P. Ramírez criticó esta actitud fideísta, saliendo en defensa de una verdadera filosofía moral y autónoma frente a la Teología moral de Maritain. Durante estos años publica tres tomos de su De hominis beatitudine y comienza a perfilar su idea de Bien Común como base de toda su filosofía política. Frente a Maritain y los personalistas exaltadores de la individualidad como personalidad dentro de lo que calificaban «drama del individualismo moderno», el P. Ramírez recurre a la idea de Bien Común inmanente a la sociedad. En Pueblo y gobernantes al servicio del Bien Común (1956) y Deberes morales con la comunidad nacional y con el Estado (1962), el P. Ramírez aplica su idea de orden a la filosofía política: ontológicamente, la sociedad se compone de seres racionales y sociales que no deben buscar la sociedad para el bien propio, sino para el Bien Común, como fin político y jurídico de derecho; pero el Bien Común no es un bien colectivo entendido como suma de bienes propios, porque no es una especie, ni un género, sino un todo análogo, puesto que el concepto formal y esencial del bien difiere respecto a la sociedad y a la persona individual; el mayor Bien Común inmanente de la sociedad es el Bien Común del Estado; según el P. Ramírez, después de Dios, el Estado es el mayor de todos los bienes del hombre, siendo la autoridad o el poder lo que unifica, organiza y ordena las fuerzas de la muchedumbre en vistas a su perfección común. Pero una sociedad jamás puede alcanzar el Bien Común sin unidad; por tanto, la mejor forma de gobierno será aquella que asegure la unidad.

Obras de Santiago Ramírez:

• «De analogia secundum doctrinam aristotelico-thomisticam», Ciencia Tomista, Madrid 1921-22.
  
• «El mérito y la vida mística», Vida Sobrenatural, 2 (1921), pp. 94-103, 171-180.
  
• «De propria indole philosophiae Sancti Thomae Aquinatis», Xenia Thomistica, Roma 1923, pp. 258-269.
  
• «Por qué debemos honorar a Santo Tomás», El Santísimo Rosario, 38 (1923), pp. 272-301.
  
• «¿Qué es un tomista?», Ciencia tomista, 27 (1923), pp. 272-301.
  
• «Gracia», Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada Espasa, t. 26.
  
• «Tradición», Ibid., t. 63.
  
• «Trinidad», Ibid., t. 64.
  
• «Triteísmo», Ibid., t. 64.
  
• «Verbo», Ibid., t. 67.
  
• «Jean de Saint-Thomas. Biographie, doctrine, bibliographie», Dictionnaire de Théologie Catolique, t. 8.
  
• «De ipsa philosophia in universum secundum doctrinam aristotelico-thomisticam», Ciencia Tomista, Madrid 1922-24.
  
• «La science morale pratique. La philosophie morale adéquate», Bulletin Thomiste, 4 (1935), pp. 423-432.
  
• De certitudine spei christianae, Salamanca 1936.
  
• «De Philosophia Morali Christiana», Divus Thomas, 50 (1936), pp. 87-140, 181-204.
  
• «Doctrina Sancti Thomae Aquinatis de distinctione inter habitum et dispositionem», Studia Anselmiana Miscellanea Philosophica Josepho Gredt oblata, Roma 1938, pp. 121-142.
  
• «De spei christianae fideique divinae mutua dependentia», Divus Thomas, 18 (1940), pp. 211-284.
  
• De hominis beatitudine, I, Salamanca 1942.
  
• De hominis beatitudine, II, Salamanca 1943.
  
• De hominis beatitudine, III, Salamanca 1947.
  
• «Introducción General», Suma Teológica de Santo Tomás de Aquino, BAC, Madrid 1947.
  
• «La Facultad Teológica de San Esteban de Salamanca. Memoria de su erección e inauguración», Salamanca 1948.
  
• Doctrina política de Santo Tomás, Instituto Social León XIII, Madrid 1951.
  
• De auctoritate doctrinali Sancti Thomae Aquinatis, Salamanca 1952.
  
• «The authority of St. Thomas Aquinas», Thomist 15 (1952), pp. 1-109.
  
• «La Eucaristía y la paz», Ciencia Tomista, 79 (1952), pp. 163-228.
  
• «Hacia una renovación de nuestros estudios filosóficos», Estudios Filosóficos, 1 (1952).
  
• «La Eucaristía y la Paz individual en la Teología de Santo Tomás de Aquino», XXXV Congreso Eucarístico Internacional, Barcelona 1952.
  
• «Prólogo», Psicología General de E. Brennan, Morota, Madrid 1952.
  
• «El misterio de la redención», Ciencia tomista, 80 (1953), pp. 255-274.
  
• «En torno a un famoso texto de santo Tomás sobre la analogía», Sapientia, 8 (1953), pp. 8-69.
  
• «San Alberto Magno y la filosofía del Derecho de Gentes», Estudios Filosóficos, 2 (1953).
  
• El concepto de Filosofía, Madrid 1954.
  
• «The impact of theology», Thomist, 17 (1954), pp. 558-569.
  
• «La magnanimidad», Lumen, 3 (1954).
  
• «El Derecho de Gentes según Santo Tomás», Estudios Filosóficos, 3 (1954).
  
• El Derecho de Gentes, Studium, Madrid 1955.
  
• «Filosofía y Filología», Arbor, 119 (noviembre 1955).
  
• Introducción al tratado de la prudencia de la Suma Teológica de Santo Tomás, BAC, Madrid 1956.
  
• Pueblos y Gobernantes al servicio del Bien Común, Euramérica, Madrid 1956.
  
• La filosofía de Ortega y Gasset, Herder, Barcelona 1958.
  
• ¿Un orteguismo católico? Dialogo amistoso con tres epígonos de Ortega, españoles, intelectuales y católicos, Imp. Calatrava, Salamanca 1958.
  
• «Patriotismo y civismo», Civismo supranacional, Madrid 1958.
  
• «Teología viva y vida teologal», Orbis Catholicus, 1959.
  
• La zona de seguridad, Salamanca 1959.
  
• Teología Nueva y Teología, Ateneo, Madrid 1958.
  
• Ortega y el núcleo de su filosofía, Punta Europa, Madrid 1960.
  
• «Sanctus Thomas Studiorum Dux», Aquinas, 3 (1960).
  
• La esencia de la esperanza cristiana, Punta Europa, Madrid 1960.
  
• Deberes morales con la comunidad nacional y con el Estado, Madrid 1962.
  
• De ordine placita quaedam thomistica, San Esteban, Salamanca 1963.
  
• «Las corrientes anticatólicas en el mundo y en el hombre de hoy», Misiones Extranjeras, 1963.
  
• «De Scriptura of Traditione», Pont. Academia Mariana Internationalis, Roma 1963.
  
• «Doctrina Sancti Thomae Aquinatis de Bono Communi Immanenti», Doctor Communis, 16 (1963).
  
• «Hope», The New Catholic Encyclopaedia, Washington 1966.
  
• «Moral», Ibid.
  
• «¿Qué es de Santo Tomás?», El Cruzado Español, 191 (marzo 1966).
  
• De Episcopatu ut Sacramento deque Episcoporum Collegio, San Esteban, Salamanca 1966.
  
• «La psicología del acto de fe», Ciencia Tomista, 303 (abril-junio 1968).
  
• «Presencia y ausencia de Dios», Vida sobrenatural, 69 (1969), pp. 161-176, 252-264.
  
• Introducción a Tomás de Aquino, Madrid 1975.
  
• De donis Spiritus Sancti, BAC, Madrid 1978.
  
• «Boletines de Teología Dogmática», Ciencia Tomista, 20 (1919); 22 (1920); 23 (1921); 26 (1922); 28 (1923); 31 (1925); 35 (1927).
  
• «Boletines de Metafísica», Ciencia Tomista, 25 (1922); 27 (1923); 29 (1924); 33 (1926); 36 (1927).
  
• «Boletín de Ética», Bulletin Thomiste, IV, 6 (abril-junio 1935).
  
• «Notas críticas», Ciencia Tomista, 79 (1952), 80 (1953); 81 (1954); 83 (1956); 86 (1959).
  
  
  
  

Obras de Santiago Ramírez (publicadas hasta el momento):

• Opera Omnia v. I: De ipsa philosophia in universum (2. Vols.), CSIC, Madrid 1970.
  
• Opera Omnia v. II: De analogia (4 vols.), CSIC, Madrid 1972.
  
• Opera Omnia v. III: De hominis beatitudine (5 vols.), CSIC, Madrid 1972.
  
• Opera Omnia v. IV: De actibus humanis, CSIC, Madrid 1972.
  
• Opera Omnia v. V: De passionibus animae, CSIC, Madrid 1973.
  
• Opera Omnia v. VI: De habitibus in communi (2 vols.), CSIC, Madrid 1973.
  
• Opera Omnia v. VII: De donis Spiritus Sancti deque vita mystica, CSIC, Madrid 1974.
  
• Opera Omnia v. VIII: De vitiis et peccatis (2 vols.), San Esteban, Salamanca 1990.
  
• Opera Omnia v. IX: De gratia Dei (2 vols.), San Esteban, Salamanca 1992.
  
• Opera Omnia v. X: De fide divina, San Esteban, Salamanca 1994.
  
• Opera Omnia v. XI: De spe theologica (2 vols.), San Esteban, Salamanca 1994.
  
• Opera Omnia v. XII: De caritate, San Esteban, Salamanca 1999.
  
• De auctoritate doctrinali Sancti Thomae Aquinatis, CSIC, Madrid 1952.
  
• De episcopatu ut sacramento deque episcoporum collegio, CSIC, Madrid, 1966.
  
  De ordine placita quaedam thomistica. CSIC, Madrid, 1963.
  
• Introducción a Tomás de Aquino, BAC, Madrid 1975.

Bibliografía sobre Santiago Ramírez

Carlos Luis Álvarez, «Fuera de combate. Comentario al último libro del P. Ramírez La zona de seguridad», Punta Europa, n. 41 (mayo 1959).
Arbor, revista del CSIC, «Figuras de la cultura española. Fray Santiago María Ramírez Dulanto», julio-agosto 1957. José Luis López Aranguren, La ética de Ortega, Madrid 1958.
• Venancio Carro, O. P., Filosofía y filósofos españoles (1900-1928), Madrid 1928.
  
• Luigi Ciappi, O. P., «L´Ordine nel pensiero dei Papi e di San Tommaso», L´Osservatore Romano del 8-VIII-1963.
  
• Luigi Ciappi, O. P., «Sacramentalitá e collegialitá dell´Episcopato nel Magisterio Ordinario e in San Tommaso», L´Osservatore Romano del 22-I-1967.
  
• Alejandro del Cura, O. P., «De ordine», Estudios Filosóficos, 35 (enero-abril 1965).
  
• Ernesto Delfino, «De auctoritate doctrinali S. Thomae Aquinati», Sapientia, 29 (1953).
  
• Octavio Nicolás Derisi, «Ortega, la Filosofía y la Teología», Sapientia, 50 (1958).
  
• Octavio Nicolás Derisi, «De hominis beatitudine», Sapientia, 2 (1947), pp. 269-273.
  
• J. Espeja, O. P., «Une controverse sur Ortega y Gasset», Revue Thomiste, 3 (1959).
  
• Facultad Teológica de San Esteban de Salamanca. Memoria de su erección e inauguración, Salamanca 1948.
  
• Aniceto Fernández, O. P., «Santiago Ramírez, O. P.». Necrológica publicada originariamente en L´Osservatore Romano (18-I-1968) y traducida en el volumen In Memoriam y en Analecta 6, 176, Praedicatorum 76 (1968), pp. 425-438 y pp. 503-506.
  
• Guillermo Fraile, O. P., «El P. Ramírez escribe sobre Ortega», Salmanticensis, 5 (1958).
  
• Rafael Gambra, «La polémica sobre Ortega como símbolo», Nuestro Tiempo, 61 (julio 1959).
  
• Ramón García Rodríguez, «La Teología clásica y las últimas tendencias en el concepto de Teología», Ciencia Tomista, 275-276 (julio diciembre 1960).
  
• Paulino Garragorri, Relecciones y disputaciones orteguianas, Madrid 1965.
  
• L. Sillón, «De hominis beatitudine», Angelicum, 20 (1943), pp. 328-329.
  
• Ángel González Álvarez, «Un libro de Ramírez sobre Ortega», Ecclesia, 874 (1958).
  
  E. Guerrero, S. J., «La Filosofía de Ortega y Gasset y ¿Un orteguismo católico?» Estudios Eclesiásticos, julio 1959.
  
• In Memoriam: Santiago Ramírez, O. P., Convento de San Esteban, Salamanca 1968.
  
• Pedro Laín Entralgo, Ejercicios de comprensión, Madrid 1959.
  
• Bonifacio Llamera, O. P., «El Derecho de Gentes», Estudios Filosóficos, 9 (mayo-agosto 1956).
  
• José Antonio Maravall, Ortega en nuestra situación, Madrid 1959.
  
• Julián Marías, El lugar del peligro, Madrid 1958.
  
• Vicente Marrero, «El buen tono orteguiano. A propósito de una crítica de la revista Religión y Cultura a la obra del P. Ramírez, La filosofía de Ortega y Gasset», Punta Europa, 30 (junio 1958).
  
• Vicente Marrero, «El P. Ramírez y el fin del orteguismo católico», Punta Europa, 35 (noviembre 1958).
  
• Vicente Marrero, «Ortega hoy. A propósito del libro de José Gaos, Sobre Ortega y Gasset», Punta Europa, 31-32 (julio-agosto 1958).
  
• Vicente Marrero, Ortega, filósofo mondain, Madrid 1961.
  
• Vicente Marrero, Santiago Ramírez, O. P. Su vida y su obra, CSIC, Madrid 1971.
  
• Moos, M., «De hominis beatitudine», Divus Thomas, 22 (1944), pp. 244-247.
  
• Vicente Beltrán de Heredia, Panteón de religiosos insignes. El antiguo Capítulo conventual de San Esteban de Salamanca, Salamanca 1951.
  
• Victorino Rodríguez, O. P., «Necrológica. El P. Santiago María Ramírez, O. P.», Arbor, 263 (enero 1968).
  
• Roig Gironella, J., S. J., «Estado actual de la polémica en torno al orteguismo», Espíritu, 8 (1959).
  
• Sastre, L., «El P. Ramírez y Ortega», La Estafeta Literaria, 158 (3-II-1958).
  
• «Spanish Theologian Giving Lectures to Priests Students», The Catholic Telegraph-register (7-IX-1949).
  
• Teófilo Urdanoz, O. P., «De hominis beatitudine», Revista Española de Teología, 3 (1943), pp. 192-195.
  
  
  
  

Más Información:

• "Ramirez, Santiago." Biographish-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon.
• Universidad de Navarra, Proyecto Pensamiento Clásico Español: José Miguel Gambra, La analogía en general: Síntesis tomista de Santiago M. Ramírez.
• Mark Johnson, "The End of Commentator Thomism…really!" en Thomistica.net.
  
  

Santiago Ramirez, OP on Facebook