Ite ad Thomam Tours: St. Lawrence Outside the Walls (Rome)

Ite ad Thomam Tours: St. Lawrence Outside the Walls (Rome)

Stational Church for Septuagesima Sunday.

Learn about the history, relics, and sacred art in St. Laurence Outside the Walls through the Sacred Destinations website.


Take a walking tour through the Roman streets around this church using the application below.

View Larger Map

Dominica in Septuagesima, Evangelium & Homilia

Dominica in Septuagesima, Evangelium & Homilia

Septuagesima Sunday

Station at St. Laurence Outside the Walls

Sequéntia sancti Evangélii secúndum Matthæum (20. 1-16).

In illo témpore: Dixit Jesus discípulis suis parábolam hanc: Símile est regnum cælórum hómini patrifamílias, qui éxiit primo mane condúcere operários in víneam suam. Conventióne autem facta cum operáriis ex denário diúrno, misit eos in víneam suam. Et egréssus circa horam tértiam, vidit álios stantes in foro otiósos, et dixit illis: Ite et vos in víneam meam, et quod justum fúerit, dabo vobis. Illi autem abiérunt. Iterum autem éxiit circa sextam et nonam horam: et fecit simíliter. Circa undécimam vero éxiit, et invénit álios stantes, et dicit illis: Quid hic statis tota die otiósi? Dicunt ei: Quia nemo nos condúxit. Dicit illis: Ite et vos in víneam meam. Cum sero autem factum esset, dicit dóminus víneæ procuratóri suo: Voca operários, et redde illis mercédem incípiens a novíssimis usque ad primos. Cum veníssent ergo qui circa undécimam horam vénerant, accepérunt síngulos denários. Veniéntes autem et primi, arbitráti sunt quod plus essent acceptúri: accepérunt autem et ipsi síngulos denários. Et accipiéntes murmurábant advérsus patremfamílias, dicéntes: Hi novíssimi una hora fecérunt, et pares illos nobis fecísti, qui portávimus pondus diéi, et æstus. At ille respóndens uni eórum, dixit: Amíce non fácio tibi injúriam: nonne ex denário convenísti mecum? Tolle quod tuum est, et vade: volo autem et huic novíssimo dare sicut et tibi. Aut non licet mihi, quod volo, fácere? an óculus tuus nequam est, quia ego bonus sum? Sic erunt novíssimi primi, et primi novíssimi. Multi enim sunt vocáti, pauci vero elécti.

῾Η παραβολὴ τῶν ἐργατῶν τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος

ΟΜΟΙΑ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδεσπότῃ, ὅστις ἐξῆλθεν ἅμα πρωΐ μισθώσασθαι ἐργάτας εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα αὐτοῦ. 2 καὶ συμφωνήσας μετὰ τῶν ἐργατῶν ἐκ δηναρίου τὴν ἡμέραν ἀπέστειλεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα αὐτοῦ. 3 καὶ ἐξελθὼν περὶ τρίτην ὥραν εἶδεν ἄλλους ἑστῶτας ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ ἀργούς, 4 καὶ ἐκείνοις εἶπεν· ὑπάγετε καὶ ὑμεῖς εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν ᾖ δίκαιον δώσω ὑμῖν. οἱ δὲ ἀπῆλθον. 5 πάλιν ἐξελθὼν περὶ ἕκτην καὶ ἐνάτην ὥραν ἐποίησεν ὡσαύτως. 6 περὶ δὲ τὴν ἑνδεκάτην ὥραν ἐξελθὼν εὗρεν ἄλλους ἑστῶτας ἀργούς, καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· τί ὧδε ἑστήκατε ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν ἀργοί; 7 λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἡμᾶς ἐμισθώσατο. λέγει αὐτοῖς· ὑπάγετε καὶ ὑμεῖς εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν ᾖ δίκαιον λήψεσθε.  8 ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης λέγει ὁ κύριος τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος τῷ ἐπιτρόπῳ αὐτοῦ· κάλεσον τοὺς ἐργάτας καὶ ἀπόδος αὐτοῖς τὸν μισθόν, ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῶν ἐσχάτων ἕως τῶν πρώτων. 9 καὶ ἐλθόντες οἱ περὶ τὴν ἑνδεκάτην ὥραν ἔλαβον ἀνὰ δηνάριον. 10 ἐλθόντες δὲ οἱ πρῶτοι ἐνόμισαν ὅτι πλείονα λήψονται, καὶ ἔλαβον καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀνὰ δηνάριον. 11 λαβόντες δὲ ἐγόγγυζον κατὰ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου 12 λέγοντες ὅτι οὗτοι οἱ ἔσχατοι μίαν ὥραν ἐποίησαν, καὶ ἴσους ἡμῖν αὐτοὺς ἐποίησας τοῖς βαστάσασι τὸ βάρος τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τὸν καύσωνα. 13 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν ἑνὶ αὐτῶν· ἑταῖρε, οὐκ ἀδικῶ σε· οὐχὶ δηναρίου συνεφώνησάς μοι; 14 ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε· θέλω δὲ τούτῳ τῷ ἐσχάτῳ δοῦναι ὡς καὶ σοί· 15 ἢ οὐκ ἔξεστί μοι ποιῆσαι ὃ θέλω ἐν τοῖς ἐμοῖς, εἰ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου πονηρός ἐστιν ὅτι ἐγὼ ἀγαθός εἰμι; 16 Οὕτως ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι· πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσι κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί.

From Matins of Septuagesima Sunday

Online Source: www.breviary.net

Third Nocturn
Absolutio: A vínculis peccatórum nostrórum absólvat nos omnípotens et miséricors Dóminus. R.  Amen.	Absolution:  May the Lord Almighty and merciful break the bonds of our sins and set us free. R.  Amen.
V.  Jube domne, (Dómine) benedícere.	V.  Pray, Sir (Lord), give me thy blessing.
Benedíctio 7: Evangélica léctio sit nobis salus et protéctio. R.  Amen.	Benediction 7:  May the Gospel's holy lection be our safeguard and protection. R.  Amen.
Lesson vii
Léctio sancti Evangélii secúndum Matthæum	The Lesson is taken from the Holy Gospel according to Matthew
Chap. 20, 1-16
In illo témpore : Dixit Jesus discípulis suis parábolam hanc : Símile est regnum cælórum hómini patrifamílias, qui éxiit primo mane condúcere operários in víneam suam.  Et réliqua.	At that time : Jesus spake this parable unto his disciples : The kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.  And so on, and that which followeth.
Homilía sancti Gregórii Papæ	A Homily by St. Gregory the Pope
Homilía 19 in Evangelia post principium
The Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard, by Rembrandt
Regnum cælórum hómini patrifamílias símile dícitur, qui ad excoléndam víneam suam operários condúcit.  Quis vero patrisfamílias similitúdinem réctius tenet, quam Cónditor noster, qui regit quos cóndidit, et eléctos suos sic in hoc mundo póssidet, quasi subjéctos dóminus in domo?  Qui habet víneam, universálem scílicet Ecclésiam, quæ ab Abel justo usque ad últimum eléctum, qui in fine mundi nascitúrus est, quot Sanctos prótulit, quasi tot pálmites misit.	We hear that the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning, to hire labourers into his vineyard.  Who indeed is more justly to be likened to an householder than our Maker, who is the head of the household of faith, bearing rule over them whom he hath made, and being Master of his chosen ones in the world, as a Master over those that are in his house?  He it is that hath the Church for a vineyard, a vineyard that ceaseth not to bring forth branches of the True Vine, from righteous Abel to the last of the elect that shall be born into the world.
V.  Tu autem, Dómine, miserére nobis. R.  Deo grátias.	V.  But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us. R.  Thanks be to God.
R.  Plantáverat autem Dóminus Deus paradísum voluptátis a princípio : * In quo pósuit hóminem, quem formáverat.V.  Produxítque Dóminus Deus de humo omne lignum pulchrum visu, et ad vescéndum suáve ; lignum étiam vitæ in médio paradísi. R.  In quo pósuit hóminem, quem formáverat.	R.  From the beginning the Lord God had planted a garden of earthly delight, *   And therein he put the man whom he had formed.V.  And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food ; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden. R.  And therein he put the man whom he had formed.
V.  Jube domne, (Dómine) benedícere.	V.  Pray, Sir (Lord), give me thy blessing.
Benedíctio 8: Divínum auxílium máneat semper nobíscum. R.  Amen.	Benediction 8: May help divine be with us all, for ever abiding. R.  Amen.
Lesson viii
The Holy Apostles
Hic ítaque paterfamílias ad excoléndam víneam suam, mane, hora tértia, sexta, nona et undécima operários condúcit : quia a mundi hujus inítio usque in finem ad erudiéndam plebem fidélium, prædicatóres congregáre non desístit.  Mane étenim mundi fuit ab Adam usque ad Noë : hora vero tértia a Noë usque ad Abraham : sexta quoque ab Abraham usque ad Móysen : nona autem a Móyse usque ad advéntum Dómini : undécima vero ab advéntu Dómini usque ad finem mundi.  In qua prædicatóres sancti Apóstoli missi sunt, qui mercédem plenam et tarde veniéntes accepérunt.	This householder, then, for the cultivation of his vineyard, goeth out early in the morning, and at the third hour, and the sixth hour, and the ninth hour, and the eleventh hour, to hire labourers into his vineyard.  Thus the Lord, from the beginning to the end of the world, ceaseth not to gather together preachers for the instruction of his faithful people.  The early morning of the world was from Adam until Noah ; the third hour from Noah until Abraham ; the sixth hour from Abraham until Moses ; the ninth hour from Moses until the coming of the Lord ; the eleventh hour from the coming of the Lord until the end of the world.  At this eleventh hour are sent forth as preachers, the Holy Apostles, who have received full wages, albeit they be come in late.
V.  Tu autem, Dómine, miserére nobis. R.  Deo grátias.	V.  But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us. R.  Thanks be to God.
The Creation of Adam
R.  Ecce Adam quasi unus ex nobis factus est sciens bonum et malum : * Vidéte, ne forte sumat de ligno vitæ, et vivat in ætérnum.V.  Fecit quoque Dóminus Deus Adæ túnicam pellíceam, et índuit eum, et dixit. R.  Vidéte, ne forte sumat de ligno vitæ, et vivat in ætérnum.	R.  Behold Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil : * See lest he take of the tree of life and live for ever.V.  Unto Adam also did the Lord God make a coat of skins, and clothed him, and said. R.  See lest he take of the tree of life and live for ever.
V.  Jube domne, (Dómine) benedícere.	V.  Pray, Sir (Lord), give me thy blessing.
Benedíctio 9: Ad societátem cívium supernórum perdúcat nos Rex Angelórum. R.  Amen.	Benediction 9: May the King of Angels give us fellowship with all the citizens of heaven. R.  Amen.
Lesson ix
The Holy Prophets and Teachers of the Law
Ad erudiéndam ergo Dóminus plebem suam, quasi ad excoléndam víneam suam, nullo témpore déstitit operários míttere : quia et prius per Patres, et póstmodum per legis Doctóres et Prophétas, ad extrémum vero per Apóstolos, dum plebis suæmores excóluit, quasi per operários in víneæ cultúra laborávit : quamvis in quólibet módulo vel mensúra, quisquis cum fide recta bonæ prædicátor actiónis éxstitit, hujus víneæ operárius fuit.  Operátor ergo mane, hora tértia, sexta, et nona, antíquus ille et Hebráicus pópulus designátur : qui in eléctis suis ab ipso mundi exórdio, dum recta fide Deum stúduit cólere, quasi non déstitit in víneæ cultúra laboráre.  Ad undécimam vero Gentíles vocántur, quibus et dícitur : Quid hic statis tota die otiósi?	For the cultivation of his vineyard (that is, the instruction of his people), the Lord hath never ceased to send into it labourers.  First, by the Fathers, then, by the Prophets and Teachers of the Law, and lastly, by the Apostles.  He hath dressed and tended the lives of his people, as the owner of a vineyard dresseth and tendeth it by means of workmen.  Whoever in whatever degree joined to a right faith the teaching of righteousness, was so far one of God's labourers in God's vineyard.  By the labourers at early morning, and at the third hour, and the sixth hour, and the ninth hour, may be understood God's ancient people, the Hebrews, who strove to worship him with a right faith in company with his chosen ones from the very beginning of the world, and thus continually laboured in his vineyard.  And now, at the eleventh hour, it is said unto the Gentiles also : Why stand ye here all the day idle?
V.  Tu autem, Dómine, miserére nobis. R.  Deo grátias.	V.  But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us. R.  Thanks be to God.
NOTE : That from Septuagesima until the end of Passiontide the Hymn Te Deum is not said in the Office of the Season.  A Ninth Respond is said instead.
Cain and Abel
R.  Ubi est Abel frater tuus? dixit Dóminus ad Cain.  Néscio, Dómine, numquid custos fratris mei sum ego?  Et dixit ad eum : Quid fecísti? * Ecce vox sánguinis fratris tui Abel clamat ad me de terra. V.  Maledíctus eris super terram, quæ apéruit os suum, et suscépit sánguinem fratris tui de manu tua. R.  Ecce vox sánguinis fratris tui Abel clamat ad me de terra. V.  Glória Patri, et Fílio, et Spirítui Sancto. R.  Ecce vox sánguinis fratris tui Abel clamat ad me de terra.	R.  Where is Abel thy brother? said the Lord unto Cain.  I know not, Lord.  Am I my brother's keeper?  And the Lord said unto him : What hast thou done? * Behold, the voice of thy brotherAbel's blood crieth unto me from the ground.V.  And now thou art cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand. R.  Behold, the voice of thy brother Abel's blood crieth unto me from the ground.V.  Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. R.  Behold, the voice of thy brother Abel's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Ralph McInerny Passes Away

Ralph McInerny Passes Away

Predestination is not in Itself a Calvinist Heresy

Predestination is not in Itself a Calvinist Heresy

Predestination and Free Will: A Survey of Views

The Bible clearly teaches Predestination (see Romans 8-9) and the men of the Renaissance and of the Early Modern Period were well aware of this. None of them would deny that God predestines certain men to eternal salvation. Where they differ is in their attempts to reconcile the fact of predestination with the idea that man has free will. Some simply denied free will, while others explained free will in a way that it could be compatible with divine predestination. So, in short, the Bible teaches predestination.

The Protestant heretics (such as Luther and Calvin) affirmed that God predestined men to eternal life, but they denied that man has free will (since the fall of Adam and Eve, when the human race contracted original sin), and consequently they also denied that man can merit eternal salvation in any way whatsoever. So the reformers in general have: predestination with no free will and no merit.

Luther taught that God predestines certain men to salvation, and this they cannot merit because it is not in their power to chose (there is no free will since the fall of Adam and Eve); however, God did not predestine any men to eternal damnation, but rather they simply earn their damnation through their lack of faith--this is called positive or single predestination. In short, Luther has: single predestination with no free will and no merit.

Calvin taught that God predestines BOTH certain men to eternal salvation AND others to eternal damnation--this is called double predestination--and neither group earns its destiny because they do not have free will since the fall. In short, Calvin: double predestination with no free will and no merit.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is positive predestination (to salvation) and that man does have free will (i.e., free will was not lost as a consequence of original sin). Predestination, then, means that God chose from all eternity that certain men will USE THEIR FREE WILL to cooperate with His grace and thus merit (in a certain sense) their salvation. But the Church condemns double predestination (which includes predestination to eternal damnation) and teaches that those who are damned are damned because they simply chose to reject God, not because He has predestined them to be damned. In short, the Catholic Church has: single predestination with free will and merit. But this still allows different Catholic theologians to explain how these three facts (single predestination, free will, and merit) fit together:

Thus, Banez affirms everything that the Church teaches (predestination, free will, and merit), but he adds this explanation, taken from St. Thomas Aquinas: God, stands outside of history and is not part of history, is the one who causes all things and, therefore, for a free act to exist, God must cause it. This is the famous "premotion." Thus, all of our acts are BOTH free AND caused by God, and this is not a contradiction. So, in short, Banez has: single predestination with free will, merit, and divine premotion.

Whereas Molina affirms everything that the Church teaches (BOTH predestination AND free will), but he adds this explanation: God is the cause of all things, except man's free will: He only cooperates with free will. But he cooperates with their will because he has a 'scientia media' (i.e., pretty much an 'educated guess') of their future choices: that is, he does not cause human beings to perform salutary acts (acts that will get them to heaven), but only knows who will choose salvation and because of this He cooperates with them to lead them infallibly to salvation. Predestination, then, consists merely in foreknowing the salvation of certain men, and not in infallibly causing their salvation. So, in short, Molina has: single predestination with free will, merit, and mere concurrence.




Báñez's commentaries on Aquinas' Summa Theologiae are available through ITOPL.

Mexican SSPX Group Vandalizes FSSP Apostolate, Disturbs Mass

Mexican SSPX Group Vandalizes FSSP Apostolate, Disturbs Mass

There Was Thomism Before Aeterni Patris

There Was Thomism Before Aeterni Patris

Thomas Cardinal Zigliara, OP (1833-1893) - Biography

From Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church

ZIGLIARA, O.P., Tommaso (1833-1893)

Birth. October 29, 1833, Bonifacio, diocese of Ajaccio, Corsica, France.

Education. Classical studies, Bonifacio; joined the Order of Preachers, 1851; religious profession, 1852; Dominican house of studies, Rome (philosophy); Dominican house of studies, Perugia (theology).

Priesthood. Ordained, May 17, 1856, Perugia, by Gioacchino Pecci, archbishop-bishop of Perugia, future Pope Leo XIII. Professor of philosophy in Rome and in Corbara, Corsica. Concurrently, faculty member, Seminary of Viterbo, and master of novices, Dominican convent of Gradi. Master of novices, Rome, and later, 1870-1879, faculty member of Dominican Collegio S. Tommaso della Minerva; rector, 1873-1879. Consultor of the SS. CC. of the Index and of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs.

Cardinalate. Created cardinal deacon in the consistory of May 12, 1879; received the red hat and the deaconry of Ss. Cosma e Damiano, May 15, 1879. In 1879 contributed to the writing of the encyclical Aeterni patris, restoring Thomism as the basis of Christian philosophy. Director of the Leonine Commission for the the edition of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, 1880. Protector of the Bibliographic Society, Rome, July 4, 1885. Prefect of the S.C. of Indulgences and Relics, December 16, 1886. Prefect of the S.C. of Studies, October 28, 1887. In 1890 contributed to the writing of the encyclical Rerum novarum. Opted for the order of cardinal priests and the title of S. Prassede, June 1, 1891. Protector of the Theological Academy, Rome, April 12, 1892. He enjoyed world wide fame as a leading scholar in Thomistic philosophy and theology.

Episcopate. Elected bishop of the suburbicarian see of Frascati, January 16, 1893; died before receiving the episcopal consecration.

Death. May 10, 1893, Rome. Exposed in the Church of S. Maria sopra Minerva and buried in the chapel of the Dominican Friars, Campo Verano Cemetery, Rome.

Catholic Encyclopedia Article

Tommaso Maria Zigliara (Baptismal name, FRANCESCO).

Cardinal, theologian, and philosopher, b. at Bonifacio, a seaport town of Corsica, toward the end of October, 1833; d. in Rome, 11 May, 1893. His early Classical studies were made in his native town under the Jesuit teacher, Father Aloysius Piras. At the age of eighteen he was received into the Dominican Order at Rome, and in 1852 he made his religious profession. From the beginning Zigliara was a student of uncommon brilliancy. He studied philosophy in Rome and theology at Perugia, where, 17 May, 1856, he was ordained by Cardinal Joachim Pecci, then Archbishop of Perugia. Soon afterwards the young priest was appointed to teach philosophy, first in Rome, then at Corbara in his native Corsica, and later in the diocesan seminary, at Viterbo, being at the same time master of novices in the neighbouring convent at Gradi.

When his work at Viterbo was finished, he was called to Rome, again made master of novices, and shortly appointed regent, or head professor, of the Minerva college. Before assuming this latter duty, he was raised to the dignity of master in sacred theology. When his community was forced by the Italian Government in 1873 to give up the convent of the Minerva, Zigliara with other professors and students took refuge with the Fathers of the Holy Ghost, who had charge of the French College in Rome. Here the lectures were continued until a house near the Minerva was secured. Zigliara's fame was now widespread in Rome and elsewhere. French, Italian, German, English, and American bishops were eager to put some of their most promising students and young professors under his tuition. Between Cardinal Pecci, Archbishop of Perugia, and Zigliara there had existed for many years the closest friendship, and when the former became pope as Leo XIII, in his first consistory (1879) he created Zigliara a cardinal. Zigliara was first numbered among the cardinal-deacons, then he became a cardinal-priest, and in 1893 he was appointed Bishop of Frascati, one of the seven suburban sees; but, owing to the sickness which ended in his death, he never received episcopal consecration.

He was a member of seven Roman congregations, besides being prefect of the Congregation of Studies and co-president of the Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas. He was a man of deep piety and devotion, and a tireless student to the end of his life. In addition to his many duties as cardinal, he was entrusted with the superintendence of the Leonine edition of the works of St. Thomas, the first volume of which contains his own commentary. He also found time to publish his Propaedeutica ad Sacram Theologiam and to write an extensive work on the sacraments, of which only the tracts on baptism and penance received final revision before his death. The most important, however, of Zigliara's works is his Summa Philosophica, which enjoys a world-wide circulation. For many years this has been the textbook in a great number of the seminaries and colleges of Europe, Canada, and America; and not very long ago it was adopted as the textbook for the philosophical examination in the National University of Ireland. His other works are: Osservazioni su alcune interpretazioni di G.C. Ubaghs sull' ideologia di San Tommaso d'Aquino (Viterbo, 1870); Della luce intellettuale e dell' ontologismo secondo la dottrina di S. Bonaventura e Tommaso d'Aquino (2 vols., Rome, 1874); De mente Concilii Vienensis in definiendo dogmate unionis animae humanae cum corpore (1878); Commentaria S. Thomae in Aristotelis libros Peri Hermeneias et Posteriorum analyticorum, in fol. vol. I new edit. Opp. S. Thomae: (Rome, 1882); Saggio sui principi del tradizionalismo; Dimittatur e la spiegazione datane dalla S. Congregazione dell' Indice.

By his teaching and through his writings, he was one of the chief instruments, under Leo XIII, of reviving and propagating Thomistic philosophy throughout the entire Church. In his own order and in some universities and seminaries, the teaching of St. Thomas had never been interrupted, but it was reserved for Zigliara to give a special impetus to the movement which has made Thomistic philosophy and theology dominant in the Catholic world.

In Festo S. Francisci Salesii (Jan. 29), Acta

In Festo S. Francisci Salesii (Jan. 29), Acta

From Matins of the Feast of St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church
Online Source: www.breviary.net

Second Nocturn
Absolutio: Ipsíus píetas et misericórdia nos ádjuvet, qui cum Patre et Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculórum.R.  Amen.	Absolution:  May his loving-kindness and mercy assist us.  Who, with the Father, and the Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth, for ever and ever. R.  Amen.
V.  Jube domne, (Dómine) benedícere.	V.  Vouchsafe, Reverend Father (O Lord), thy blessing.
Benedíctio 4: Deus Pater omnípotens sit nobis propítius et clemens. R.  Amen.	Benediction 4:  May God the Father Almighty shew us his mercy and pity. R.  Amen.
Lesson iv
St. Francis de Sales, born August 21st, 1567
Francíscus in óppido Salésio, unde famíliæcognómen, piis et nobílibus paréntibus natus, a téneris annis futúræ sanctitátis indícia præbuit, morum innocéntia et gravitáte.  Adoléscens liberálibus disciplínis erudítus, mox philosophíæ ac theologíæ Parísiis óperam dedit ; et, ne quid sibi deésset ad ánimi cultúram, juris utriúsque láuream summa cum laude Patávii obtínuit.  In sacra æde Lauretána perpétuæ virginitátis votum, quo pridem Parísiis se obstrínxerat, innovávit ; a cujus virtútis propósito nullis umquam dæmonum fráudibus, nullis sénsuum illécebris pótuit dimovéri.	Francis was born of godly and noble parents, in the town of Sales, from which his family take their name of de Sales.  In his childish years his staid and godly demeanour gave promise of his future sanctity.  He received a liberal education as he grew up, and afterwards studied Philosophy and Theology at Paris.  In order to the complete furnishing of his mind, he took the degree of Doctor of Laws, both Civil and Ecclesiastical, at Padua, with much distinction.  He had already bound himself with a vow of perpetual virginity at Paris, and he renewed the same in the Holy House of Loreto.  From this path of virtue, neither the temptations of the devil nor the allurements of the world ever induced him to swerve.
V.  Tu autem, Dómine, miserére nobis. R.  Deo grátias.	V.  But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us. R.  Thanks be to God.
Inside the Holy House of Loreto
R.  Invéni David servum meum, óleo sancto meo unxi eum : * Manus enim mea auxiliábitur ei. V.  Nihil profíciet inimícus in eo, et fílius iniquitátis non nocébit ei. R.  Manus enim mea auxiliábitur ei.	R.  I have found David my servant, with my holy oil have I anointed him. * My hand shall hold him fast. V.  The enemy shall not be able to do him violence ; the son of wickedness shall not hurt him. R.  My hand shall hold him fast.
V.  Jube domne, (Dómine) benedícere.	V.  Vouchsafe, Reverend Father (O Lord), thy blessing.
Benedíctio 5: Christus perpétuæ det nobis gáudia vitæ.R.  Amen.	Benediction 5: May Christ bestow upon us the joys of life eternal. R.  Amen.
Lesson v
The Cathedral at Geneva, Switzerland
Recusáta in Sabáudiæ senátu amplíssima dignitáte, clericáli milítiæ nomen dedit.  Tum sacerdótio initiátus et Genevénsis ecclésiæ præpositúram adéptus, ejus múneris partes ádeo perfécte explévit, ut eum Granérius epíscopus vindicándis ab hæresi Calviniána Chaballicénsibus aliísque Genévæ finítimis pópulis, divíni verbi præcónem destinárit.  Quam expeditiónem álacri ánimo suscípiens, aspérrima quæque perpéssus est, sæpe ab hæréticis conquisítus ad necem, variísque calúmniis et insídiis vexátus.  Sed inter tot discrímina et agónes, insuperábilis ejus constántia semper enítuit ; Deíque ope protéctus, septuagínta duo míllia hæreticórum ad cathólicam fidem reduxísse dícitur, inter quos multi nobilitáte et doctrína insígnes numerántur.	He refused to be made Counsellor of the Parliament of Chambery, for which his family had obtained for him patents from the Duke of Savoy, and determined to become a clergyman.  He was appointed to the Provostship of the Church of Geneva, and, being shortly afterward ordained Priest, discharged so admirably the duties of his position, that he was sent by Granier, his Bishop, to preach the Word of God in Chablais, and other places in the outskirts of the diocese, where the inhabitants had embraced the heresy of Calvin.  He joyfully undertook this mission, in which he suffered much, being often hunted by the Protestants to murder him, and assailed by many calumnies and plots.  Amid all these dangers and struggles his constancy remained invincible, and under the blessing and care of God he is said to have recalled seventy-two thousand of these hereticks to the Faith of Christ's Universal Church, among whom were many distinguished by rank and learning.
V.  Tu autem, Dómine, miserére nobis. R.  Deo grátias.	V.  But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us. R.  Thanks be to God.
St. Francis de Sales, consecrated Bishop December 3rd, 1602
R.  Pósui adjutórium super poténtem, et exaltávi eléctum de plebe mea : * Manus enim mea auxiliábitur ei. V.  Invéni David servum meum, óleo sancto meo unxi eum. R.  Manus enim mea auxiliábitur ei.	R.  I have laid help upon one that is mighty, I have exalted one chosen out of the people. * My hand shall hold him fast.V.  I have found David, my servant, with my holy oil have I anointed him. R.  My hand shall hold him fast.
V.  Jube domne, (Dómine) benedícere.	V.  Vouchsafe, Reverend Father (O Lord), thy blessing.
Benedíctio 6: Ignem sui amóris accéndat Deus in córdibus nostris. R.  Amen.	Benediction 6: May God enkindle in our hearts the fire of his holy love. R.  Amen.
Lesson vi
Mórtuo Granério, qui eum sibi coadjutórem decérni curáverat, epíscopus consecrátus, sanctitátis suæ rádios circumquáque diffúdit, zelo ecclesiásticæ disciplínæ, pacis stúdio, misericórdia in páuperes, omníque virtúte conspícuus.  Ad divíni cultus augméntum novum órdinem sanctimoniálium instítuit, a Visitatióne beátæ Vírginis nuncupátum, sub régula sancti Augustíni ; cui áddidit constitutiónes sapiéntia, discretióne et suavitáte mirábiles.  Suis étiam scriptis cælésti doctrína refértis Ecclésiam illustrávit, quibus iter ad christiánam perfectiónem tutum et planum demónstrat.  Annum dénique agens quinquagésimum quintum, dum e Gállia Annésium regréditur, post Sacrum in die sancti Joánnis Evangelístæ Lugdúni celebrátum, gravi morbo corréptus, sequénti die migrávit in cælum, anno Dómini millésimo sexcentésimo vigésimo secúndo.  Ejus corpus Annésium delátum, in ecclésia moniálium dicti órdinis honorífice cónditum fuit, cœpítque statis miráculis claréscere.  Quibus rite probátis, ab Alexándro séptimo Pontífice máximo in Sanctórum númerum relátus est, assignáta ejus festivitáti die vigésima nona Januárii ; et a summo Pontífice Pio nono, ex sacrórum Rítuum Congregatiónis consúlto, universális Ecclésiæ Doctor fuit declarátus.	After the death of Bishop Granier, who had procured his appointment as Coadjutor, he was consecrated Bishop.  In that office he was truly a burning and a shining light, shewing all around a bright example of godliness, zeal for the discipline of the Church, ardent love of peace, tenderness to the poor, and, indeed, of all graces.  For the greater ornament of God's worship he established a new Order of Nuns, which is named from the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin.  These nuns follow the Rule of St. Augustine, but Francis added thereto several additional constitutions distinguished by wisdom, prudence, and tenderness.  He enlightened the Church by writings full of heavenly teaching, and pointing out a safe and simple road to Christian perfection.  In the 55th year of his age, while on his way from France to Annecy, after saying Mass at Lyons on the Feast of St. John the Evangelist, he was seized with a fatal illness, and on the next day passed from earth to heaven, in the year of our Lord 1622.  His body was carried to Annecy and honourably buried in the Church of the nuns of the Visitation, where it soon began to be distinguished for miracles.  The truth of these having been proved, the Supreme Pontiff, Alexander VII, enrolled his name among those of the Saints, and appointed for his Feastday the 29th of January.  And the Supreme Pontiff, Pius IX, on the advice of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, declared him a Doctor of the Universal Church.
V.  Tu autem, Dómine, miserére nobis. R.  Deo grátias.	V.  But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us. R.  Thanks be to God.
R.  Iste est, qui ante Deum magnas virtútes operátus est, et omnis terra doctrína ejus repléta est : * Ipse intercédat pro peccátis ómnium populórum.V.  Iste est, qui contémpsit vitam mundi, et pervénit ad cæléstia regna. R.  Ipse intercédat pro peccátis ómnium populórum.V.  Glória Patri, et Fílio, et Spirítui Sancto. R.  Ipse intercédat pro peccátis ómnium populórum.	R.  This is he who wrought mighty deeds and valiant in the sight of God, and all the earth is filled with his doctrine: * May his intercession avail for the sins of all the people.V.  He was a man who despised the life of the world and attained unto the kingdom of heaven. R.  May his intercession avail for the sins of all the people.V.  Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. R.  May his intercession avail for the sins of all the people.

Ite ad Thomam Tours: The University of Salamanca

Ite ad Thomam Tours: The University of Salamanca

Take a tour through the streets around the old University of Salamanca (Spain), home of the great Renaissance and Early Modern Scholastic Thomists: Francisco de Vitoria, Domingo Soto, Melchior Cano, Domingo Báñez, and the Salmanticenses. 

(Double-click and drag on the image below to do an interactive walking tour through the city streets.)

View Larger Map

View Larger Map

Astonishing Description of the Current Modernist Crisis

Astonishing Description of the Current Modernist Crisis

From Pope St. Pius X's Pascendi Dominici gregis, preface:

PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE ST PIUS X

ON THE DOCTRINES

OF THE MODERNISTS

To the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops

and other Local Ordinaries in Peace

and Communion with the Apostolic See.

Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction.

The office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord's flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body; for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking "men speaking perverse things" (Acts xx. 30), "vain talkers and seducers" (Tit. i. 10), "erring and driving into error" (2 Tim. iii. 13). Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ's kingdom itself. Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office.

2. That We make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man.

3. Though they express astonishment themselves, no one can justly be surprised that We number such men among the enemies of the Church, if, leaving out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge, he is acquainted with their tenets, their manner of speech, their conduct. Nor indeed will he err in accounting them the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For as We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within; hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain, the more intimate is their knowledge of her. Moreover they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skilful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious arts; for they double the parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and since audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for the strictest morality. Finally, and this almost destroys all hope of cure, their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.

Once indeed We had hopes of recalling them to a better sense, and to this end we first of all showed them kindness as Our children, then we treated them with severity, and at last We have had recourse, though with great reluctance, to public reproof. But you know, Venerable Brethren, how fruitless has been Our action. They bowed their head for a moment, but it was soon uplifted more arrogantly than ever. If it were a matter which concerned them alone, We might perhaps have overlooked it: but the security of the Catholic name is at stake. Wherefore, as to maintain it longer would be a crime, We must now break silence, in order to expose before the whole Church in their true colours those men who have assumed this bad disguise.

Doronzo - The Channels of Revelation: A Review

Doronzo - The Channels of Revelation: A Review

Emmanuel Doronzo, O.M.I., The Science of Sacred Theology for Teachers, Book Three: The Channels of Revelation, Middleburg, VA: The Notre Dame Institute Press, 1973, 77pp.

A Book Review Submitted by:

Francisco J. Romero Carrasquillo

Universidad Panamericana, Campus Guadalajara

I. Introduction. The age of scholasticism in theology, or ‘the age of the manuals’ as it is sometimes derogatorily called, is generally thought to have ended with the opening of the Second Vatican Council.  Whereas it is true that most theologians by the close of this council ceased to use the scholastic method, nonetheless a few authors continued to do so.  Fr. Emmanuel Doronzo, OMI (1903-1976), professor of dogma at Catholic University of America, is one of the most impressive of these authors.  Immediately after this council, in 1966, he published a scholarly, two-volume scholastic manual of dogma in Latin, Theologia Dogmatica.  But, living, writing and teaching for a post-Vatican II American Catholic public, he also had the motive to write in English: in the following decade he published a four-volume series of small, very-readable theological treatises containing basic synopses of the different parts of traditional Thomistic fundamental theology, under the series title of The Science of Sacred Theology for Teachers.  The titles (and dates of publications) of the four booklets are: Introduction to Theology (1973), Revelation (1974), The Channels of Revelation (1974), and The Church (1976).  These four small volumes combine to form a substantial manual of traditional scholastic fundamental theology, written in a readable yet scholarly English style.  In the present review I wish to summarize and evaluate the merits and limitations of the third of these volumes in particular, The Channels of Revelation.[1]

II. Division and Organizing Principles of the Work.  The volume is divided into two parts and six chapters.  After a beginning-of-book, one-page bibliography and a brief introduction, Doronzo begins his treatment with Part One, titled the “Three Channels of Revelation,” which is divided into three chapters.  Chapter One is titled, “Scripture, The Written Deposit of Revelation”; Chapter Two is, “Tradition, The Living Deposit of Revelation”; and Chapter Three is, “The Magisterium, The Organ of Revelation.”  Part Two, “The Theological Contents of the Channels of Revelation” is also divided into three chapters.  Chapter Four is titled “Dogma”; Chapter Five is “Theological Conclusion”; and Chapter Six is called “Theological Notes and Censures.”  The book then closes with a glossary and an analytical index.

The principle of organization of this volume, then, is what both the theologians and the Magisterium before the Second Vatican Council called the Loci theologici (literally ‘theological places’, but sometimes translated as the ‘sources of revelation’), namely, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  Before this council, the teaching that was commonly accepted by theologians was that there are two Loci theologici or ‘sources of revelation’, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and that the latter was known through both the ‘Witnesses of Tradition’ and the ‘Organs of Tradition.’  The ‘Witnesses of Tradition’, on the one hand, are the Fathers of the Church, the theologians (the Doctors of the Church and other approved theologians) and the faithful.  These witnesses make Tradition known to us through their ‘monuments’, which include their writings and tangible expressions of piety (everything from theological works to pious writings of the saints, from catechisms to stained glass windows, from churches to cemeteries).  When a consensus on a certain theological issue was discovered within any of these groups, theologians used to take it as an indication that that theological position on which they were in consensus was revealed by God and handed down orally as part of Sacred Tradition.  The ‘Organs of Tradition’, on the other hand, are the ordinary Magisterium and the extraordinary Magisterium, whose teaching was (and is still today) considered also part of Sacred Tradition.[2]

The following table compares the division of the ‘Loci theologici’ of the pre-Vatican II theologians with Doronzo’s division of the ‘channels of revelation’.

Traditional ‘Theological Places’ (Loci theologici)

            I. Proper Loci

                        A. Sacred Scripture

                        B. Sacred Tradition

                                    1. The Organs of Sacred Tradition

                                                a. The solemn Magisterium

                                                b. The ordinary Magisterium

                                    2. The Witnesses of Sacred Tradition

                                                a. The Consensus of the Fathers

                                                b. The Consensus of the Theologians

                                                 c. The Consensus of the Faithful
            II. Extraneous Loci (e.g., philosophy, history, etc.)

Doronzo’s ‘Channels of Revelation’

I. The Sole Source of Revelation: Christ’s preaching

II. The Channels of Revelation

                        A. The Deposits of Revelation

                                    1. Sacred Scripture

                                    2. Sacred Tradition

                                                a. The Consensus of the Fathers

                                                b. The Consensus of the Theologians

                                                c. The Consensus of the Faithful

                        B. The Organ of Revelation: The Magisterium

                                    1. The solemn Magisterium

                                    2. The ordinary Magisterium

As Doronzo explains, the Second Vatican Council used a ‘reformed terminology’, according to which the historical event of Christ’s preaching is the sole ‘source’ (fons) of Divine Revelation, whereas Scripture and Tradition are the ‘deposit’ (depositum) of Divine Revelation, i.e., the ‘places’ (or Loci) where Revelation has been deposited (p. vi, note 3).  Doronzo also calls the Magisterium an ‘Organ of Revelation’ (thus borrowing, but slightly modifying, the traditional terminology of “organ of Tradition”).  Doronzo further gives the name of “Channels of Revelation” to the Deposit of Revelation (i.e., Scripture and Tradition) and the Organ of Revelation (i.e., Magisterium) taken collectively.  Thus, for Doronzo there are three ‘Channels’, namely, Scripture and Tradition (= the ‘Deposit’) and the Magisterium (= the ‘Organ’).

Thus, the main innovations in Doronzo’s division of his treatise are the following:

(a) Doronzo’s division focuses, not on what the division means for theology (cf. Loci theologici), but on what it means for Revelation (cf., ‘Channels of Revelation’);

(b) It creates a separate category besides Scripture and Tradition, namely, the event or ‘source’ of Revelation itself (Christ’s preaching);

(c) Whereas the pre-Vatican II theologians placed the Magisterium within Tradition, as an ‘Organ of Tradition’, Doronzo places it outside of it, as an ‘Organ of Revelation’.[3] 

(d) Doronzo’s distinction incorporates better the Second Vatican Council’s terminology.

It could be argued that, while some of these elements are positive, some are problematic.  The first (a) is especially problematic.  The fact that Doronzo is calling them the ‘Channels of Revelation’ shifts the attention from theology to revelation.  The traditional distinction was one among sources for theology; and, according to the traditional manuals,[4] theology has both proper and extraneous sources: the proper sources (Scripture and Tradition) contain divine revelation, whereas the extraneous sources (such as the writings of the philosophers) do not.  Thus, calling them ‘channels of revelation’ takes all these other important (if secondary) theological sources out of the picture altogether.  As Doronzo says after listing the original seven Loci theologici of Melchior Cano, including the three extraneous sources: “Discarding these three extrinsic ‘Loci’, which can only lightly confirm a theological truth and help a theological investigation, all the other seven ‘Loci’ can be reduced to three, namely Scripture, Magisterium, and Tradition” (p. vi).  The result is that we no longer are speaking of such a practical subject as the issue of where the theologian finds the raw data from which to do his science—an issue which pertains to theological methodology (and this was the intent of the traditional treatise on the Loci theologici)—but rather of the much heavier doctrinal issue of the interrelation of the deposits (sic) of revelation.  So for Doronzo to claim to adopt a ‘reformed’ terminology is problematic because to suggest that the new terminology on the Channels of Revelation is an improvement on the terminology of the Loci theologici amounts to an equivocation of terms.  Doronzo does not explicitly take note of this problem, although he does implicitly acknowledge a distinction between the concept of ‘locus theologicus’ and that of ‘Channel of Revelation’ in saying that the consensus of the faithful, apart from being a Witness of Tradition is also a distinct ‘theological place’.[5]

Elements (b) though (d) do seem positive, insofar as his division rightly acknolwedges the distinction between the event of Revelation and the Deposits of Revelation (something that is not altogether absent from traditional scholastic theology), and also insofar as it construes the Magisterium as something that is not altogether reducible to Sacred Tradition.  Doronzo thus arranges the division in a way that is more in line with the doctrine contained in Dei Verbum.  In this respect, he is also positing a division of the ‘Channels’ that harmonizes (better than the traditional division of the Loci) with the doctrine on the proximate and remote rules of faith.[6]

All of these points form, as it were, the foundational principles on which Doronzo builds and organizes his treatment on the Channels of Revelation.

III. Particular Points.  In Chapter One, Doronzo reasserts the traditional doctrine of the inerrancy of the entire text of Scripture as involving “the absolute exclusion of all error, even in other matters” beyond faith and morals (p. 6).  This shows that Doronzo did not accept the interpretation of Dei Verbum 11, popular at the time, which limits inerrancy to ‘saving truths.’  Doronzo grounds the inerrancy of Scripture on the dogma of inspiration, which makes God the author of the entire text of Scripture.

In this chapter, Doronzo introduces the senses of Scripture, presenting the traditional teaching on the literal and spiritual senses.  He, however, question the existence of the ‘ampler sense’ (sensus plenior).  His argument is that the ‘ampler sense’ would be somewhere between the literal and the spiritual sense, at once intended and not intended by the hagiographer.  This seems to him to mean that the words “carry an extra sense that they do not have, since they are words proceeding from the mind of the hagiographer, whom God uses as an instrument” (p. 6).   Thus, this sense would be at once literal and not literal.  This criticism of the ‘ampler sense’, however, seems to rest on the view that the ‘ampler sense’ is a sui generis category that is not reducible to the literal sense.  Other authors define the sensus plenior as a species or mode of the literal sense.  This way of conceiving the sensus plenior seems immune to Doronzo’s criticisms. 

One important point that Doronzo makes is that the ‘typical’ or spiritual sense is known only through revelation.  Recall that the literal sense lies the relationship that the words of Scripture have to their objective referent in reality (e.g., the word ‘woman’ in Genesis 3 has Eve as its objective referent), whereas the spiritual sense lies in the relationship that this referent has to another referent.  The hagiographer, of course, can intend the literal sense, because it is within his power to employ words to signify their natural referents.  The hagiographer, however, cannot create the things of which he speaks; only God can do this.  Thus, only God can assign to those things their own referents.  This act of assigning to things their own referents is itself an act of Revelation.  Thus, we see that in the New Testament, God reveals to us the spiritual sense of certain passages of the Old Testament.  Similarly, the spiritual sense of these and other passages of the Old Testament is revealed to us through Sacred Tradition (handed down orally and in non-canonical writings from the apostolic age to our own).  The interpreter, therefore, cannot arbitrarily decide what the spiritual sense of a passage is, but must rely on what has been handed down to us.

Toward the end of the Chapter One, Doronzo puts forth a very strong view on the value of the Latin Vulgate.   He argues that, because this version “alone has been declared authentic by the Magisterium, that is, in substantial conformity with the original text, the theologian can and must take it into consideration in his labor, giving it preference to any other version or the original text critically established” (p. 6).  This stands to reason, since no original text critically established has been approved by the Magisterium.  But Doronzo carefully notes that “the critical investigation of the original text is very useful to the theologian, even for the right understanding of the Vulgate” (ibid.).

In Chapter Two, Doronzo makes very helpful distinctions concerning tradition.  Doronzo makes an interesting distinction between what he calls ‘Active’ and ‘Objective’ Tradition.  Active Tradition is the very act of handing down the truths of Revelation, whereas Objective Tradition is the body of truths that are handed down (or the object of the act of handing down).  This distinction is helpful insofar as it can explain more clearly how the Magisterium relates to Tradition: the Magisterium is a separate entity from Objective Tradition, because it does not add any objective content to those truths that were handed down from the apostolic age to our own, but it is part of Active Tradition, insofar as it is through the Magisterium that the Objective Tradition is authoritatively proposed to the faithful for their belief.

He also distinguishes between what he calls ‘Integral’ Tradition and ‘Partial’ or ‘Unwritten’ Tradition.  Here he is alluding to the fact that whereas the term ‘Tradition’ is typically employed to refer to the oral handing down of truths, as opposed to Scripture, the written deposit of Revelation—and this is ‘Partial’ Tradition—, the term ‘Tradition’ can also be taken in a broader sense as being the whole deposit of revelation before it got differentiated into the multiple modes of being handed down (orally, in canonical writings, and in non-canonical writings)—and this is ‘Integral’ Tradition. 

This distinction is helpful for many reasons, in particular for settling the issue of which channel of Revelation has primacy over the others.  Integral Tradition, he notes, is (a) older, (b) ampler, and (c) more independent deposit than Scripture.  It is older than Scripture precisely because it preceded it in time.  It is ampler because all the truths that were communicated in Scripture proceeded from Integral Tradition, but not all the truths that were communicated in that Integral Tradition made their way into Scripture.  It is more independent because it is sufficient for the successful communication of Revelation, whereas Scripture is not.  But Doronzo notes that Scripture does have primacy over ‘Partial’ or ‘Unwritten’ Tradition because it is (a) written, and hence has a more permanent and definite character, and (b) because it is inspired and inerrant, whereas Unwritten Tradition is merely infallible.  It has, moreover, primacy also over the Magisterium, because, as Vatican II teaches, the Magisterium is not the Word of God itself, but merely its custodian and interpreter. 

Regarding the issue of to what extent Scripture is sufficient as deposit of revelation (i.e., whether it is substantially, or only virtually, sufficient), he states that there are four ways in which “Tradition truly completes and perfects Scripture”:

(a) “[S]everal matters concerning discipline (morals and usages) of divine origin and connected with revealed truths (for instance, infant Baptism) are found in Tradition and not sufficiently in Scripture”;

(b) “the canonicity and inspiration of Scripture as a whole is known only through Tradition and not through Scripture itself...”;

(c) “the knowledge of several truths, as derived from Scripture, is not certain unless it is completed by the data of Tradition...”;

(d) “the knowledge of other truths derived from Scripture is further illustrated and confirmed by Tradition” (pp. 16-17). 

He concludes that all revealed truths are traceable back to Scripture as to their foundation, but Scripture itself is insufficient for our knowledge and understanding of those truths.

Toward the end of this second chapter, Doronzo makes notes on the ‘Witnesses of Tradition’.  First (pp. 22-24), he addresses the consensus of the faithful.  He gives two arguments, one from reason (based on an analogy with ‘common sense’, wherein lies a “kind of natural infallibility, resting on intuition,” and which relates to the sense of the faithful as the natural to the supernatural) and another argument from authority (based on the text of Vatican II’s Dei Verbum which speaks of the sensus fidelium).  Doronzo points out that it is natural for the learning Church (Ecclesia discens) to have this infallibility, as it is the whole Church, and not just the Magisterium (the Teaching Church, or Ecclesia docens) that enjoys the charism of infallibility.  Doronzo then provides rules for the use and interpretation of the consensus of the faithful, noting that it is known through its monuments, e.g., Christian literature, the practice of prayer and devotions, popular preaching, and Christian art (architectural, sculptural, pictorial), etc.

Then he turns to the consensus of Fathers (pp. 24-27) which, he points out, is the surest and easiest way to discover Tradition.  He first distinguishes two ways of regarding the Fathers: as Father as Witnesses of Tradition and as private doctors.  They are Witnesses of Tradition (and hence a locus theologicus) when they have a morally unanimous consensus on a certain point on faith and morals; they are mere private doctors when they teach something that does not pertain to faith or morals or when they teach something on faith and morals but lack the aforesaid moral consensus.  Doronzo then gives clear criteria for being a ‘Father of the Church’: a Church Father is he who, by reason of a (a) particular holiness, (b) eminent and orthodox doctrine, (c) remote antiquity, and (d) ecclesiastical approbation, had a connatural influence in the generation of the faithful and the propagation of the faith.  If a given writer lacks one of these four criteria, then he is not strictly a Church Father, but only an ‘Ecclesiastical Writer’.  Specifically those ecclesiastical writers who possess criteria (a) and (b), along with a special (d) ecclesiastical approbation, receive the name of ‘Doctor of the Church’.  Doronzo also defends the theological authority of the consensus of theologians on matters of faith and morals and that of St Thomas Aquinas in particular.

Chapter Three, which is only five pages long (pp. 33-37), is a brief discussion of the Magisterium as the Organ of Revelation.  He defines the Ordinary Magisterium as “that which is exercised in a common manner by the pastors of the Church (Pope and bishops) or under their direction, by means of ordinary... documents....  It can be either infallible or noninfallible” (pp. 33-34).  He then defines the Extraordinary Magisterium as a “formal, explicit, and solemn declaration, made only by the supreme authority of the Church, namely, the Roman Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council” (p. 34).  Although the pre-Vatican II theologians typically classified the Extraordinary Magisterium as infallible, given the phenomenon of Vatican II (an ex professo non-infallible Ecumenical Council), Doronzo here explicitly says that, “[d]epending on the will of this authority and on the mode or formula of the declaration, it [i.e., the Extraordinary Magisterium] can be either infallible (as are the definitions of Vatican I) or noninfallible (as are the Constitutions, Decrees, and Declarations of Vatican II)” (ibid.).  Doronzo then briefly explains the traditional doctrine on the proximate and remote rules of faith: whereas Scripture and Tradition form one remote rule of faith insofar as they form one deposit of Divine Revelation, the Church is the proximate rule of faith insofar as it is that through which the Catholic (faithful and theologian alike) knows, understands, and interprets the remote rule.  In the rest of the Chapter, Doronzo briefly discusses various norms for determining the probative value of the pronouncements of the Magisterium (e.g., whether a given pronouncement is infallible or not, what force it has as a theological proof, the relationship between the Ordinary and Extraordinary as theological loci, the proper and direct object of a dogmatic definition, etc.).

In Chapter Four, Doronzo discusses the immutability and development of dogma.  He explains in what sense a dogma can develop and in what sense it cannot, making the following observations: (a) from the beginning of the history of salvation until the death of the last apostle, there was an objective increment in the deposit of revealed truths, for instance, the coming of the Messias—and since then there can no longer be such an objective increment, at least understood in this sense; (b) there can be a subjective increment, however, insofar as we discover (subjectively) truths that had been already (objectively) revealed, for instance, the doctrine of the Consubstantiality of Christ and God the Father; and (c) given this progressive subjective increment, there is room for an objective increment in the sense of drawing out truths that are implicit in the revealed truths, for instance, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.  The rest of the Chapter discusses specifically the last two modes of development in more detail.

In Chapter Five, Doronzo moves on to discuss the concept of the theological conclusion.  He defines ‘theological conclusion’ as “a proposition (or a judgment or a truth), which through a discursive process is derived from a revealed principle.  It is called a conclusion, because it is not revealed in itself, but only deduced from a revealed truth....” (p. 52).  Thus, the theological conclusion is the conclusion of a syllogism at least one of whose premises is a revealed dogma (the other premise may or may not be a revealed dogma).  For instance:

Major Premise “God knows the day of the last judgment.”

Minor Premise: “Christ is God.”

Conclusion: “Therefore, Christ knows the day of the last judgment.”

In this case, both premises are revealed dogmas.  But take this other example:

Major Premise “Every human has a human will.”

Minor Premise: “Christ is human.”

Conclusion: “Therefore, Christ has a human will.”

In this case, the minor premise is de fide, but the major premise is a natural truth, knowable through human reason without the aid of Revelation.  These two are examples of theological conclusions properly so-called, which are to be distinguished from theological conclusions improperly so-called, which are mere explanations or reformulations of a certain dogma and, thus, do not represent a new conclusion that differs essentially from the dogma itself.             

In the subsequent pages (54-59), Doronzo moves on to the issue of the definability of theological conclusions, which was a problem that was hotly debated among theologians before the Second Vatican Council.              He says that all theologians agree that ‘theological conclusions improperly so-called’ are definable as dogmas.  They also agree that all ‘theological conclusions properly so-called’ whose premises are all de fide are also definable.  The controversy lies on whether ‘theological conclusions properly so-called’ that contain at least one natural truth that has not been revealed can be defined as dogma.  He contrasts the view of R.M. Schultes, OP, who holds that they cannot be defined, with that of F. Marín-Sola, who says they can, and defends the latter view as the more probable of the two.

Chapter Six, the last chapter, is a discussion of theological notes and censures.  At the beginning of the chapter, he defines ‘theological note’, in its dogmatic sense, as “a favorable judgment on the theological value of a doctrine (whether it is de fide or certain, or probable).”  He likewise defines ‘censure’ as an ‘unfavorable judgment [on the theological value of a doctrine].” They are normally used as a word pair, and are often used interchangeably.  Thus, for instance, the dogma of the Divinity of Christ can be assigned the note of de fide, and the Arian teaching (which denied this dogma) that Christ was not consubstantial with the Father could be assigned the corresponding censure of ‘heretical’.  Other doctrines of lesser rank might be given notes of lesser rank, such as “Catholic doctrine” or “theologically certain” and their opposite errors could be given the censure of “theological error.”

Doronzo then goes on to give a brief history of notes and censures, to discuss the issue of who is qualified to give or author these notes and censures (primarily the Magisterium, and secondarily the theologians), and the manner in which this is done.  Finally, he presents a division of these notes and censures.  His division is the following, according to decreasing rank (censures followed by their corresponding note in parenthesis):   heretical (de fide), erroneous (theologically certain), temerarious (highly probable), ill-sounding (correct sounding), offensive for pious ears (fitting for piety).  Toward the end of the chapter, Doronzo discusses the interpretation and use of these notes and censures.

The Glossary at the end is quite useful.   It contains eight total entries: (1) Analogy of Faith, (2) Argument-Conclusion, (3) Faith, (4) Magisterium, (5) Reason, (6) Revelation, (7) Source, channel, deposit, organ of revelation, and (8) Theological ‘loci’.  Each entry consists of the term and a succinct (dense, detailed, yet brief) explanation of the notion expressed by the term, it divisions, and other relevant observations.  The Analytical index has a similar layout: thirty terms, each followed by a paragraph in which every sentence is referenced to a page of the book.

IV. General Appraisal of the Work.  In these booklets, written well after Vatican II, Doronzo seems willing to accept a very traditional Thomistic interpretation of Vatican II, in particular of the constitution Dei Verbum on Divine Revelation.  He reacts very strongly, however, against the “theological irenicism and relativism, which began to creep among Catholic writers several years ago under the fallacious name of ‘The New Theology’, and which seems to make progress these days” (Introduction to Theology, p. iv), a theology which, he adds, represents “the kind of neo-modernism which is creeping into some theological circles after Vatican Council II” (Introduction to Theology, p. 43). Thus, the books are clearly the work of a traditional Catholic Thomist who wants to be faithful to Dei Verbum, and yet is vehemently opposed to the neo-modernism of the nouvelle théologie.  These volumes are indeed very interesting and valuable for historians of the theology of the period immediately following the Second Vatican Council.  It is especially valuable, however, for systematic theologians who want to do traditional scholastic theology in all its rigor but who nonetheless want to do so with an awareness of what the Second Vatican Council teaches.  If Vatican II in general, and Dei Verbum in particular, are to be interpreted in a way that is consonant with the Thomistic tradition, Doronzo’s four-volume set could be of much value.  

For the renascent scholastic theology of the 21^st Century, these volumes represent the ideal harmonization of the nova and the vetera.

---

Endnotes:

[1] Henceforth all numbers in parentheses, unless otherwise noted, will refer to page numbers in this volume.

[2] This explanation is a simplified version of what is commonly found in the standard manuals of scholastic theology; cf. Garrigou-Lagrange, De revelatione per ecclesiam catholicam proposita (Rome: Marietti, 1950), p. 35ff; M. Nicolau, “Introductio in Theologiam” in Patres SJ in Hispania Professores, Sacrae theologiae summa, Vol. 1 (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1952), p. 21; Adolphe Tanquerey, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae fundamentalis (Paris; Rome: Desclée, 1937), pp. 715-716.

[3] And yet, at times he seems to speak in ways that approximate the old division: “By being the organ of revelation contained in Tradition, the Magisterium becomes also part of the active tradition, that is, one of the principal means by which the objective Tradition is transmitted, as we noted above (pp. 11, 18).”

[4] This point goes at least as far back as Aquinas; cf. ST I.1.8.

[5] Interestingly, when addressing the practical question of how a theologian knows that a given doctrine is contained in Sacred Tradition, he cites the ‘declaration of the Magisterium’ as the primary criterion (p. 18).  (This criterion is precisely why the traditional theologians locate the Magisterium as within Tradition and not as a separate category.)

[6] Doronzo explains this doctrine in p. 34 (see below).  Cf. M. Nicolau, “Introductio in Theologiam,” p. 21.

Emmanuel Doronzo, OMI on Facebook