Why Cajetan's Interpretation of Aquinas's Doctrine of Analogy is Not Wrong

Why Cajetan's Interpretation of Aquinas's Doctrine of Analogy is Not Wrong

Quaeritur: I've run into several articles by modern Thomists attacking traditional Thomists (e.g. Garrigou-Lagrange) for being "essentialists." Frequently, these moderns have been heavily influenced by Wittgenstein, which I find suspect to start with. At any rate, it seems that a large part of their attack is based on an allegation that the "essentialists" inherited a mistaken idea regarding analogy from Cajetan (interestingly, Charles de Koninck holds that Cajetan was incorrect as well, at least in the article I read by him). I was able to find an abstract of a promising looking article (“The Semantics of Analogy according to Thomas de Vio Cajetan’s De Nominum Analogia” by Joshua Hochschild), but I haven't been able to get access to the entire thing.

My questions are these:

1) What is your take on the attacks on traditional Thomism as "essentialist"? Was Cajetan wrong in his analysis of analogy? I saw your post from 2006 about Gilson, but I was wondering if you had more to add.

2) Is there anywhere one can find a brief history of this debate? I read a past post on Gilson and his dismissal of the commentators and have read a little by him on the matter (I don't aggree with him), but I was wondering if you had anything further to add.

3) Mcinerny's book on analogy is quite polemic, but I was told that he softened his views afterwards. Is his newer book worth one's time?

4) Why is the debate today so incredibly one-sided by and large (i.e. Cajetan was wrong, end of story)? It seems to be given as a fact that Cajetan was wrong (e.g. many articles simply have it as a footnote that Cajetan had a severely flawed yet influential notion of analogy). It is unclear to me as to what Santiago Ramirez's position is on account of my poor (but improving) Latin.

Also, what-if anything- is worth reading by Joseph Owens? I've had him recommended to me, but at first glance he seems to be against all the commentators. I haven't really looked at him much, but I was wondering if he's worth reading, in your opinion.

Finally, I found a site with literally hundreds of articles, papers, and lecture notes of Charles de Koninck. I thought it might be good to link.

Respondeo: I will first give you my general thought on the matter, and then proceed to give a more direct response to (what’s left of) your questions.

I. I have not yet tackled Ramirez; all I know is that his view is based on Cajetan and he rejects McInerny’s view.

II. I have found reading McInerny's newer book (not "The Logic of Analogy," from 1961, but rather "Aquinas and Analogy," published in 1996) a great learning experience, not because I agree, but because I disagree. Unfortunately, I'm still in the middle of it; I read about half of it last Summer and got too busy and never finished. So far it is indeed very polemical. He dedicates the first chapter to attacking Cajetan (the chapter is titled "Where Cajetan Went Wrong"). The rest of the book (so far) seems to be based on these criticisms of Cajetan.

The first chapter, which left me unconvinced, McInerny makes the following points:

A. Cajetan bases his view on analogy on text from Aquinas' (early) Commentary on the Sentences (I, d. 19, q. 5, a. 1 ad 1m).

B. There Cajetan finds a list of instances of analogous names, which Cajetan interprets as being a logical division of analogy into separate "kinds":

1) analogy of inequality (e.g., "body" is said of all corporeal substances),

2) analogy of attribution (e.g., the dog is "healthy," the dog's food is "healthy," and the dog's urine is "healthy"), and

3) analogy of proportionality (e.g., "being" is said of a substance and of an accident, and of God and creatures).

C. Cajetan admits that the first kind is only abusively called "analogy", because it is really closer to univocity, but the other two kinds do represent genuine, irreducible species of analogy.

D. McInerny, instead, takes passages from the Summa as his basis for interpreting Aquinas' doctrine on analogy. The passages of the Summa seem to present a simpler doctrine, based on Aristotle's distinction in the Categories between univocal and equivocal names. There are:

1) Univocal names (e.g., Plato is a "man" and Socrates is a "man.")

2) Equivocal names (e.g., I write with a "pen" and my children play with a "pen.")

3) Analogical names (e.g., again, the dog is "healthy," the dog's food is "healthy," and the dog's urine is "healthy").

Then Aquinas proceeds to apply this third kind of name (analogous names) to speak of the difference between God and creatures.

E. Thus, McInerny concludes, there is only one kind of analogy. The kind of analogy that obtains between "healthy" things is the same kind of analogy that he will apply to God and creatures. Hence, Aristotle is right, Aquinas is right, but Cajetan is wrong.

III. This is an oversimplification of McInerny’s argument in Ch. 1, and I have not yet thought through all the details of the problem in the rest of the book, but so far here are my thoughts:

A. Aristotle is right. Aquinas is right. Cajetan is right. McInerny is wrong at least insofar as he thinks these three are irreconcilable.

B. McInerny is arguing on the basis of Aquinas' examples. He sees Aquinas in the Summa giving one example of "analogous names" (the "healthy" example) and then saying that analogous names are used between God and creatures. Therefore, he concludes, the kind of analogy that obtains between healthy things is the same as the kind of analogy that obtains between God and creatures. In general, he concludes that there is no basis in Aquinas to make distinctions between kinds of analogous name.

But this is bad reasoning. This is like arguing that, because cats are an example of mammals, and we say that dogs are mammals, it follows that cats are the same kind of mammals as dogs. It's literally the same form of reasoning: because healthy things are an example of analogous names, and we say that God and creatures are given analogous names, it follows that the healthy things are applied the same kind of analogous name as God and creatures.

C. My own interpretation of Aquinas, so far, is this:

1. Cajetan is interpreting the passage of the Sentences correctly: there are three distinct species within the genus "analogous names."

2. The text of the Summa is contrasting the GENUS "analogous names" with two other genera, "univocal names" and "equivocal names."

3. Therefore, a division of "name" would be the following:

A. Univocal
B. Equiocal
C. Analogous
... 1. by inequality
... 2. by attribution
... 3. by proportionality

4. This outline still doesn't quite fit with some of the details, for instance:

a. Aristotle's texts, which list only two kinds of “names,” the univocal and the equivocal (giving the term “healthy” as an example of equivocal names),

b. a few of Aquinas’ texts, which contrast “purely equivocal names” with “analogous names” (implying analogous names are equivocal, but not purely equivocal),

c. Cajetan's classification of the analogy of inequality as being really equivocity that is called analogy only abusively.

So my hunch is that this division can be further revised to make better sense of these problems, and others raised by McInerny, to look like this:

A. Univocal
B. Equiocal
... 1. Purely Equivocal
... 2. Analogous
...... a. by inequality
...... b. by attribution
...... c. by proportionality

This would make Cajetan, Aquinas, and Aristotle all agree. Aristotle would be listing only A and B; Aquinas would be listing A, B1, and B2; and Cajetan would be listing B2a, B2b, and B2c.

IV. In response to your questions:

Q1. I’m no longer so sure that the criticism that Cajetan was an “essentialist” is not based on this issue of analogy, as much as on the fact that Cajetan was very fond of performing a logical analysis on anything that he talked about, thus almost “reifying” logical “essences.” And for ‘existentialist’ Thomists, this is intolerable.

Q2. I’m not sure where you can find an updated history of the debate, but I believe Ramirez goes into it ad nauseam, from ancient Greek philosophy up until his time (1960s).

Q3. I am aware of the two mentioned above. If there is a newer one I don’t know anything about it.

Q4. Cajetan has to be wrong because he is the most prominent of the scholastic Thomists, and scholastic Thomism is over.

Q5. Joseph Owens: read his dissertation on Aristotle, titled: The Doctrine on Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics. It’s a masterpiece as a historical interpretation of Aristotle which no one has suprassed it in almost half a century. Anything he has written on Aquinas, however, I wouldn’t be so excited about; it's not awful, but it's just the same old historical Thomism.

Kelly, SJ on the Morality of Cosmetic Surgery

Kelly, SJ on the Morality of Cosmetic Surgery

From Kelly, SJ - Medico-Moral Problems, pp. 259-260
The complete book is available on PDF from ITOPL.

Canon Mahoney on Immodest Dress and on Women in Men's Clothing

Canon Mahoney on Immodest Dress and on Women in Men's Clothing

From Canon Mahoney - Casuistry: Questions and Answers, Vol. 2, pp. 82-85 (qq. 409-10).

This book is available on PDF from ITOPL.

Quaeritur: Who are the Post-Conciliar Traditional Catholic Thomists?

Quaeritur: Who are the Post-Conciliar Traditional Catholic Thomists?

Quaeritur: Who brings a reliable scholastic tradition, into our modern times?  I am trying to find apologies for a scholastic, perennial, and Christian (if you will indulge that, if not, fine, but traditional and reliable is a must) philosophy up into our modern error, all the while defending philosophy against all the errors of modern philosophy, post Vatican 2.  Who represents tradition post Vatican 2?  In whom does the continuation of tradition reside?  Also, what am I to think of Maritain?

Respondeo: No post-conciliar philosopher, to my knowledge, has written a thorough critique of post-conciliar philosophical errors--maybe you could be the first!  

That said, post-conciliar philosophical and theological errors were already present right before the council.  There is really "nothing new under the sun."  Garrigou-Lagrange wrote plenty to refute those same errors that we are suffering today.  See Pius XII's encyclical Humani generis (Garrigou is said to be the drafter or 'ghostwriter'), Garrigou's "Where is the New Theology Leading Us?" and his "Structure of the Encyclical Humani Generis."  In addition, his Le sens commun is a superb philosophical examination of false theological views on the nature of dogma, but it is unfortunately untranslated (I hope to translate it someday). 

Very few contemporary scholars are real traditional Catholics.  Garrigou-Lagrange is, of course, the best and most faithful Thomist of the 20th Century and he died in 1964, during the Council.  Among truly traditional Thomists who continued writing after the Council are Emmanuel Doronzo (Latin and English) and Santiago Ramirez (Latin and Spanish).  Another good one that continued writing well after the council until recently was Royo Marin (who wrote in Spanish).  But these men were mainly theologians.  There are a few other minor philosophers today who are both traditional Thomists and traditional Catholics.  But they're almost all part-time scholars (such as Fr. Ripperger), or they're young scholars struggling to gain respect in academia and have to be careful with what they say. (Hint: Don Paco is just my nickname.)

Maritain (like Gilson) is good for some things, especially the more speculative, traditional scholastic topics (such as natural philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology), but is not very orthodox when it comes to practical things, such as personalism, religious liberty, ethics, art, political philosophy, cultural though, etc.  In these respects he is very much a liberal and a promoter of post-concilar ideas.  He also has a strange view of the relationship of the sciences.  

I recommend you read Peddicord's The Sacred Monster of Thomism, on Garrigou-Lagrange.  It will give you a sense of who Garrigou was and why it's important that we 'retrieve' his thought in our times (i.e., to rescue tradition) as well as shed light into the thought of Maritain and the new theologians.

Reginalde Garrigou-Lagrange, ora pro nobis!

Christ's Two Wills: Constantinople III's Dogmatic Definition and Condemnation of Monotheletism

Christ's Two Wills: Constantinople III's Dogmatic Definition and Condemnation of Monotheletism

Celebrating the 1329th Anniversary of the Closing of the 3rd Council of Constantinople 

From Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma, nos. 290-293.

Online Source: Catechetics Online

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE III (AD 680-681)

Ecumenical VI (against the Monothelites)

Definition of the Two Wills of Christ *

290 Besides both in Synodical letters which were written by blessed Cyril against the impious Nestorius and to the oriental bishops, following also the five holy ecumenical councils and the holy and trusted Fathers, and defining harmoniously with them it confesses: that our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, one of the holy and consubstantial Trinity and giving forth the origin of life, perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in humanity, truly God and truly man, Himself of a rational soul and body; it confesses the same consubstantial with the Father according to Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to humanity, through all things like to us except in sin [Heb. 4:15], before ages, indeed, begotten of the Father according to Godhead, in the last days, however, the same for us and for our salvation of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary properly and truly the mother of God according to humanity, one and the same Christ, the only begotten Lord God in two natures recognized unfusedly, unchangeably, inseparably, indivisibly, never the difference of these natures destroyed on account of union, but rather the property of each nature saved and in one person and in one substance concurring, not into two persons portioned or divided but one and the same only begotten Son of God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, just as formerly the prophets taught us about Him, and our Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us [Conc. Chal., see n. 148].

291 And so we proclaim two natural wills in Him, and two natural operations indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, unfusedly according to the doctrine of the holy Father, and two natural wills not contrary, God forbid, according as impious heretics have asserted, but the human will following and not resisting or hesitating, but rather even submitting to His divine and omnipotent will. For, it is necessary that the will of the flesh act, but that it be subject to the divine will according to the most wise Athanasius.  For, as His flesh is called and is the flesh of the Word of God, so also the natural will of His flesh is called and is the proper will of the Word of God as He Himself says: "Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of my Father who sent me)," [cf. John 6:38], calling the will of the flesh His own. For the body became His own. For as His most holy and immaculate animated flesh deified has not been destroyed but in its own status and plan remained, so also His human will deified has not been destroyed, but on the contrary it has been saved according to the theologian Gregory who says: "For to wish of that one an entire deification, which is understood in the Savior, is not contrary to God."

292 But we glorify two natural operations indivisibly, inconvertibly, unfusedly, inseparably in our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, our true God, that is, the divine operation and the human operation, according to Leo the divine preacher who very clearly asserts: "For each form does what is proper to itself with the mutual participation of the other, that is, the Word doing what is of the Word and the flesh accomplishing what is of the flesh" [see n. 144]. For at no time shall we grant one natural operation to God and to the creature, so that neither what was created, we raise into divine essence, nor what is especially of divine nature, we cast down to a place begetting creatures. For of one and the same we recognize the miracles and the sufferings according to the one and the other of these natures from which He is and in which He has to be as the admirable Cyril says. Therefore we, maintaining completely an unconfused and undivided (opinion), In a brief statement set forth all: that we, believing that He is one of the Holy Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ our true God, and after the incarnation assert that His two natures radiate in His one substance, in which His miracles and His sufferings through all His ordained life, not through phantasy but truly He has shown, on account of the natural difference which is recognized in the same single substance, while with the mutual participation of the other, each nature indivisibly and without confusion willed and performed its own works; according to this plan we confess two natural wills and operations concurring mutually in Him for the salvation of the human race.

293 These things, therefore, having been determined by us with all caution and diligence, we declare that no one is permitted to introduce, or to describe, or to compare, or to study, or otherwise to teach another faith. But whoever presumes to compare or to introduce or to teach or to pass on another creed to those wishing to turn from the belief of the Gentiles or of the Jews or from any heresy whatsoever to the acknowledgement of truth, or who (presumes) to introduce a novel doctrine or an invention of discourse to the subversion of those things which now have been determined by us, (we declare) these, whether they are bishops or clerics, to be excommunicated, bishops indeed from the bishopric, but priests from the priesthood; but if they are monks or laymen, to be anathematized.

Torquemada: Hammer of Heretics, Light and Saviour of Spain, Honor of his Order

Torquemada: Hammer of Heretics, Light and Saviour of Spain, Honor of his Order

On the 512th Anniversary of the Death of Tomás de Torquemada, OP

From Catholic Encyclopedia, "Tomás de Torquemada"

First Grand Inquisitor of Spain, born at Valladolid in 1420; died at Avila, 16 September, 1498. He was a nephew of the celebrated theologian and cardinal, Juan de Torquemada. In his early youth he entered the Dominican monastery at Valladolid, and later was appointed prior of the Monastery of Santa Cruz at Segovia, an office which he held for twenty-two years. The Infanta Isabella chose him as her confessor while at Segovia, and when she succeeded to the throne of Castile in 1474 he became one of her most trusted and influential councillors, but refused all high ecclesiastical preferments, choosing to remain a simple friar.

At that time the purity of the Catholic Faith in Spain was in great danger from the numerous Marranos and Moriscos, who, for material considerations, became sham converts from Judaism and Mohammedanism to Christianity. The Marranos committed serious outrages against Christianity and endeavoured to judaize the whole of Spain. The Inquisition, which the Catholic sovereigns had been empowered to establish by Sixtus IV in 1478, had, despite unjustifiable cruelties, failed of its purpose, chiefly for want of centralisation. In 1483 the pope appointed Torquemada, who had been an assistant inquisitor since 11 February 1482, Grand Inquisitor of Castile, and on 17 October extended his jurisdiction over Aragon.

As papal representative and the highest official of the inquisitorial court, Torquemada directed the entire business of the Inquisition in Spain, was empowered to delegate his inquisitorial faculties to other Inquisitors of his own choosing, who remained accountable to him, and settled the appeals made to the Holy See. He immediately established tribunals at Valladolid, Seville, Jaén, Avila, Cordova, and Villareal, and, in 1484, at Saragossa for the Kingdom of Aragon. He also instituted a High Council, consisting of five members, whose chief duty was to assist him in the hearing of appeals (see INQUISITION — The Inquisition in Spain). He convened a general assembly of Spanish inquisitors at Seville, 29 November, 1484, and presented an outline of twenty-eight articles for their guidance. To these he added several new statutes in 1485, 1488, and 1498 (Reuss, "Sammlungen der Instructionen des spanischen Inquisitionsgerichts", Hanover, 1788). The Marranos found a powerful means of evading the tribunals in the Jews of Spain, whose riches had made them very influential and over whom the Inquisition had no jurisdiction. On this account Torquemada urged the sovereigns to compel all the Jews either to become Christians or to leave Spain. To frustrate his designs the Jews agreed to pay the Spanish government 30,000 ducats if left unmolested. There is a tradition that when Ferdinand was about to yield to the enticing offer, Torquemada appeared before him, bearing a crucifix aloft, and exclaiming: "Judas Iscariot sold Christ for 30 pieces of silver; Your Highness is about to sell him for 30,000 ducats. Here He is; take Him and sell Him." Leaving the crucifix on the table he left the room. Chiefly through his instrumentality the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492.

Much has been written of the inhuman cruelty of Torquemada. Llorente computes that during Torquemada's office (1483-98) 8800 suffered death by fire and 9,654 were punished in other ways (Histoire de l'Inquisition, IV, 252). These figures are highly exaggerated, as has been conclusively proved by Hefele (Cardinal Ximenes, ch. xviii), Gams (Kirchengeschichte von Spanien, III, II, 68-76), and many others. Even the Jewish historian Graetz contents himself with stating that "under the first Inquisitor Torquemada, in the course of fourteen years (1485-1498) at least 2000 Jews were burnt as impenitent sinners" ("History of the Jews", Philadelphia, 1897, IV, 356). Most historians hold with the Protestant Peschel (Das Zeitalter der Entdeckungen, Stuttgart, 1877, pp. 119 sq.) that the number of persons burnt from 1481 to 1504, when Isabella died, was about 2000. Whether Torquemada's ways of ferreting out and punishing heretics were justifiable is a matter that has to be decided not only by comparison with the penal standard of the fifteenth century, but also, and chiefly, by an inquiry into their necessity for the preservation of Christian Spain. The contemporary Spanish chronicler, Sebastian de Olmedo (Chronicon magistrorum generalium Ordinis Prædicatorum, fol. 80-81) calls Torquemada "the hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the saviour of his country, the honour of his order".

"God Revealing Man to Himself": Nouvelle Theologie and Naturalism in Theological Conclusions

"God Revealing Man to Himself": Nouvelle Theologie and Naturalism in Theological Conclusions

From Greenstock, David, T.O.P. "Thomism and the New Theology" The Thomist 13 (1950), 567-96, quoted at 575-8 (emphasis added and footnotes redacted; submitted by an Ite ad Thomam reader).

St. Thomas’ view of this problem of the relationship between faith and reason which gives rise to the science of theology was both deep and clear and is admirably set out and defended by John of St. Thomas. Theology is a true science, indeed it is the most noble of the sciences worthy in every way of the name of sapientia. The principles upon which it relies in its evolution and in its investigations are those divine facts which have been revealed by God. However, as a science, those divinely revealed principles do not form its proper object, that is the role of the conclusions which are drawn from them with the help of human reason. Such a statement, which seems so clear to us now, was a real revolution when it was first made. The object of the science of theology is the theological conclusion strictly so called. Now, in order to deduce these conclusions from revealed truth there is need of a fitting instrument with which to work. Sometimes this instrument takes the form of another revealed truth, while at other times it is a truth which is known to human reason by its own unaided efforts. Now, obviously, the minor premise which contains another revealed truth will have far greater influence on the conclusion than one which contains a truth known to human reason alone. But, and here is the crux of the whole question, even though the human truth occupies an inferior position, that of a mere instrument, the revealed truth in the major premise does exercise a great influence on that human instrument. That is why St. Thomas speaks of these natural truths which are so used in theology as that “handmaidens” of that science, in the sense that theology, as a true science, makes use of these human truths for its major purpose, which is to explain revealed truth in human language, so far as that is possible.

The position of the new theologians is very different from that of Aquinas. Their idea is that theological reasoning consists in using revealed truth in order to draw out of the full latent content contained in human truths--the contrary, in fact of the Thomist position. This is a logical conclusion which follows from their vitalistic attitude towards truth and especially from their statements that the theological conclusion strictly so called has little or no value. It also follows from their teaching with regard to the evolution, necessarily connected with contemporary history, through which theology must pass if it is to remain alive and to play an effective part in the modern world. As one of the partisans of the new theology expresses it, “L’histoire manifeste donc a la fois la relativite des notions, des schemes ou la theologie et, en mem temps, offer aux regards de la foi l’affirmation absolue, la Parole divine qui s’y est incarnee.” (Henri Bouillard)  Thus, human reasoning, which changes according to the dictates of its historical evolution and the necessities of the times, uses the permanent element, which is divine truth, as an instrument to develop and present its latent content.

Thus the central problem which confronts us here is quite simply one of two contrary ways of considering the relation between revelation and reason. Either reason is the instrument in the development of revealed truth or the revealed truth is the instrument of reason. It is our opinion that, unless the fact which we have mentioned before–of the great influence of the revealed truths on the natural truth which is used as an instrument in their full development–is understood and clearly brought to light, then this fundamental error in the new theology will never be completely overcome. For that reason it is useful to notice that the same conclusion could have been reached by a consideration of the role of the middle term in the theological syllogism, which in one case–that of the major premise–is a revealed truth, and in the other minor premise, a truth of human reason. In order that this middle term in the minor premise may have exactly the same sense as that which it has in the major premise, thus avoiding four terms in the syllogism, it must of necessity have the “approval,” as it were, of the revealed truth. If we examine it carefully we shall see that it is just this approval which gives to the theological conclusion its full force as an element in the expression of divine revelation which also brings to light the role of human truth as an instrument in theology.

We know that, according to St. Thomas, the instrument has a double activity, i.e., its own, which is attributed to its personal activity in the forming of the effect, and also another power which it receives from that cause which uses it as an instrument. Thus, in the theological conclusion we are not dealing with a series of probabilities, but with strict conclusions in the form of judgments which correspond to the ontological truth virtually contained in the revealed principles. This doctrine has been very clearly expressed by John of St. Thomas, when he said: 

Praemissa naturalis consideratur dupliciter. Primo secundum quod praecise naturalis est, et sic ex hac parte non concurrit nisi ministerialiter…Alio modo consideratur praemissa naturalis ut conjuncta praemissae supernaturali de fide, scilicet u tab ea elevator quia approbatur et corrigitur ab ipsa et eius certitudinem participat: et hoc modo etiam praemissa naturalis concurrit non principaliter, et per se, sed sub altiori lumine. (Cusus Theologicus, I, q. 1, a. 6.)

From all these various angles we reach one and the same conclusion, namely that it is the truth of faith which plays the active part in the theological process of reasoning, using the natural truth to develop the latent content in revelation, and using it as a strict instrument in the Thomist sense of that word. For this reason those theological conclusions are more certain than any merely natural truth could ever be, because they are reduced, in their final analysis, to a higher principle than natural reason, one which is supernatural and divine, which colours all that is human in the theological process, giving it a new and a supernatural value. It is this divine element in theology which unifies everything, even speculative and the practical aspects of it. Because the new theology has failed to appreciate this truth with regard to the theological conclusion it has also failed to realize the role of the merely human truth as an instrument of faith.

St. Ambrose: Homily on the Gospel for the 16th Sunday after Pentecost

St. Ambrose: Homily on the Gospel for the 16th Sunday after Pentecost

Dominica XVI post Pentecosten, Evangelium et Homiliae (ex Matutino)

16th Sunday after Pentecost, Gospel and Homily (from Matins)

Continuation of the Holy Gospel according to Luke (14:1-11).

At that time, when Jesus went into the house of one of the chief of the Pharisees on the Sabbath day to eat bread, they watched Him. And behold, there was a certain man before Him that had dropsy: and Jesus answering, spoke to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying: Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day? But they held their peace: but He taking him, healed him, and sent him away. And answering them, He said: Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fall into a pit, and will not immediately draw him out on the Sabbath day? And they could not answer Him these things. And He spoke a parable also to them that were invited, marking how they chose the first seats at the table, saying to them: When thou art invited to a wedding, sit not down in the first place, lest perhaps one more honourable than thou be invited by him; and he that invited thee and him, come and say to thee: Give this man place; and then, thou begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when thou art invited, go, sit down in the lowest place: that when he who invited thee cometh, he may say to thee: Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have glory before them that sit at table with thee: because every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Sequentia Sancti Evangelii secundum Lucam (14:1-11).

In illo témpore: cum intráret Jesus in domum cujúsdam príncipis pharisæórum sábbato manducáre panem, et ipsi observábant eum. Et ecce homo quidam hydrópicus erat ante illum. Et respóndens Jesus dixit ad legisperítos et pharisæos dicens si "licet sábbato curáre?" At illi tacuérunt. Ipse vero adprehénsum sanávit eum, ac dimísit. Et respóndens ad illos, dixit: "Cujus vestrum ásinus, aut bos in púteum cadet, et non contínuo éxtrahet illum die sábbati?" Et non póterant ad hæc respondére illi. Dicébat autem et ad invitátos parábolam, inténdens quómodo primos accúbitus elígerent, dicens ad illos: "Cum invitátus fúeris ad nuptias, non discúmbas in primo loco, ne forte honorátior te sit invitátus ab illo, et veniens is, qui te, et illum vocávit, dicat tibi: 'Da huic locum,' et tunc incípias cum rubóre novíssimum locum tenére. Sed cum vocátus fúeris, vade, recúmbe in novíssimo loco: ut, cum vénerit qui te invitávit, dicat tibi: 'Amice, ascénde supérius.' Tunc erit tibi glória coram simul discumbéntibus: quia omnis qui se exáltat humiliábitur: et qui se humíliat exaltábitur."

Θεραπεία ὑδρωπικοῦ τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ Σαββάτου και Ταπεινοφροσύνη καὶ φιλοξενία

ΙΔ´\ΚΑΙ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἐλθεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς οἶκόν τινος τῶν ἀρχόντων τῶν Φαρισαίων σαββάτῳ φαγεῖν ἄρτον, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἦσαν παρατηρούμενοι αὐτόν. 2 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπός τις ἦν ὑδρωπικὸς ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ. 3 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπε πρὸς τοὺς νομικοὺς καὶ Φαρισαίους λέγων· εἰ ἔξεστι τῷ σαββάτῳ θεραπεύειν; οἱ δὲ ἡσύχασαν. 4 καὶ ἐπιλαβόμενος ἰάσατο αὐτὸν καὶ ἀπέλυσε. 5 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς πρὸς αὐτοὺς εἶπε· τίνος ὑμῶν υἱὸς ἢ βοῦς εἰς φρέαρ ἐμπεσεῖται, καὶ οὐκ εὐθέως ἀνασπάσει αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σαββάτου; 6 καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσαν ἀνταποκριθῆναι αὐτῷ πρὸς ταῦτα.  7 ῎Ελεγε δὲ πρὸς τοὺς κεκλημένους παραβολήν, ἐπέχων πῶς τὰς πρωτοκλισίας ἐξελέγοντο, λέγων πρὸς αὐτούς· 8 ὅταν κληθῇς ὑπό τινος εἰς γάμους, μὴ κατακλιθῇς εἰς τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν, μήποτε ἐντιμότερός σου ᾖ κεκλημένος ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ, 9 καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ σὲ καὶ αὐτὸν καλέσας ἐρεῖ σοι· δὸς τούτῳ τόπον· καὶ τότε ἄρξῃ μετ᾿ αἰσχύνης τὸν ἔσχατον τόπον κατέχειν. 10 ἀλλ᾿ ὅταν κληθῇς, πορευθεὶς ἀνάπεσε εἰς τὸν ἔσχατον τόπον, ἵνα ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ κεκληκώς σε εἴπῃ σοι· φίλε, προσανάβηθι ἀνώτερον· τότε ἔσται σοι δόξα ἐνώπιον τῶν συνανακειμένων σοι. 11 ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὑψῶν ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται καὶ ὁ ταπεινῶν ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται.

From Matins of the 16th Sunday after Pentecost
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.  Vouchsafe, Reverend Father (O Lord), 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 Lucam	The Lesson is taken from the Holy Gospel according to Luke
Chap. 14, 1-11
In illo témpore : Cum intráret Jesus in domum cujúsdam príncipis pharisæórum sábbato manducáre panem, et ipsi observábant eum.  Et ecce homo quidam hydrópicus erat ante illum.  Et réliqua.	At that time : As Jesus went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees, to eat bread on the sabbath-day, they watched him.  And, behold, there was a certain man before him, which had the dropsy.  And so on, and that which followeth.
Homilía sancti Ambrósii Epíscopi	A Homily by St. Ambrose the Bishop
Liber 7 in Lucæ cap. 14
Curátur hydrópicus, in quo fluxus carnis exúberans ánimæ gravábat offícia, spíritus exstinguébat ardórem.  Deínde docétur humílitas, dum in illo convívio nuptiáli appeténtia loci superióris arcétur ; cleménter tamen, ut persuásio humanitátis aspertitátem coërcitiónis exclúderet, rátio profíceret ad persuasiónis efféctum, et corréctio emendáret afféctum.  Huic quasi próximo límine humánitas copulátur : quæ ita Domínicæ senténtiæ definitióne distínguitur, si in páuperes et débiles conferátur : nam hospitálem esse remuneratúris, afféctus avarítiæ est.	Now is healed this man sick of the dropsy, in whom too much watery matter had well-nigh drowned the functions of life, and quenched the fire of understanding.  Anon, a lesson is given in lowly-mindedness, when it is forbidden to the guests at a marriage feast to go and sit down unasked in the highest room, albeit the Lord spake gently, that the teaching of courtesy might forestall a harsh rebuke, reason prevail by dint of persuasion, and the desires be bent to follow the instruction.  And upon this, as next-door neighbour, cometh courtesy, which is so called by the Lord, when it is shewn to the poor and weak, since to shew it to them from whom we are to receive aught, is but a movement of self-interest.
V.  Tu autem, Dómine, miserére nobis. R.  Deo grátias.	V.  But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us. R.  Thanks be to God.
Respond vii as in the Proper
V.  Jube domne, (Dómine) benedícere.	V.  Vouchsafe, Reverend Father (O Lord), 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
Postrémo jam quasi eméritæ milítiæ viro contemnendárum stipéndium præscríbitur facultátum : quod neque ille, qui stúdiis inténtus inferióribus possessiónes sibi terrénas coémit, regnum cæli possit adipísci, cum Dóminus dicat : Vende ómnia tua, et séquere me : nec ille, qui emit boves, cum Eliséus occíderit, et pópulo divíserit quos habébat : et ille qui duxit uxórem, cógitet quæ mundi sunt, non quæ Dei.  Non quo conjúgium reprehendátur, sed quia ad majórem honórem vocétur intégritas : quóniam múlier innúpta et vídua cógitat quæ sunt Dómini, ut sit sancta córpore et spíritu.	Lastly, as to a soldier that hath served his full time, is apportioned a reward for esteeming lightly of riches : so he only can inherit the kingdom of God, whose soul is not given to seek after lower ends, and who purchaseth not to himself earthly possessions ; whereas the Lord saith : Sell that thou hast, and follow me.  Neither can he gain it that buyeth oxen, which beasts Elisha slew and gave unto the people.  Neither can he win it which married a wife and therefore cannot come, for he that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord ; but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.  Not that this is to be taken for blame of marriage, but only that virginity is the more honourable way, since the unmarried woman―and the widow, careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit.
V.  Tu autem, Dómine, miserére nobis. R.  Deo grátias.	V.  But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us. R.  Thanks be to God.
R.  Duo Séraphim clamábant alter ad álterum : *Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dóminus Deus Sábaoth :* Plena est omnis terra glória ejus.V.  Tres sunt qui testimónium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spíritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt. R.  Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dóminus Deus Sábaoth.V.  Glória Patri, et Fílio, et Spirítui Sancto. R.  Plena est omnis terra glória ejus.	R.  The two Seraphim did cry the One to the Other : * Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Hosts : * The whole earth is full of his glory.V.  For there are Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost : and these Three are One. R.  Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Hosts.V.  Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. R.  The whole earth is full of his glory.
V.  Jube domne, (Dómine) benedícere.	V.  Vouchsafe, Reverend Father (O Lord), 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
Sed ut in grátiam, ut supra cum víduis, ita nunc étiam cum conjúgibus revertámur : non refúgimus opiniónem, quam sequúntur pleríque, ut tria génera hóminum a consórtio magnæ illíus cœnæ æstimémus exclúdi : Gentílium, Judæórum, Hæreticórum.  Et ídeo Apóstolus avarítiam dicit esse fugiéndam ; ne impedíti more Gentíli, iniquitáte, malítia, impudicítia, avarítia, ad regnum Christi perveníre nequeámus.  Omnis enim immúndus aut avárus, quod est idolórum sérvitus, non habet hereditátem in regno Christi et Dei.	But in all fairness, having thus spoken concerning widows, let us betake ourselves again among the married, and join with them in entertaining the opinion which is held by so many, that there are only three classes of men who are shut out from the great supper named in the Gospel, which three classes are Heathens, Jews, and Hereticks.  And therefore it is that the Apostle warneth us that we walk not as other Gentiles walk, in malice and bitterness, and uncleanness, and covetousness, and so have no entry into the kingdom of Christ, since no unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
V.  Tu autem, Dómine, miserére nobis. R.  Deo grátias.	V.  But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us. R.  Thanks be to God.
TE DEUM LAUDAMUS	TE DEUM

Instaurare omnia in Christo: "Restoring" (not "Renewing") all Things in Christ

Instaurare omnia in Christo: "Restoring" (not "Renewing") all Things in Christ

Avoid the neo-modernist catch words and talk like a true traditionalist!  

"Renew" says "out with the old, in with the new."  In other words: Aggiornamento.  It's a malicious euphemism that seeks to spread its modernist poison among the weak minded and effeminate.  It evokes the root of all evil in our modern world: Felt banners.  Liturgical dance.  Dialogue.  Ecumenism.  Historical Consciousness.  New Pentecost.  Reformation.  Revolution.  Death to tradition.


"Restore," on the other hand, says "in with the old, out with the new."  In other words: Tradition.  It's a strong, firm word, said with conviction of the value of the past and seeks continuity between it and the present.   It evokes the vigor of the Church: Stability.  Condemnation of Heresy.  Social Kingship of Christ.  Scholasticism.  Counter-Reformation.  Counter-Revolution.  


So if you're a real trad, be brave and strong and seek the Church's restoration, to restore tradition; don't seek to 'renew' or be an advocate of 'renewal', or you'll be identified as a post-conciliar softie.  Aim to restore the Church, not to 'renew' it.  Defend the restoration of Sacred Theology, shun its 'renewal'.  Fight to restore the liturgy, and be nauseated by its 'renewal'.  Let us restore all things in Christ, not 'renew' them.

The following are selected definitions from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

re·new

 verb \ri-ˈnü, -ˈnyü\

Definition of RENEW

transitive verb

2

: to make new spiritually : regenerate

3b : to make extensive changes in : rebuild

4

: to do again : repeat

5

: to begin again : resume

6

: replace, replenish; renew water in a tank;

intransitive verb

1

: to become new or as new

2

: to begin again : resume

3

: to make a renewal (as of a lease)

— re·new·er noun

First Known Use of RENEW

14th century

Related to RENEW

Synonyms: freshen, recharge, recreate, refresh, refreshen, regenerate, rejuvenate, repair, revitalize, revive, revivify

re·store

 vt \ri-ˈstȯr\

re·storedre·stor·ing

Definition of RESTORE

1

: give back, return

2

: to put or bring back into existence or use

3

: to bring back to or put back into a former or original state :renew

4

: to put again in possession of something

— re·stor·er noun

Examples of RESTORE

1. The police restored law and order.
2. The government needs to restore confidence in the economy.
3. an antique car that is being carefully restored

Origin of RESTORE

Middle English, from Anglo-French restorer, from Latin restaurare to rebuild, alteration of instaurare to rebuild

First Known Use: 14th century

Related to RESTORE

Synonyms: repair, rebuild