PART I: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magesterium
I. Natura scientiae theologiae (based on Summa theologiae la q.l)
•

A.l.

o
o

•

A.2.
o
o

•

o

•

•

•

Sacred theology considers tilings precisely under the formality of being divinely revealed; thus, whatever has been divinely revealed
possesses the one precise formality of the object ol this science and reason grasps it as such as unified.
ad 1: Sacred theology7 always considers tilings under the ratio Dei, that is, God in Himself and creatures in reference to Him

A4.
o

Sacred theology is more speculative than practical (i.e., deals with truth about God) because it is more concerned with divine things^
although it does treat of human acts inasmuch as man in ordained by them to the perfect knowledge of God.

o

Sacred theology transcends all others because of its certitude (light of divine knowledge proceeding from right faith) and its subject
matter.
■
DesCartes inverts this, maintaining that the highest sciences are the empirical ones because of their apparently greater
material certitude. NO!!
■
Sacred theology deals with a much more knowable object and is thus the highest science; DesCartes failed to take into
account the object of the science.
Any heresy ultimately corrupts the infused virtue of faith.

A5.

o

•

Sub-altemated science receives its principles from the conclusions of a higher science; theology proceeds from revelation from God
and the principles of that revelation.
Faith is required in respect to the formal object ol theology, since two people can view the same material object of theology (the
depositumfidei) while one gives assent through faith and the other, who lacks faith, does not.
■
On the side of the cause (God), faith is absolutely certain; on the side of the subject (man), faith is present in degrees.
■
It is impossible to accurately engage in theology without correct faith because the certitude that comes from faith
determines the method that is to be applied.
•
Theological method is proper to philosophical sciences, not empirical; modem theological studies approach it
from the latter, which is highly problematic.
•
The truths of the premises ol theological syllogisms is only known through faith; it is more thanjust knowing that the
premises follow logically}mt that they are true.

A3.
o

•

Necessary that certain theological truths pertaining to salvation be made known by way of divine revelation for the good of man; even
though natural theology can arrive at some of these, certitude would be lacking and the pursuit of it would consume much time.
Knowledge of God’s existence is implanted in us, albeit in a general and confused way.

A.6.
o

Wisdom is said to be the knowledge of divine things, and since sacred doctrine treats essentially of God as the highest and most
universal cause (by way of revelation), sacred theology is called wisdom.

o

Sacred theology considers all things under the aspect of God either in God Himself or because they bear reference to God as their
cause and end.

o

As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, sacred theology does not argue in proof of its principles, which are held as
true because of revelation.
Since Holy Writ has no science above itself, it is impossible to prove the truth of revelation to an opponent lackingjaith, since faith rests on
infallible truth (notfiduciary faith).
ad 2: Sacred theology utilizes reason by making use of induction (e.g., Trinity of Persons) and deduction (cause of the angels), since
natural reason should minister to faith, and grace builds upon nature and perfects it.
■
To engage in theology7 is an act proceeding from faith and can be meritorious if it also proceeds from charity.
■
Theology differs from faith, in that faith is a supernatural virtue while theology7 is an acquired habit and a natural thing
(since theology is engaged in a human mode).

A. 7.

A. 8.

o
o

II. Recursus on the notion of religion.
•

•

•

•

Definitions of religion from antiquity.
o
Cicero defines religion as relegendus, a re-reading of those things pertaining to God.
O
Lactantius defines it as relegandus, as man being bound by piety to God.
o
Augustine calls it reeligendus, that is, choosing God anew after sin.
Objective notion of religion.
o
The objective notion comprises three aspects.
■
Doctrine or dogma', religion proposes tilings for belief since man must come to know things about God.
■
Moral rules', what one believes about God bears upon beliefs about man (and vice-versa), and from this means to the end are
determined.
■
External rites', these pertain to governance and execution.
o
Overall, religion objectively considered is the composite of truths to believe together with the offices and religious rites to fulfill the
worship of God.
Subjective notion of religion.
o
This pertains to the voluntary dispositions of the soul by which man knows that there is a Supreme Being and is obliged to exhibit
cult to Him; this requires 1) act of intellect apprehending the excellence of God; 2) act of will approving act of the intellect, and; 3)
practical action fulfilling obligations to God.
Precepts of religion.

These include the requirement for adoring God, thanking Him for His benevolence, petitioning Him, and doing penance for offenses
committed against Him.
■
Natural religion does not fulfill these requirements since it has no way of reaching knowledge of God except by way of
effects.
■
Supernatural religion flows from supernatural revelation, contains dogma and precepts, and expresses the will of God; due
worship of God must be commanded by Him (knowledge of positive acts of worship).
What religion is not.
o
Philosophy or natural theology: in themselves, these deal with God only through first principles or by way of effects; natural theology is
subsumed into religion when it is considered/employed in light of divine revelation, but of itself it remains insufficient for salvation.
o Ethics: religion must include the natural law and divine positive law which clearly manifests God’s will.
o Art: beauty expounded through art is different from objective beauty of true religion or the moral beauty of a subject; Catholicism can
be manifested or presented by way of art, but is not the art itself.
O
Superstition or magic: these are driven by curiosity and a desire for control over power and also employ means that are incapable of
rendering God His due (this is not to be confused with the use of the agency of created tilings at the service of God, e.g., sacramentals
which have no power in se, as is falsely attributed by way of superstition).
False or incomplete definitions of religion.
o
Mr. Kant: religion consists in morality in which dictates of conscience are to be considered the voice of God; religion thus deteriorates
into ethics and this voice becomes the foundation for subjective religious experience.
o Mr. Fichte·, religion is speculative only and in the end it does not differ from philosophy; this leads to the complete separation of
religious ideology with the precepts of moral governance of the physical order.
o
Pantheists·, religion exists by way of some communication with the infinite, which is held to be nature (confuses God’s act of causality
with His effects ad extra).
o
Modernists·, religion arises out of the sub-conscious and entails some sort of affective subjective communication with God.
o
Positivists', religion is the puerile explanation of the causes of things we do not immediately understand.
o

III. Nature of revelation.
Consideration of this nature in general.
o The necessity of religion is rooted in two things: 1) attainment of the final end, and; 2) fulfillment of man’s aspirations.
o Since religion teaches dogma, code of ethics, and a cult, it requires a positive act of God which is called the depositum fidei.
■
Divine revelation is the manifestation of truth by the supernatural illumination of the mind which exceeds human nature
although such an act can be accomplished through natural agency; it differs from the following:
•
Illustration·, a particular grace God gives to an individual in order to understand some revealed doctrine better.
•
From any grace thatprevents error.
•
Inspiration', this can exist without revelation when the writer already knows it to be written.
Species of revelation.
o
By way of mode.
■
Immediately, this is accomplished either by God directly or by the ministry of an angel, and can be internal (manifestation
without a visible sign to the possible intellect) or external (manifestation by way of visible signs with an internal explication if
necessary).
■
Mediately, this is accomplished through the intervention of another man acting in the name of God who reveals; all we know
of revelation is mediated (unlike Apostles, Blessed Mother, Prophets, and patriarchs).
o
By finality.
■
Public revelation·, essentially useful to entire human race for the attainment of its end.
■
Private revelation·, good for a particular group or society and is useful accidentally to many.
Possibility of revelation.
o
Supernatural revelation is possible and clearly suitable.
■
On the part of Godphysically. God is die cause of both the intellect and the acts of the intellect.
■
On the part of God morally, revelation is not contrary or repugnant to any of His attributes.
■
On the side ofman\ man’s faculties capacitate Him to the reception of God’s communications.
■
Not contrary to man’s dignity: God instructs the soul as teacher, which enobles man.
o
Three kinds of mystery.
■
Of the natural order, e.g., the working of the agent intellect.
■
Theological,yet improperly, truths that have to be revealed for us to understand them, but such truths are not beyond reason’s
scope (e.g., primal authority of the Pope).
■
Theological, yetproperly, truths that exceed capacity of human reason to naturally know and are also incapable of being
perfectly known by a created nature (e.g., the Trinity).
Expediency of revelation.
o
Man requires revelation (and grace) for expedient knowledge of the moral order in order to live righdy and render God His due;
metaphysics has a limit since only God knows what pleases Him precisely.
o
It is good for man, since divine precepts can make communal living easier.
■
Revelation of things in the natural order overcomes darkness of the intellect and bad judgments, directing our affairs within
the natural life.
o
Revelation is further necessary for the Beatific Vision.
■
Proper means need to be ordered to this end; man has an absolute obligation to seek the truth.
■
Due reverence must be given to God, owed out of obligation/ justice and gratitude and for the profession of the true
religion, since revelation contains divine positive law (protection of the means to achieve Heaven).
•
Man cannot indifferently embrace any religion he desires; truth is convertible with one and thus divinely revealed religion is one because
truth is one.

•

A false religion is fundamentally erroneous, even if it possesses aspects of the truth; falsity comes from a single
defect (principle of the integral good).

Criteria for divine revelation.
o
What divine revelation is not:
■
It does not have to fall into the order of what we can understand, but it must adhere to ontological principles (e.g.,
sufficient reason, non-contradiction).
■
It is not the religious experience of the individual (Modernism, Protestantism).
o
Intrinsic criteria.
■
Must be in conformity with reason and not irrational or absurd long with observing conformity with legitimate human
aspirations (natural law inclinations).
■
Revelation must produce a morally good effect (helps man morally and spiritually to live communally).
■
It must be immune from error of contradiction, fraud, and any moral or speculative error.
■
Possesses excellence in itself and in its effects and transcends all other religions.
o
Extrinsic criteria.
■
Negative. true revelation cannot be proposed by an imposter or an insane or deluded person.
■
Positive·, it is proposed by an individual of known sanctity and usually accompanied by miracles or prophecy.
o
Use of criteria.
■
Histoneal method in its proper sense possesses three aspects: 1) there must be enough evidence for revelation, but great
lengths need not be sought to prove this; 2) can be more easily proved (to those with good faith and will), and; 3) must be
guarded and less prone to error.
■
Conversion of others to the faith is accomplished by way of peaceful means (St. Peter’s preaching possessed a truly
supernatural quality).
Miracles.
o
Définition of miracle.
■
Miracles are broadly defined as a sensible deed occurring outside the custom of nature by a supernatural agent (a suspension
of die law of nature); demonic acts can be called relative miracles since not all acts above the capacity of man are beyond
the capacity of angelic nature.
■
Miracles are strictly defined as a sensible, extraordinary, and divine deed.
•
Sensible: perceived by the five senses; occult miracles (transubstantiation) are not able to be practically used for the
confirmation of revelation.
•
Extraordinary: beside the customary laws of nature which require direct intervention from God.
•
Divine: must not be in any created natural mode.
o
Species of miracles.
■
In one way, miracles are either contra naturam (effect is contrary to nature),praeter naturam (within capability of nature but
outside the normal mode), or supra naturam (outside both die capability and mode of nature).
•
Since God is the author of nature, He can freely suspend its laws; physical laws are not absolute.
■
In another way, miracles are either physical (suppression of the physical law of nature), intellectual (occurring outside the
natural ability of the intellect), or moral (change caused by God on the interior moral faculties of man).
■
Miracles serve as a most certain sign of doctrine revealed by God, and provide testimony of the authority of God revealing,
and tliis can be either direct (God uses a person as a secondary cause) or indirect (miracle occurs outside of the agent).
o
Discemability of miracles.
■
On the side of the natural cause, miracles must 1) be certainly established and obvious; 2) be recognized as divine and
preternatural, exhausting all possible natural causes, and; 3) demonstrate a disproportion between the cause and the effect
which would be indicative of supernatural intervention.
•
This demands attention to circumstances, as natural causes are regular, proportionate, and take time.
•
Furthermore, the observance of regularity may suggest a natural cause implying the same effect; frequency may
imply a variety of effects.
■
On the side of the miracle worker, the authenticity is determined by the quality of the person performing the work (just and
holiness give more credibility) and the mode under which it is worked (that is, is it worked with prudence and humility or
with violence, sensationalism, and fraud).
■
On the side of the effect, true miracles produce good moral and physical effects such as an incitement to the life of virtues, an
appropriation to holiness, and is in accord with good and holy teaching.
•
Demonic works can only produce bad effects overall, moving a soul to pride, undue curiosity, and disobedience,
o
Certitude of miracles.
■
Certitude in general regards the firmness of the adherence of the mind to something knowable without any fear of erring;
lack of this fear is founded upon the nature of the knower or on the side of the thing known.
■
Certitude has truth as its cause and differs from persuasion which is principally on the side of the will rather than the
intellect.
■
Grades of certitude.
Metaphysical, connection of the subject and predicate is absolutely necessary; principle can be either spontaneous
or reflexive.
o
Such certitude in either intrinsic (directly founded in metaphysical necessity) or extrinsic (moral or
physical certainty cannot be denied without denial of intrinsic cause).
Physical, based on physical laws that are hypothetically necessary but are able to have an exception attributing God
as the cause; these are capable of being had without error.
Moral, founded in moral necessity and opposed to moral impossibility; determined in degree based on the
character of person talking or on what he says.

Most things we know are by way of moral certitude; we do not know positively all the powers of nature
but we know negatively what nature cannot do.
o
Neo-conservatism is actually an excess on the side of moral certitude, in that it attributes more to the
office of the papacy that what actually belongs to it.
■
The order of miracles is based on these degrees of certitude; miracles of the metaphysical order are insufficient in
supporting the claims of revelation because we do not have direct access to them (e.g., transubstantiation).
Supposed miracles of false religions.
■
It is metaphysically certain that God cannot confimi their errors with miracles; historical investigation has eliminated and
discredited many of these works as pertaining to the miraculous.
■
True miracles are sometimes given to those professing false doctrine in order to actually prove the veracity of the true
doctrine.
■
Many of these miracles are not properly so-called, since most actually have a natural cause (e.g., demonic).
Role of the Church to discern the supernatural.
■
In some cases, miracles are not clear as to their source; discernment of spirits is necessary to keep people from being led
from the true doctrine, and this ordinarily pertains to the office of bishops and the Pope.
o

o

o

•

Prophecy.
o
o

Prophets in the primary sense are those that speak on behalf of God, proposing things which by their nature are supernatural;
secondarily, prophecy pertains to the prediction of future contingent effects which do not flow from the physical laws.
Prophecy must be certain and pertain to future events which do not deal with conjecture; prophecy is possible because God knows all
future contingencies and can reveal them to others.

IV. Nature of the depositum fidei.
•

The nature of the depositum fidei comesfrom the nature of revelation.
o
Revelation is defined as the communication of some divine truth by God to a rational creature through a mode outside the ordinary
cause of nature.
■
God can employ natural means toward the revelation of supernatural truth.
■
The essence of revelation lies in the fact that it is the direct of speech of God to man; He reveals truths of the natural law,
the mysteries of Faith, and the positive divine precepts (especially divine worship of which revelation is the principle).
•
The deposit which St. Paul transmits to Timothy (cf. 1 Tim 2:6; 2 Tim 1:4) is entire, that is, the dogmas of the
Faith, morality, the sacraments, Holy Writ, and the hierarchical constitution of the Church.
o
Deposit of faith is not the property of the Magesterium but of God; Magesterium’s role is to guard and protect it, and it is guaranteed
divine protection and assistance to accomplish tins.
■
Privilege of infallibility is ordered to the safeguarding of the deposit; personal infallibility belongs only to St. Peter and his
successors and is fundamentally ordered to the clarification of tilings in the deposit.

V. Tradition.
•

The nature of Tradition.
o
Tradition can be looked at as a fact factum, i.e., deed done) and is extrinsic to history; actual tradition of the deposit cannot change
while the tilings of human construct can.
o
Tradition has its primary root in the passing on of that which is good; it is part of the divine positive precept (Christ’s mission to the
Apostles) and the Church is the organized organ of its transmission.
■
Revelation is unable to be preserved without Tradition, and thus Tradition isprior to Scripture', the Sola Scriptura position
actually presupposes Tradition and is self-defeating.
o
Tradition pertains to the efficacious medium by which things pass uncorrupted, given what they are ordered to: authentic organ of
Tradition is the Church and sacred Tradition begins with Christ.
■
Christ’s words were originally preached and thus this means that there is a requirement to teach and pass on; Apostles are
faithful dispensers and guardians of Tradition.
■
Guidance of the Holy Ghost is maintained to the end, thus keeping Tradition intact through the course of time, although
access to it may not be easy; the Magesterium is continual, not interval as the Protestants think.
■
The charism of indefectibilitv embraces the entire deposit.
o
Christ started the organ of Tradition in the very form of Tradition itself (orally); Protestants maintain oral Tradition to be unnecessary
because they think such is wholly contained in Scripture.
■
The organ is indivisible in itself and rooted in the mark of unity of the Church and is always visible.
o
Tradition is public and not occult and is the regulafidei, Protestants hold Scripture to be their rule.

OBJECT: truth which is to be believed.

FORMALLY : contains truths to be believed and which we must conform to.

FAITH
REGULA

MATERIALLY
Tradition is prior temporally to Scripture since Christ taught orally and is also prior in the order of knowledge and comprehension
since the Magesterium has the right to inteqnet the authentic meaning of Scripture.
■
If one wishes to know what Scripture means, we have to know whence it came, that is, the cause which is the Church.
■
Deposit of faith occurs first in Tradition and then written; comprehension rests in the Tradition of what is written down,
and thus the Magesterium becomes the proximate and immediate rule of Faith.
Scripture on Tradition.
o
Matt 15:1-6 shows Christ establishing true Tradition.
o

Col 2:7: Beware lestyou be deceived byphilosophies and vain deceit, this indicates that bad philosophy can take one away from the Faith or
inhibit its reception.
o
2 Thess 2:14: Standfast and hold traditions whichyou have learned whether by word or epistle', proves thus:
■
Tradition is both written and oral and it is the divine command to accept apostolic Tradition.
■
There is an inherent anti-historicism in Tradition.
■
Error and the reception of Tradition have a two-fold relation; moral decay is the enemy of Tradition and truth.
o
2 Thess 3:6: Do not walk according to disorderly tradition and avoid those not accepting Apostolic Tradition.
Divisions of Tradition.
o By reason of font or source.
■
Divine (dominical Tradition): started by Christ Himself.
■
Divino-apostolic. promulgated by the Apostles from the dictating of the Holy Ghost.
■
Ecclesiastical (humano-apostolic): refers to precepts instituted by the Apostles themselves on the authority given them by
God and are able to be changed by successors only to a degree.
■
Merely ecclesiastical, those things coming after the Apostles which are determined, being either universal (if pertaining to the
Church universal) or particular.
o
By reason of the object, Tradition is divided into dogmatic, moral, or disciplinary.
o
By reason of Scripture.
■
Constitutive Tradition: those tilings that are taught but are not explicitly contained in Holy Writ (e.g., the Assumption).
■
Interpretative Tradition: Church passes on the meaning of Scripture, and tliis is either inherent (meaning of the text is clear) or
declarative (meaning is unclear but is audioritatively declared).
o
By reason of time, Tradition is either temporal or perpetual
o
By reason of sense, broad pertains to everything that is passed on whatsoever, while strict pertains to that which is distinguished from
Scripture.
Ecclesiastical vs. human tradition.
o Human tradition is subject to corruption because it is wholly on the part ot man; ecclesiastical tradition contains a human aspect but
its integrity has a higher principle.
■
The organ of ecclesiastical tradition is the Church and her members; the Holy Ghost uses men to insure certain things are
passed on and that authenticity remains the same throughout the course of time.
o Human elements are able to modify the qualities of Tradition but not its substance (e.g., limiting or increasing the availability,
clarifying its content).
o The universality and integrity of Tradition are subject to the following:
■
Nothing can be proposed that is not contained in the Apostolic Tradition or is at variance with it; no truth handed down
from the Apostles can be altogether lost.
■
The whole deposit must be expressly taught, although tliis varies in mode and execution: general truths contain particular,
principles contain consequences, and complex truths contain simple truths.
•
Only an actual and express tradition of a truth can be appealed to as a matter of faith; universal truth is sufficient
although continuity (i.e., elicited at all places and times) is not always necessary.
•
Authoritative definitions supposes a previous Tradition (e.g., doctrine on tire Assumption did not immediately
appear).
•
Distinction in regard to modes.
o
Unanimity by all members of the Church in liturgy, discipline, and morals.
o Sensus fidelium, that is, die distinct, universal, and constant profession of a doctrine by the faithful.
o Universal teaching of the episcopacy, when bearing upon matters of faith and morals, such a teaching is
infallible because the episcopate is the chief organ of infallibility in the Church.
■
Central, perfect, andjuridical interpreter of Tradition is the Apostolic See; the Pope can bind the whole
Church independently of the subordinated episcopate.
o Auxiliary channels, that is, the Fathers, who were men of profound learning and holiness who were
appointed to clarify the teachings of the Apostles; their universal teaching on a matter is infallible.
o
Ecclesiastical Tradition is by its very nature oral; written documents are not necessary per se, but are evidently helpful in fixing
Tradition and removing the weakness of the human element.
■
The Holy Ghost sees to it that certain tilings are, in fact, written down; testimonies of the Fathers, since they pass on the
whole deposit, are an objective rule of faith, but not a complete and independent rule.
•
The Fathers are subject to the Church’s interpretation; apparent contradictions may be due to faulty manuscripts
or errors.
■
Classes of documents.
•
Tilings that come from the decisions of the Popes and the councils, including liturgical promulgations, writings
of the Fathers and Theologians; these documents and monuments have more than an historical element and
participate in the actual expression of Tradition.
o
The Mass itself is an actual expression of Tradition of the Church; thus modeling it on a previous time
while rejected later development is contrary to Tradition itself; the whole of the theology of the Mass is
laid out by the deposit.
•
Those writings independent of ecclesiastical rank (even ones by heretics) which confirm the authenticity and
integrity of Tradition.
Rules for demonstrating what belongs in ecclesiastical Tradition.
•
Tradition is the rule/norm of Faith and the Magesterium has the obligation to investigate Tradition in any of its
statements or pronouncements; it is not necessary to always go back to absolute antiquity but to a sufficient time
when tradition of a dogma was held as certain.
o
Temporary uncertainty does not negate Tradition; Tradition should emerge as a principle of origin and
judgment.
o

Once the truth of Tradition has been established, a Catholic has no further need of investigation; heretics hare no
right demand the authenticity of the antiquity of a doctrine.
•
Regarding the authority of a single Father vs. the consensus of all of them, the latter is regarded as infallible in
virtue of the Church’s approbation of their writings, while the same would only hold true for the former if the
Church would give such approbation in a particular case; approbation of the writings of an individual Father is
guided by the following:
o
The approved writings are not opposed to the Church doctrine present at the time of the Father in
question.
o
Doctrine for which a Father is renowned is positively provable.
o Strong presumption that the doubtful opinion of the Father is in accord with sound doctrine.
o Under extraordinary circumstances, the Father’s denunciation of some individual as heretical provides
a moral certainty to the doctrine to which the heresy is opposed.
•
Consent of all the Fathers has always been looked upon as the teachings of the whole Church; unanimity has to
be virtual and not absolute, and their authority7 excels that of all modem exegetes.
The authority of the Theologians.
■
When the majority of the Theologians agree on a doctrine not contradicted by the Church, the positive probability7 of the
doctrine must be presumed; consent of the Theologians posits that a doctrine is universal and constant.
■
The Theologians are those who wrote from the end of patristic period to the mid-1700’s; the principles regarding the
authority of the Theologians were laid out by the following Popes:.
•
Gravissimus Inter (Bl. Pius IX) states that the assistance of the Holy7 Ghost is not promised to the Theologians
positively, but negatively in order to insure the proper guidance of the Church.
•
Tuas libenter (Bl. Pius IX) states that those things universally7 and constantly7 consented by7 the Theologians are to
be held as pertaining to the Faith.
•
Ab Aegyptiis (Gregory IX) and Tomani Pontifias prorida (Sixtus IV) teach that the Church holds the medieval
doctors in almost the same esteem as the Fathers; part of the Church’s patrimony is the inheritance of the
theological doctrine taught unanimously by the doctors.
•
Aeterni Patris (Leo XIII) and Mirabilis (St. Pius V) state clearly that St. Thomas Aquinas possesses a certam
preeminence among the Theologians because of the universal content and clarity of his writings.
■
Modem theologians yyrish to reject the authority of the Theologians; this is manifest in the modem liturgical changes wliich
are a radical departure from the dieology of the liturgy as developed by the Theologians and clearly laid out in the deposit.

•

o

VI. Principles regarding the changing of Tradition
•

•
•

•

Mothing above the humano-Apostolic tradition can be modified.
o
This includes the writings of the Fathers and Theologians, and any7 desire to change this militates on the homogenous development of
dogma.
Mo extraordinary acts of the Magesterium can be changed.
Re: the changing of ordinary acts'.
o
Traditional understanding as constantly taught by7 the Fathers and Theologians cannot be changed as well as those things constantly
taught by the Popes and unified episcopacy.
o
If the above does not apply, then presumption is always in favor of Tradition.
o
Any7 long-standing tradition requires a great deal of proof for the need of modification before it can be modified; God does not seem
to tolerate traditions for a long time that are harmful to man.
o The degree of certainty which a doctrine possesses determines the degree of ease in which it can be changed.
o Any change in discipline has to proceed from Tradition as a principle and from a moreperfect understanding of the nature of man laboring
under original sin.
Changes are to be ordered towards the welfare of thefaithful but these are to be overall minor: whole scale changes imply something else.
o
Re: liturgical changes, we must consider the principles by which Church discipline is governed:
IN ITSELF
NATURE OF ALAN

AS LABORING UNDER EFFECTS OF ORIGINAL SIN

DISCIPLINE
DEPOSIT OF FAITH
The widespread modern-day changes in discipline had to result from a change in understanding of one or both; rejection of
original sin and the Thomistic perception of man has led to this.
•
Change in the perception of nature changes the epistemological aspect under which the deposit of faith is viewed.
The modem liturgical changes reflect these changes in understanding, which is also a radical departure from the mode of
change throughout the history of the Church; the slow fashioning of the liturgy through history guarantees an inerrancy in
the liturgy.
•
Any substantial change in the rite (while leaving validity intact) is illicit because it is a departure from the security
which the Church has provided.
•
Change in the perception of man changes the perception of the liturgy because the liturgy is partially an act of
man; man is to conform to the transcendent and not vice-versa, nor does the transcendent pick up meaning
through one’s own experience.
•
It must be accepted that the Holy Ghost approved of the liturgy for centuries; Tradition embraces a wide scope
of which the Mass is a part.

o

o

o

Rejection of historical theological developments is actually a rejection of the Fathers and is offensive to
authentic Tradition; it is also offensive to God who is the Guarantor of Tradition and the Holy Ghost
who fashions Tradition through the saints.
Before, during, and after Vatican II, there was a shifting towards going back to the early Church
(antiquananism), wbicb is really a narrowing of Tradition and is utterly un-Catholic, intellectually unfounded, and
wholly unscientific, since a true science wishes to deal with something through all its causes.
The psychological shift was a denial of the providence of God because it denies His work throughout
the centuries.

VII. Regarding the term Ecclesiastical Tradition
•

•

•

Patristic testimony.
o St. Irenaeus claims that ecclesiastical tradition pertains to divino-Apostolic Tradition (cf. Adv. Haeres. III).
o Nicea condemns those who reject ecclesiastical Tradition, either written or unwritten; it can be debated as to whether this includes the
deposit of faith
Two other senses.
o Ecclesiastical tradition can include either 1) those things which do not pertain to the deposit and can be reformed, or; 2) those things
which the Magesterium has defined or decided on certain matters.
Heresy oftraditionalism.
o This entails placing Tradition a the supreme radical condition for certitude; depreciates the ability of human reason to arrive at the
truth.
O This is evidently false since reason does have an aptitude for metaphysics and can learn things on its own that are part of Tradition.

VIII. The Magesterium: the instituted organ of Tradition.
•
•

•

Christ established an authentic and living Magesterium', note that the tenu is in the singular and thus the Magesterium is a single unit stretching over the
entire history of the Church.
Rights and limits of the Magesterium in general.
o
The Magesterium has the right to pass judgment on the deposit of faith and Scripture, but it cannot reveal anything (cf. DeiFilius of
Vatican I (Denz. 1793-98); Pius XI, Mortalium Animos)·, the papacy is not an organ of revelation but an interpreter and transmitter of it
from generation to generation.
o The Magesterium is bound to its own judgments on tilings irrefomiable through the course of time (ci. Pius Ιλ , Bull Iniunctum IN obis).
Thepapacy.
o
A problem exists today of not making distinctions between the man and the office; the primacy of the Pope is spelled out in Pastor
Aeternus of Vatican I:
■
Immediate', the Pope enjoys universal jurisdiction.
■
Full, extends to all matters.
■
Supreme', he answers to no one juridically.
o The departure from the teaching on the papacy can endanger salvation, but such a departure must bear upon all the Popes and not
just the current one.
■
This jurisdiction does not detract from the powers connected with the episcopacy, and thus the proper authority of bishops
must be respected.
■
The Pope’s principle function is to protect Tradition and the deposit of faith in order for it to be passed on.
o
Kinds of papal teachings.
■
Extraordinary (papal infallibility).
•
It must be noted that preparation for the exercise of this power does not dispense the Pope from using means of
natural industry, counsel, inquisition of theologians, and deliberation in order to formulate the infallible
p ronounc ement.
•
Conditions for the exercise of this power (Neo-conservatives wish to extend these conditions beyond their due
limits).
o Ex cathedra', exercise of office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians.
o In virtue of supreme apostolic authority. papal office can be employed in different ways and he must use this
specific power.
o Must have intention of defining something, tliis has to be somehow manifest and pertain to a doctrine of faith
or morals that will bear upon the whole Church.
■
Ordinary.
•
If any of the above conditions are lacking, the teacliing then falls under an ordinary Magesterial act; these are to
be assented to, but are capable of being subject to change in light of something greater.
o
There have been occasions where later Popes condemned the writings of previous ones (e.g. Martin I
condemns monothelite bend of the writings of Pope Honorius; cf. Denz. 333, 487, 496-98, 786).
■
Bishops.
•
Bishops as a unit enjoy infallibility under very specific conditions:
o Extraordinary infallibility is when the bishops meet in an oecumenical council in union with the Pope and
pronounce a judgment on faith or morals with an intent to define (this was not present at Vatican II).
o
Ordinary infallibility is enjoyed when bishops are in union with the Pope and an authoritative teaching is
agreed upon in faith or morals to be held definitively.
•
General consensus of the theologians that a moral unanimity suffices.
O
Requirements for giving assent to ordinary, non-infallible teachings (cf. Pius IX, Syllabus #22; Pius XII, Humani Generis).
■
Assent is not absolute and varies by degree according to the character of the doctrine and the document; there are historical
instances of papal error in the realm of ordinary acts.
•
Vatican II calls tliis religious submission, differing from absolute submission which would only apply to infallible acts.

Subject to conditions stated in papal documents: 1) necessary to see papal intention; 2) this is made known principally by
the character of the documents in question, since different documents cany different weight (e.g., bulls, encyclicals,
apostolic exhortations); 3) frequency with which the teaching is proposed; 4) maimer in which the doctrine is formulated.
Criteria/conditions for not giving assent to ordinary, non-infallible teachings.
■
What the teaching is stating is clearly contradictory to reason.
■
Clearly and manifestly contrary to the teaching in the deposit of faith.
■
When it is clearly and manifestly contrary to defined teaching.
■
When the teaching is being stated in such a way that it is contrary to being “of the faith”, that is, part of Tradition tliat is
irreformable and constant; Popes have grave moral obligation to make sure what they say is in conformity with Tradition.
■
When papal documents conflict with those of bishops, curia, etc, that which is minor gives way to what is major. (Denz. 641).
■
In matters where two conflicting teachings are advanced on the same level (e.g., prior Pope vs. a current one), and given
that none of the above criteria apply:
•
Magesterium has the obligation out of charity, justice, and prudence to clarify teaching and to pronounce a
judgment.
•
If subsequent teaching does not address the prior, and the prior sense is more founded upon the deposit of Faith
and Tradition, one is free to adhere to the prior teaching unless the current Pope states the newer in a more
authoritative manner.
•
Current norms of discipline (e.g., fasting, indulgences, etc.) bind the individual to the current Magesterium.
■
One is never free to make oneself the principle of judgment; one is still bound to base his judgment on the prior teaching in
accord with Tradition.
■

o

IX. Sacred Scripture (based on De Inspiratione Sacrae Scripturae by Billot)
•

•

•

•

General overview and introduction.
o 2 Tim 3:16: All Scripture inpired by God isprofitable to teach, reprove, correct, and instruct injustice.
o 2 Pet l:20ff: No prophecy ofScripture is made byprivate interpretation, but these holy men spoke inspired by the Hofy Ghost.
o
Vatican I, Dei Filius^ 2: Supernatural revelation is contained in written books and unwritten Traditions which come from Apostles
from the Ups of Christ Himself or by the Holy Ghost dictating.
■
Complete books of Holy Writ are to be received as sacred and canonical because they have God as their author and only
the Church has the right to judge the true meaning of Holy Writ.
■
The problem with the 1987 Neo-Vulgate (NV) is that there were sections removed that the Church had authoritatively
declared to be inerrant and inspired; this was due to a flawed sequence of understanding regarding translations.
•
The internal evidence of Holy Writ destroys modem Scriptural exegesis that confuses the sequence of writings.
•
The Latin translation is just as authoritative as the Greek; St. Jerome translated parts of the New Testament from
the original Hebrew into Latin.
•
The NV was a translation from the Greek which in many parts was a translation already from the Hebrew; NV
was based on flawed Scripture scholarship: 1) NV does not enjoy the inerrancy that the Vulgate does, as was
declared by Trent; 2) although not from the NV, the Pius XII Psalter does not enjoy this inerrancy either.
o
Trent (Session Ιλ7): Gospels first promulgated by Christ, then commanded to be taught by the Apostles, with the Holy Ghost
dictating; all books must be accepted in their entirety.
■
Dictare means to proscribe, decree, recommend, dictate, directing the words or substance of, to proscribe with authority, or
to say aloud material to be written by another.
Authenticity.
o
Trent declares the old Latin Vulgate to be authentic, as it can be used in public lectures, sermons, dissertations; authentic
interpretation belongs to he Fathers and to the Church.
o
Vatican I mandated die Clementine Vulgate (1590) to be inerrant, as this was the fruit of Trent (and Church always regarded it as such
before Vatican I).
o
The use of Holy Writ is restricted as well, to be determined by Church authority since it is entrusted to the Church.
Church can use her infallibility and determine which books are canonical and inpired which actually testifies to divine authorship.
o
Vulgate is die only edition which the Church has declared to be free from error; original manuscripts do not need a guarantee since
these are from God.
o
Church does not guarantee Greek/Hebrew version of Holy Writ unless the original was written in Greek or Hebrew.
Inspiration.
o
Inspiration entails the divine dictation to the sacred writer by means of suggesting; God is the author of the entire book and all its parts.
■
The author of a text is the individual from whence the idea originates, and thus refers to the person who suggests^ not writes.
■
To suggest indicates die mode of communication, not to entail a certain indeterminacy.

THE SAYING OF IT (AD DICENDUM)
WORD

THE THING THAT IS SAID (AD REM DICTAM)
o

Modes of dictating.
■
Specifically.
•
Verbal: God introduces what is to be written down into the faculties of the scribe/
•
Through interior motion or instant: God introduces a mental conception to the possible intellect ordered towards the
formulation of propositions and sentences which He wants us to be directed to.
o
Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus: God ordered the content of Holy Writ by way of conceptualization.
■
The modes of dictating to dictating do not always remain the same; sacred writers always were aware of what they wrote,
although they may have not fully grasped it.

In another way, someone other than the sacred writer can be moved to say something which is inspired on which
the writer comments on (thus both play a role in the formulation of the proposition of the concept which God
wishes to be communicated).
■
God is the author of the text and uses historical circumstances to convey meanings, but the meaning is not historically bound·, the
teaching transcends time while the mode remains bound historically.
•
A danger exists that leads one to think that by explaining the histoneal context of a passage, the meaning God
intends is therefore explained; this is false.
•
God wished the modes of expression to be different and does not bind Himself to the limitations of a particular
instrument.
■
Inspiration is effected through the nature of the instrument; God always uses reason to manifest to the writer what He
wants revealed.
•
Inspiration pertains both to the concept and the words written". these cannot be separated!
o
Inspiration is not the same as infused knowledge; the mode of writing precisely expresses the concept
that God wants revealed, so whatever is written is ultimately referable back to God.
Regarding the term author as applied to Holy Writ.
■
Before Trent, the clarity of the term author was not completely worked out, although the involvement of the sacred writer is
clear.
■
Both in Trent and Vatican I, author was only applied in reference to God (since He is the source of the ideas); human
writers were only referred to as sacred writers (cf. Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 10).
■
St. Pius X started the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) in response to the Modernist threat; the Modernists, in their
attempts to dismantle inspiration, tries to get the Holy See to admit that the sacred writers were, in fact, authors in the strict
sense; the Holy See never responded in the affirmative nor conceded the equivocation of the term.
•
St. Pius X condemned those who failed to hold a Catholic sense of Scripture and its origins, (cf. Pascendi, 22).
•
As Scripture scholarship became more infected with Modernism, the PBC encountered greater pressure; it was
flooded by correspondence from 1905-1910 and was unable to fully address the question of author when applied
to the sacred writers, so as a result, the use of author in reference to them gradually became common parlance.
■
Benedict XV is the first Pope since Trent to use the term author in reference to the sacred writer (Spintus Paraclitus, 8),
although it is clear that he was speaking analogically; the problem here lies with the historical context surrounding its use
(Modernist threat).
■
Vatican II starts calling the sacred writers as authors in the true sense (which Trent had applied to God); this is a radical
departure from what had been previously, (cf. Dei Verbum, 1 Iff.)
•
This is very problematic because it creates confusion between what is inspired and what is not (i.e., what is
attributed to human author and what would be attributed to God); this opened the door wide and paved the way
for the crazy approaches characteristic of modem Catholic exegesis.
Modes of inspiration.
■
Leo XIII (PD, 20) warns against historicism, as it does not reveal the precise meaning of the passage; because two passages
seem to conflict does not mean that they are to be dismissed. (Denz. 1950)
•
Inspiration cannot be restricted nor admit for the error on the part of the sacred writer; furthermore, itguarantees
the truth but not the understanding of comprehension ofit.
■
From Leo XIII and previous councils, conclusions can be drawn about the nature of inspiration (cf. De Veritate q.12 a.7).
•
Higher mode·, occurs when the possible intellect is acted upon by God in such a way that the writer conceives only
the concept which God wants written, and the will is moved by grace to write it.
o
Negatively, God blocks any reformulation of the conceptual proposition or motion of the will which
will reject writing the passage.
o The action upon the possible intellect and will constitute what is meant by dictation; the will then
moves the lower powers and the cogitative power is then directed to write what is true to the concept
revealed (cf. Ilallae q.71 a.4).
•
Middle mode·, it is possible and probable that God not only moved the possible intellect and will but the specific
image and imagination are moved also by Him to formulate the words He actually wants; this happens either by
sub-vocalization (words are imagined) or by image alone without words.
•
Lower mode·, it can be possible that God acts upon the lower faculties of the sacred writer with the exact words He
wants written; most probably occurred with the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament.
Divine inspiration has to occur according to our nature; although the demonic can move the lower powers, they have no direct access
upon the possible intellect or will and cannot therefore inspire.
■
Since God moves the intellect, the inspired writer has greatest certitude that what he writes is inspired (la Ilae q.105 a.4).
•
De Veritate q.12 a.7: Prophets are sometimes moved by a species they already have in order to say what God
would have him say; this applies as well to inspiration.
■
Difference between infused knowledge and inspiration·, the latter has a concommittant act on part of the will by which the
intellect knows it must be written whereas the former does not; also, the latter is ordered towards public dissemination
(since it has as its end things needed for the salvation of all) wliile the former is not per se.
Observations of the term inerrancy.
■
Leo XIII (PD) states that modem exegetes are ready to accept the authenticity of profane literature without question but
are ready to scrutinize the slightest doubt that may arise regarding Holy Writ.
•
Tilings that may conflict do not suggest error; rather it is up to man to figure out, by way of reason and grace,
how they fit together or harmonize.
•
Inerrancy does not only pertain to faith and morals.
■
Regarding fundamentalism.
•

o

o

o

•

•
•

Interpretation of Scripture requires the determination of different ways in which Scripture is presented; not every
single passage is literally true, and this points to the need of an authority to determine the meaning and sense in
which it is to be interpreted.
It is more important that people understand what the Church teaches (salvific knowledge) rather than the tilings
accidental to it (e.g., chapter and verse).
Modem exegetes hold that faith must be excluded in order to interpret Scripture scientific ally; however, faith is
always prior to the interpretation of the fonts of revelation.

X. Degrees of Certitude and Censures.
•

•

Degreespertain not to the thing but to the subject believing
o As infallible: highest degrees of certitude (in descending order).
■
Fides divina', belongs immediately to revealed truths based on the authority of God revealing.
■
Fides catholica'. Church proposes something that is already fides divina.
■
Defide definita', formal definition by die Church; something does not need to be defide definita for absolute assent to be given.
■
Fides ecclesiastica', things that are to be accepted on the sole authority of the Church pronounced as infallible.
o As assent being required: high degrees of certitude (in descending order).
■
Sententia fideproxima', doctrine regarded by theologians generally as a truth of revelation but has not been finally promulgated
as such by the Church.
■
Sententia adfidempertinet, doctrine which teaching authority has not pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its
intrinsic connection to revelation.
o As prudent to give assent: lower degrees.
■
Sententia communis', doctrine which in itself belongs to the field of free opinion but is generally accepted by theologians.
o
Free range: lowest degrees of certitude (in descending order).
■
Sententia probabilis.
■
Sententia probabilior.
■
Sententia benefundata.
■
Sententia pia.
■
Opinio tolerata', weakly founded but tolerated by the Church; good to suspend judgment on these and although the Church
maybe silent {silentium obsequiosum), it does not mean that a position is, in fact, tolerated.
Theological censures.
o These pertain to judgments which characterize a proposition touching upon faith or morals which is either contrary to the faith or
unlikely: 1) authentica', doctrine at variance; 2) juridicalis'. pronounced as such by the Church; 3) doctrinalis', considered as such by
theologians.
o
Kinds of censures (in descending order).
■
Propositio heretic#. usually labelled as such by way of anathema.
■
Propositio heresiproxima.
■
Propositio heresim sapiens.
■
De heresi supecta.
■
Propositio erronea', contrary to fides ecclesiatica.
■
Propositiofalsa', contradicts dogmatic facts.
■
Propositio temeraria', one deviating without reason from the general teaching of the Church.
■
Propositio piarum auriam offensiva'. these do not necessarily have to be false, but scandal can result.
■
Male sonans', doctrine is expressed in such a way that it is easily misunderstood (unintentional ambiguity).
■
Propositio captiosa', intentional ambiguity; it is sinful to state tilings ambiguously without sufficient reason.
■
Propositio scandalosa'. one that incites scandal.

XL Homogenous Development of Theology.
•

•

Heretical notion.
o
Liberal Protestant (Flamack) and Modernist (Loisy) posit a substantial development so that the content of the dogma changes
radically over time.
o Progress in sciences demand for the remolding and renewal of Christian teaching for each generation.
■
Tliis would demand new concepts for the problem of God (i.e., problem of man with respect to God); Modernism is based
on philosophical error and error on philosophy of history.
o
Once the principle of belief becomes the subject rather than the thing, belief becomes rooted in philosophy or psychology.
■
Pius XII rejects dogmatic relativism in Humani Generis', teachings cannot be tailored to the philosophy of the day, but only
the other way around.
■
Vatican I condemns the substantial development of doctrine (Denz. 1818).
Catholic sense.
o
From the material side (conununication of dogma), a substantial development took place until the death of the last Apostle; this is
because the whole substance had not been communicated until Christ (e.g., divorce first tolerated in Old Law and then condemned by
Christ).
o
St. Pius X condemned idea of new revelations which the Modernists and liberal Protestants admitted; hence the substance remains
unaltered after the Apostles and what man becomes does not change the teaching. (Denz. 2021)
■
Christ is the terminus of the Old Testament and the Apostles regarded their task as preservation (organ of Tradition; cf 1
Tim 6:14, 20; 2 Tim 1:14; 2:2; 3:14)
■
St. Irenaeus maintains tliis as well, as Tradition is true because of the Church’s apostolicity, which is the foundation of
Tradition.
o The formal object can change (i.e., knowledge and ecclesiastical proposal), but any change is accidental.

Truths which were priorly implicit and believed are now proposed explicitly for belief; normally and in most cases, these
would not be novel.
■
Material dogmas are raised to the status of formal dogmas (formal on the side of the people believing).
■
In order to facilitate general understanding of things already believed, they are defined in new but sharply defined concepts
(increase in theological precision, e.g., Transubstantiation); Church will often restrict use of certain terms in relation to
dogma.
■
Questions formally disputed are now answered and heretical positions condemned; new expositions of dogmatic truths are
motivated by natural striving of man for clearer knowledge of revealed truth and by external influences such as attacks,
unbelief, or advances in true philosophical and historical research.
■
Proper in the individual confession of faith of believer in virtue of the depths of the truth of the faith and the capacity of
human reason to meditate upon them.
•
Vatican I states that zeal, reverence, and moderation are driving forces of this {sedule, pie, et sobriè). (Denz. 1796)
Thus, is it possible for the Church to teach something for a prolonged period of time and then have it changed?
■
Probably not, since this would deny the action and the guidance of the Holy Ghost through time within the Church to
preserve it from error.
■
If the time interval is considerably short, evidence is still required but it is easier to change the proposition; A’atican II
documents do not admit of this and in many places are inconsistent with prior teachings and are not homogeneous.
■

o

PART II: The Philosophical Roots ofModernism.
I. Nature of Modernism in General.
•

•

•

•

•

Modernism is a heresy in the sense that it is a crisis of faith because it creates problems ofpiling assent to the tenets of the Faith.
o
At root, modernism rejects the unchanging deposit and the lack of faith among people makes it difficult for them to submit to the
teaching authority of souls.
o
Rejection, therefore, of the means and the end will make salvation difficult.
Modernism tends to break theology up into spectrums {liberal/moderate/conservative).
o The problem with this is that the spectrums only have meaning when viewed under an orthodoxperspective, that is, in a situation in which
the deposit is observed.
o
Modernists attempt to introduce a break between orthodoxy and orthopraxy:; hence, they aim at a clear separation of the Church’s
teaching from her pastoral practice and deny the practical application revelation should have.
Modernism is a heresy ofignorance.
o
Modernism tends to be the product of ignorance because its foundation (immanentism) is completely subjective; this is manifested in
that the deposit of faith is considered as hidden, along with the rejection of it and the suffering which goes with subjection to it.
■
Tliis has widely affected seminaries and basic programs of religious education; modernism on a practical level is intellectual
atheism.
o
Modernism is rooted in a two-fold foolishness: 1) the rejection of self-evident first principles and the senses; 2) the possession of no
real metaphysics, and thus it is easy to see why they reject Aquinas.
Modernism’s existence is due to collapse ofauthority.
o
The Church seemed to capitulate on her ability to police doctrine as early as the 1930’s, but tliis became really evident before, during,
and after Vatican II.
o
Authority: must be re-established by those on the highest levels in order to correct die problem; this will require a profound rejection
of human respect.
Modernism has resulted in a genuine féminisation of religion because it is rooted infeelings.
o
A liturgy, or any liturgical practice, that is rooted in feelings and makes personal experience the norm must be eradicated if the
problem is going to be taken care of.
o
It can be posited that Modernism may have originated in the metaphysics of Scotus from which DesCartes drey: heavily; it is a
philosophical error at root that has led to grave effects and implications in theology.

II. Roots of Modernism.
•

Descartes.
o
In general, Descartes makes himself the principle of what is correct rather that the external object; he jettisons anything that has “only”
moral certitude and only will accept those tilings with absolute (metaphysical) certitude.
■
He began a process of creating a philosophical system that was completely independent of anything prior to it; what he
holds as true are those things which appear to him to be the case.
•
Mathematics is considered to be the most certain of all sciences; this is false though because the principles of
mathematics are founded upon the conclusions of first philosophy and metaphysics.
■
Thus, he makes scientific method an end in itself and employs the empirical scientific method to everything; however, this
cannot be done in theology: because the method must beproportionate to the object of the science.
•
According to Descartes, anything that cannot be put to the empirical method falls under the domain of opinion
(such as religion).
o
Tliis is the first time historically that the grounds are laid for the rejection of Tradition because the subject is now considered to be the
principle of the truth (since moral certitude is rejected).
■
Descartes’ first philosophical principle is to doubt everything; cogito ergo sum becomes the second principle, that is, the
process of reasoning begins in self (own thought of one’s existence), which is the total inversion of the Thomistic principle
that operation follows being.
■
Once the senses are doubted, as Descartes does, there is no way back to reality; it must be held that the empirical knowledge of the
senses is certain.

Hence, judgments about God are confined to the self rather than the external and all religious judgments become founded
upon the self; reason thus impugns the meaning upon what we sense (a prion) rather than the other way around, which
implies a certain innatism.
•
Incidentally, as will be seen later, Kant will maintain that ideas of perfection do not point to the existence of them
because of the apparent lack of sense certitude.
o
Descartes blurs the distinction between concept and image, which is the problem with the realm of phenomenology.
■
For him, error is avoided by making something completely clear, but in reality, clarity cannot be used as a foundation of
truth (except in those tilings founded on natural principles).
o
Because of Descartes, all criteria for truth becomes immanent, which is only true for God.
■
The person becomes the principle of judgment of everything and truth is not whether ideas conform to reality but whether
allour ideas are coherent based on their immanent valuer coherency plays a part, but it comes from truth as based on the truth of
tilings as they are in reality.
■
Modernism is the formal unpacking of the epistemology of Descartes; once self becomes the principle of judgment (at least
implicitly), the slippery slope to the denial of objective religion begins.
■
The intellectual trajectory of the cogito is atheism, since all becomes afigment of reason and not the external object.
Do eke (of. Essay ConcerningELnman Understanding, 7, 24).
o
For Locke, highest degree of knowledge is intuitive without reasoning; highest of all certainty is in human intuitive knowledge.
■
Faith is to be regulated by reason and is considered to be rather only a firm assent of the mind instead of an infused virtue
as defined by Aquinas.
•
Giving assent to the deposit of faith leads to greater certitude on the side of the object; Locke subjects faith
completely to reason which makes it subjective, since there are many things pertaining to faith that are above
reason but not contrary to it.
■
Locke denies that supernatural knowledge can be arrived at by way of signs and senses; the concepts God communicates
are really such that they really cannot be passed on or written down since they are very difficult to communicate.
•
Thus, Tradition becomes a medium under which one may have an “experience” with God; reason is more certain
than faith and faith is thus conformed to it.
o
If Descartes denies the reliability of sense knowledge, all of Tradition is cut off because it is passed on by way of the senses; Locke
continues to build on this an lowers the nature of faith.
■
Even if God communicates directly, it is still submitted to the judgment and proof of human reason; this is a subtle
immanentism, as everything becomes subordinated to man.
■
Those without right faith, as Aquinas points out, are tinable to perceive the supernatural truth of revelation; without right
faith, the fact that faith does not contradict reason is not evident (e.g., faith subjected to reason alone leads to unitarianism).
■
The miraculous is dismissed because it is not considered scientific or subordinated to unaided reason.
o
Faith becomes rationalized; traditional sense of revelation is destroyed and anything that does not appear reasonable in Tradition is
rejected.
■
Theology then becomes subjected to purely rational principles without any faith; faith is the habit proportionate to the
object of theology, but without it the object cannot be adequately attained.
■
This militates upon the power of the Magesterium, since the subject becomes the standard of judgment and not the
Magesterium.
•
Thus, it is no longer legitimate for beliefs to be dictated because a person’s judgments of what he believes may
not be in accord with another’s; infallibility rests in the subject, not the Magesterium, and it assumes that
everyone is competent to judge on matters which they do not have sufficient training to judge.
■
Clear knowledge of relation between faith and reason necessary; without authority, there is no way to protect the deposit.
•
Scripture is thus subject to modification in order that it be conformed to reason of the individual; Dei Dilins of
Vatican I attacks tliis and clearly delineates the relation between reason and faith.
•
Eheology denigrates into obscurity and expression of teaching becomes unclear; nebulous thinking is thefruit ofmodernism.
■
On the contrary, there is a profound fideist reaction against rationalism and an anti-intellectualism becomes prevalent (e.g.,
unvigilant traditionalists, neo-conservatives).
Eeimarus.
o
In general, he paved the way for the flawed historical approach to Scripture.
■
Maintains that the teaching of Christ differed from the Apostles, since Christ never dictated to them what to write;
ultimately, tliis is a denial of Pentecost.
■
An historical approach is the only way to determine what Christ actually said and preached, so the four Gospels are to be
approached only as some historical account.
•
Scholars then take it upon themselves to determine what is accurate and what is not; this has absolutely no
grounds in objectivity.
o
Overall, he posits revelation to have ended with Christ and not with the death of the last Apostle\ thus, he denies the inferral of doctrine by
our Lord and also Tradition which has interpreted it (e.g., Trinity of Persons).
■
Apostles were the cause of the abolishment of Judaism, not Christ; however, this ends up presenting a disunity between
Christ’s teachings and the practice of the early Church.
■
Christ only came to preach moral obligations (thus religion is a set of ethics) upon which He hoped to build His kingdom.
•
Christ’s teachings did not include the establishment of a new religion nor the abolition of the Levitical cermonial
laws and practices.
•
Christ would not require others to believe what they already knew; thus faith becomes a mere trust (like it is for
the Protestants) rather than an infused virtue.
o
Scripture becomes rationalized since judgments are no longer submitted to the Magesterium but to reason.
■
Miracles are concluded as being irrational since reason cannot admit of the supernatural.

■

The people of the past are concluded thus a being stupid because of their belief in miracles; actually, the
Modernists try to keep people in ignorance in order to float their doctrine.
Miracles are therefore discarded in order to arrive at the truth of Scriptural testimony; doubt becomes reasonable whereas
belief is not.
•
This is ridiculous since reason is able to determine that something is above nature; nevertheless, the New
Testament is ultimately judged as a non-trustworthy historical document since the enemies apply perfectionistic
modernist principles to the books.
•

■

Hume.
o

o

o

Hume rejects the miraculous based on a false theory of constant conjunction (i.e. the transferring of force cannot be physically
observed), which violates efficient causality and the principle of sufficient reason.
■
Existence of a tiling is accountable of itself or from another; tilings that have act not of themselves must have it from
something else which is capable of giving that act, which Hume denies.
■
Reason is able to recognize by consideration of terms that the principle of sufficient reason is true; we can gain experiential
knowledge of it by way of reality.
Hume regards the truth of miracles to be solely based on the testimony of the Apostles; this rejects faith, based on the fact that the
testimony of the Apostles is not purely human because of the miracles that accompany their works; God continues to give testimony
to every generation by means of miracles.
■
Hume applies the theory of constant conjunction to the case of eyewitnesses; this rejects the working of grace and God’s
actions upon man to avoid committing error.
■
Thus, if anything would happen contrary to normal credibility of things, it is really not believable; miracles are therefore
labeled as violations of the laws of nature (rather than suspensions)^ which means such laws are considered as absolute, thus
falling to admit of causality.
■
Hume posits that there is no miracle in history that has sufficient credible witnesses; this subtlety asserts that the Apostles
were stupid and simpletons and also formally rejects moral certitude in the realm of religion and Tradition (truth is based on
habituation rather than testimony of others).
•
Ultimately, any denial of miracles is the denial of the principle of sufficient reason and the placing miracles in the
domain of the natural order denies the principle of operation (agere sequitur esse).
Observations on Hume and his relation to Modernism.
■
Miracles are always admissible with proper metaphysics, which Hume lacks.
■
After Hume, natural theology never recovers; Kant will draw off him and completely deny reality and any access to God by
way of nature.
■
Hume’s critique is applied to every part of Holy Writ; it becomes the foundation of modem (heretical) exegesis on Genesis,
claiming the “Big Bang” to have originated from itself.
•
Miracles surround Christ are thus concluded to also be constructions of the early Church.

Kant.
o

o

O

O

o

Some of Kant* s terminology:
OBJECT (THING) = NOUMEM4
EXPERIENCE OF THE NOUMENA = PHENOMENA (a posteriori knowledge)
TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC = MLL FORMS (a priori knowledge)
TRANSCENDENTAL AESTHETIC = IMPOSITION OF STRUCTURE UPON THE PHENOMENA BY THE MIND
THROUGH FORMS.
According to Kant, the only thing that one can intuit is the phenomena; intuition is only something in the mind (object of empirical
intuition is the phenomena).
■
Hence, all categories of Aristotle are an imposition of the mind on sense experience (since the thing itself cannot be
known); this actually cuts one off from reality.
Regarding God’s existence, Kant rejects any ontological argument because he considers God to be an imposition of the mind.
■
Kant dismisses all a prior arguments for God’s existence, positing that because something is thought to be the case does
not make it the case in reality (this is actually true).
■
However, he reduces the cosmological arguments to ontological ones, and thus causation is transformed from the realm of
reality to that of experience.
•
Transcendental object forms the basis of phenomenon; causation thus becomes a synthetic notion and reality is
departed from.
o
Since reality cannot be known, causation in reality cannot be known either and we cannot arrive at
God as the Cause, thus rejecting the entire battery of natural theology.
•
Experience is unable to provide sufficient information for the notion of a necessary Being; whole meaning of
experience is entirely subjective and the notion of God is imposed on sense experience.
Regarding knowledge of God by way of sufficient reason.
■
Theoretical cognition does not admit of experience; all attempts to establish theology by means of reason is fruitless and
God and/or theology cannot be known by reason applied to experience.
■
Theology is reduced to morality/ethics rather than dogma/doctrine; any doctrine is therefore founded upon immanent
experience.
•
Since God has to act on experience, He therefore acts upon what we do; this yields the principle of immanentism
in which 1) knowledge of God is always experiential; 2) true theology consists in morality.
Kanf s legacy.
■
Provides an intellectual codification of agnosticism, since God is unable to be known in reality; ontology is rejected and
forms are imposed on experience.
■
Sets up the trajectory towards widespread atheism.

Reduces all theology to morality or ethics; revelation is not seen as an object (something that is come to be known) but
rather a subject of experience; hence, revelation is dynamic in order to fit the mode of modem experience (rather than
being complete at the death of the last Apostle).
■
Reduces everything to subjective religious experience and codifies immanentism.
Observations.
■
Despite what Kant posits, nature still functions in a realist mode and always will.
■
For Catholics, experience (in the Kantian sense) is not necessary; what counts is the teaching of the deposit and the infusion
of faith by which we see the deposit as true.
■
Weapon against immanentism is to invert the cogito and admit the reliability of the senses; if opponent will not admit of
either, litde can be done.
■

o

Hegel.

Posits that there is only one substance (Deus sive natura)', spirit enters into matter/time/liistoiv and thus there is a constant change of
which we are all a part:
■
Tire Hegelian dialectic (THESIS
ANTITHESIS
SYNTHESIS (NEW THESIS)) violates the principle of non­
contradiction because the synthesis contains fully, at the same time, the diesis and antithesis.
■
Change is found perfectly in the civil entity of the state; historical change always develops towards something better (i.e.
newer is better)', the development of Marxism stems from this, along with the restless desires for novelty in the religious
spheres.
o
When Hegelian cosmology is applied to Catholicism, the result is a necessary non-homogenous development of doctrine because of
the constant movement from thesis to antithesis to synthesis, ad infinitum.
■
Hegel would deny the passing of the deposit because Tradition would be subject to change and is changing anyway.
o
History moves on a higher level than morality; morality is considered only to be a private sentiment (we see the serious problem of
subjectivity here).
■
Anything in the past is not as good as the present, since the syntheses of the past are not as “perfect” as the syntheses now
this leads to two conclusions:
•
Nothing is static and Tradition is always changing.
•
A perceived psychological freedom amongst the masses to dissect the deposit and Tradition; thus people now
think that they are superior to people of the past because modem times are regarded as better (those of the future
are defacto morally superior to prior counterparts).
■
The neo-conservative position on the liturgy is actually a conforming to the Hegelian dialectic; the Tridentine Mass is the
thesis, the Novus Ordo the antithesis, and the “reform of the reform” the synthesis.
o
Effects ofHegelianism.
■
MarxismfLeninism: These are the result of Hegel’s philosophy as applied to the political sphere, since a revolution is
employed to make a state better (change of the current regime (thesis) by a revolution (antithesis) to a “better” regime
(synthesis)); leads to a fostering of class-warfare in an effort to make all “equal”.
■
Whole scale rejection of Tradition: Since the past is seen as out-moded, Tradition is no longer normative; hence Tradition is
something negative because the past is negative.
•
Problem here is that the synthesis always contains the antithesis, so one is never able to completely get rid of it
and arrive at a perfect state.
■
Process theology. God is not static but is constantly changing and thus there must be a constant evolution of doctrine; on a
practical level, we are forced to reject paraliturgical tilings/popular piety of old (i.e. what has sufficed liturgically for the past
will not do for modem man, and thus the liturgy must be adapted to the modem man).
Feuerbach (the Father ofmodem atheism).
o All of theology is merely exaggerated anthropology, we take some attributes of ourselves and project them upon some non-existing God.
■
Retigion really is only about man, and thus is only immanent and not transcendent; modem man is in the process of
defining God in man’s image and religion is thus personified to become what we wish it to be.
•
Protestantism has been a venture in man-made religion; tills has crept into Catholicism by the way of the
appetites, and liturgy is designed then to speak to modem man and preach his ideals (rather than God’s).
■
Man has thus become the judge of what is deemed necessary pastorally; tliis leads to enculturation and false oecumenical
dialogue since God becomes subject to our own consideration.
•
Religion thus becomes subject to psychology.
•
Modernism is really atheism because God is nowhere and man is everywhere, since God is only a projection of
man.
■
Ultimately leads to the complete horizontatization of religion, as evervone becomes their own personal theologian; most
modernists are really practical atheists because they are really more interested in man rather than God.
■
The transcendent has no true value because it is a projection and is subordinated to the immanent; if God is transcendent,
religion is therefore dismissed as “cold” or “impersonal”.
Scbleiermacher.
o
Religion is a kind of activity an is about doing things.
■
Faith is separated from metaphysical analysis and pietv from morality; thus, it is not religion’s place to determine morality or
doctrine.
■
Religion is based completely in feeling of experience since religion is divorced from knowledge; piety really amounts to the
feeling we have on experience.
•
Piety is thus also divorced from metaphysics and hence it is not possible to be both metaphysical and pious.
■
God works only through experience: feelings are identified with piety because it is the result of the operation of God in you
by the operation of the world upon you; thus, there is no sensation that is not pious (fornication??).
o
Piety is essentially an emotion and indubitably one’s own feelings; religion thus entails the creation of events by which experiences are
created that serve to maximize experience: for a man, this is inherently feminisjng, since an inability to be emotional is regarded as an
inability to be pious.
o

No connection between morality and feeling, and thus there is no rule outside the individual; hypocrites adhere to Tradition as a
superstition, as it is a religions poverty to adhere to objective doctrine and morality.
o
Religion’s goal is endless, individual humanity; humanity is to be sought in each individual, and one person is a revelation of this
undivided humanity (the New Mass seems to foster this, since we are always looking at each other).
o
Miracles, revelation, inspiration, and grace are not necessary for piety, but since feeling is made the subject of reflection, these become
absolutely unavoidable.
■
Miracles only amount to the mental perception of the person observing; it is a religious name for an event.
■
Every original communication of the universe to man is a revelation; every feeling is a revelation as long as a religious
oudook is applied to it (hence, fornicators can claim to have a revelation of God within a sinful action by which they are led
to think it meets His approval).
■
Inspiration is the general expression of whatever feels right; prophecy is a mere feeling of intuition of something about to
happen (even if it is obvious).
■
Grace amounts to the common experience of revelation (as above) and inspiration becomes that entrance of the univerese
into man and man into the universe.
o
Results of Schleiermacher’s idiocy.
■
Effeminacy.
■
Active homosexuality (in thought, word, deed) is considered to be just as religious as chastity.
■
More prominent role of women in religion since it is about feeling and they tend to be more emotional.
■
Leads to spiritual gluttony since the value of prayer is based on feeling.
■
Sensual life is placed above the intellectual life; attempt at teaching anything with clarity will then be met with opposition
since clarity militates on good feelings (muddled answers leave a lot of room for feelings).
■
Religion is separated from the moral code and experience and emotion become the rule of the day; leads thus to practical
atheism since pastoral action is geared to emotional masturbation rather than leading a soul to God (this is evident in
various methodologies for youth retreats).
David Strauss.
o
Religion that is dependent upon written Tradition leads to the intellectuals eventually getting the upper hand; modem civilization is
unable to adapt itself to something written so early.
■
Rejects the historical element of Scripture, claiming that the divine did not happen or it did not happen as recorded.
■
Old and New Testaments are interweaving of truths and fiction in order to get people thinking more differently (this is
groundless, and the reasons he posits are all ridiculous).
■
Religion must proceed from Kantian principle that it be constituted by pure reason (that is, reason imposes form and
structure upon a phenomena).
o
Myth pertains to the representation of an event/idea in a fomi that is historical but a bit embellished; comes in three flavors: 1)
historical·. real events that contain some exaggerations; 2) philosophical, simple thought this is somewhat confused and unclear; 3) poetic, a
combination of the two above but further embellished by creations of the imagination.
■
Stauss maintains that almost all of Holy Writ is myth, and he tries to suggest that the New Testament was written rather late
in order to support this (which has no basis in fact).
•
Application of Strauss’ theories relativize religion; however, he cannot account for the divine testimony of
miracles that has accompanied Catholicism since its beginning.
•
Strauss further dismisses the authority of eyewitness accounts, citing a supposed religious enthusiasm present at
the time which would militate upon accuracy; hence any form of external evidence is excluded a priori.
■
For Strauss, the relation of the world to God is based on one’spersonal idea ofUinr, this ends up militating upon the notions
of primary and secondary causality.
•
There is a close connection between Deism and Modernism; there is an implicit Deism within modem Scripture
studies because the scholars do not wish to admit that God has intervened in history.
•
Anything is dismissed if it does not fit the preconceived idea of God (e.g., miracles), and any apparent
contradiction is immediately dismissed and considered as tyvw/contradiction.
o
Observation on Strauss’ theory.
■
Categorical rejection of Tradition: historical scholarship is actually bad history7; documents must be accepted at face value
with the consistent testimony of the Church (otherwise, the principle of the judgment becomes the subject).
■
Bad metaphysics adversely affects Scripture scholarship.
■
Strauss’ legacy includes an individuization of Scripture; as Iris adherents deny the historicity of the Gospel, there is no
historical basis for what they do.
•
Since supernatural occurrences are not possible, then natural explanations must be sought; if this is not possible,
then the occurrence is labeled as fiction or discarded.
•
Since God does not intervene in history, any involvement is dismissed as a myth.
•
Anything that cannot be proved or seems unlikely is dismissed.
•
Communities develop myth based on experience; anything that happens that seems to be outside what the
historian thinks was going on at the time is dismissed.
•
Miracles pertain to the mythical character of the text and are therefore not historical.
Maurice Blondel.
o
Holds immanence to be the very principle of philosophizing; nothing comes from man’s mind that does not have its source already in
him (complete subjectivism) and one must be inflexibly immanent.
■
True Christian spirit is what comes from us; method of immanence is to criticize all phenomena in light of each other by
which one develops an idea of God and a religion that answers our needs.
■
The immanent affirmation of the transcendent does not in any way prove its existence; phenomenology has a direct
connection to immanence, and thus only in the context of self does religious philosophy have meaning.
•
Man, because of immorality, will ultimately try to go around God by transferring religion to domain of self.
o

o

o

Theology cannot allow philosophy to reach the realm of the supernatural order (denial of natural theology); revelation is the human
sacrament of the divine in the mind ofman, that is, the acknowledgement of our deficiency is in fact a baptism of desire (this is a subtle
foundation for the idea of “universal salvation” prevalent today).
■
Philosophy of immanence will permit us to fulfill our insufficiency (rather than grace); man is saved by the
acknowledgement of tliis insufficiency and by reaching out.
■
Transcendent only has a meaning for us in the immanent (hence why the issuance of clear dogmatic and moral statements is
frowned upon, as tliis would intrude upon the immanent).
•
N.B.: In the modem liturgy, all the options make the priest the definer of cult and not Tradition.
■
Immanence doe not merit the scholastic definition of a science because it is not ordered to universals but to self; this is
inherently the problem of phenomenology.
Effects of Blodel and others of like mind.
■
Humanism. The humanism present at Vatican II turns the mission of the Church away from God and towards man;
modernism is a heresy about us, since immanentism is actually the principle of every sin (pride begins with man as the
principle of judgment).
•
Pope Paul VI in his closing remarks for Vatican II declared the Church to be at the service of humanity (rather
than God); intention of the Church has thus been directed to man and is at his service.
•
At Vatican II, clarity of thought and proper metaphysics seemed to be absent, since these militate upon the
immanence which the council served to enhance; tn/e metaphysics requires a dying to self
•
Immanentists are atheists either practically, because religion becomes part of self, or intellectually, because judgments
never deal with reality and thus do not adequately attain the transcendent.
■
Personalism·. Fundamental danger for this is immanentism in that the transcendent becomes an object one desires to get
something out of.
•
Man is held to be the pinnacle of creation, as the composite sensory/intellectual is said to be of higher operation
rather than intellectual contemplation (as in the angels).
•
It is dangerous because of the fixation on and an exaggeration of the value of man; man really only possesses
value because he is made in God’s image and likeness and is elevated by grace.
o
Once the cogito is accepted, one is left to find meaning only in self; vital immanence (cf. Pascendi, 7)
entails making meaning for yourself by what you do (tliis leads to activism).
ABSOLUTE: does not admit for anything outside self.
IVIMANENCE
RELATIVE: will admit of an outside world, but the reality of it is based on experience.

Because immanentist position is focused on experience and doing things^ this would explain the
modem emphasis on participation and actively doing things in the liturgy.
Phenomenology: A descriptive eidetic science of the essence of experiences of pure consciousness.
•
Phenomenology is an a priori science in that it describes only experiences of things (not the res) and is universal
insofar as it deals with all experiences (which includes intentional objects).
•
Finality seems to be the knowledge of experience of essences and a self-evident knowledge based on intuition
(eidetic); pure consciousness is the fundamental reality and the terminus ad quern is always knowledge of the
experience of a thing.
•
Transcendence is subordinated to the immanent by process of internal reflection of self; phenomenologists can
be called atheists because one only describes the experience of the transcendence (and hence the terminus is not in
God/reality but self).
o
Existential nihilism (I am nothing) and phenomenological ontology are equated (infinite regress of
consciousness of consciousness of consciousness...); only being one is able to attain is personal
experience (which is rooted in Hegelian metaphysics).
o
In the end, phenomenology gets wrapped up in experience which really cannot be God; it is thus 1)
rooted in the cogito·, 2) unable to get to God, and; 3) concerned with seeking things only in self.
o
Phenomenology falls into the realm of psychology; the existence of a thing in re is not important but
only the experience of it.
■
Pastoral theology is thus also reduced to psychology, one is considered to be psychologically abnormal
if he fails to accept the immanentist approach
•
Fails to possess the rigor and clarity that the other sciences have because only things can provide clarity and the
mind cannot give clarity to itself.
o
Catechetics have been adversely affected by phenomenology, since it now tries to get people to reflect
on experience of religion rather than the object it; these programs erode faith because they encourage
people to perform works contrary to the virtue of faith.
o

III. Issues Regarding Modern Exegetical Methods.
•

•

Divini -Afflante Spiritu of Pius XII endorsed and authorised only a true and authentic approach to historical exegetical methods.
o
Pius XII’s intentions were quickly misinterpreted and he was forced to issue a warning and clarification in Humani Generis, although
tliis effort was too late.
Revelation is a supernatural object.
o
Theology must possess a proportionate method, which would require the use of correct metaphysics to ascertain this proportion).
o
Any method used must admit that all of Scripture is inspired; a method that fails in this regard is to be rejected or modified to
accommodate.
o
Scripture must be apprehended through correct faith because it is proportionate to the things hidden within it; it is wholly unscientific
to draw theological conclusions from Holy Writ while using empirical methods alone.

Empirical methodology applied to Scripture is pre-scientific and is not true scholarship; philogical studies can be conducted
with it, but it belongs to right faith for correct interpretation of it (faithless conclusions do not allow for true interpretation).
■
Faith validates the relation between various terms whether by induction and especially by way of deduction.
o
Scripture scholarship requires:
■
Knowledge of languages.
■
Knowledge of history, both sacred (positively) and profane (negatively).
■
Knowledge of hermeneutics (art and rule of interpreting texts) which has to be modified when applied to Scripture because
of inspiration: 1) nature and species of Biblical senses; 2) to establish principles of interpretation; 3) to find a more
convenient way of proposing the true sense of the text.
■
Knowledge of dogma and morality as authoritatively taught by the Church.
■
Knowledge of correct philosophy, as this serves as a negative check to insure that the exegete does not say anything
contrary to reason.
Exegetical methods.
o
Textual criticism', this involves the attempt to get as close as possible to the original manuscript; the Church, however, has established
the Vulgate as authentic and thus the “original manuscript search” becomes shaky or superfluous.
■
Most of textual criticism is scientific at best and, at worst, attempts to discredit certain sections of Scripture in order to
eliminate them from the fount of revelation (the Neo-Vulgate may suffer from this).
o
Higher criticism', aim is to investigate sources of a literary work, study compositions, establish dates, and determine its transformations
throughout the passage of time.
■
This method has been responsible for calling into question Moses’ authorship of the Pentateuch; normally adherents to this
method are out to discredit the text.
■
The principal mainstay of authentic Scripture study is to determine what God meant by the text; the motives of higher
criticism are really only accidental to this.
o
ICterary criticism (form criticism): used to determine literary style of text and proceeds on erroneous assumption that the books are
compilations; attempts to show that the prescribed writer is not the source of composition or that there is more than one.
■
This method tends to be used to discredit the sacred writers and disprove ecclesiastical Tradition; tries to maintain that a
person is confined to one literary style, which is ridiculous (different styles do not necessarily mean different writers).
O Histoneal criticism', has as an object both passed-on documents (written, unwritten, Tradition) and the historical facts themselves.
■
This can only be used as a help/support and may play a role in the study of Holy Writ and sacred history; unfortunately, it
has been employed improperly to discredit Tradition and dispute the doctrine of Holy Writ.
■
It is false to assume that an explanation of historical context reveals the explanation of a text’s meaning; Scripture contains
meanings that transcend time.
•
The historical meaning cannot be automatically assumed to be the meaning that God intends; this procedure
reduces Scripture to an artificial science by reducing it to a mere historicity under the ratio of man primarily.
•
On a liturgical level, God may permit certain rituals to be introduced at one point so that they take on a meaning
at a later time.
Scripture as taught in seminaries.
o
Various empirical methods can be taught but should only take on a small percentage of the time, unless they are being used negatively
in order to expose modem errors.
o
Principal aim is to allow seminarians to acquire a facility of accurately interpreting Holy Writ, with much emphasis being placed upon
patristics and the work of Theologians.
o
Given this, time must be taken to adequately study and understand the nature of faith because from this foundation what is
expounded from the pulpit is understood.
■

•

•

IV. Causes and Signs of Modernism and the Notion of Proper Traditionalism
•

•

•

•

There are three primary signs.
o
Avoidance of devotion to the Blessed Mother.
o
Lack of regard and respect for scholastic theology and philosophy.
o
Hatred of Latin, a sacred and unchanging language.
Secondary signs.
o
There are multiple subordinate signs: 1) rejection of the teaching of the Eucharist; 2) division of discipline from doctrine; 3) bad
ecclesiology, especially regarding ©ecumenism; 4) distaste for authority while positing oneself to be an authority; 5) rejection of
distinction between mortal and venial sin; 6) rejection of moral depravity as a cause of subsequent sin; 7) rejection of the gravity of
sexual sins; 8) negative attitude towards authentic piety or devotion; 9) avoidance of prayer; 10) lack of positive reference (or any
reference) to anything prior to Vatican II; 11) muddled thought in theology or philosophy which causes confusion; 12) hatred for
clear formulations of doctrine, definitions, or condemnations; 13) arguing from “spirit of Vatican Π” while contradicting the clear
parts of the documents; 14) contempt for patristics; 15) avocation of modernist Scriptural approaches; 16) rejection of the use of the
pulpit for catechetical purposes; 17) desire for notoriety; 18) laicism; 19) critical or no regard for authentic Church architecture.
Causes ofmodernism.
o
Moral (remote) causes include: 1) curiosity in areas of heresy or modem philosophy; 2) pride, claiming oneself to be more capable of
judging something than one really is; 3) general moral decay, especially in the sexual realm.
o
Intellectual (proximate) causes include: 1) ignorance of scholasticism, either intentional or unintentional; 2) embracing of modem
philosophy, especially eclecticism, which arises out of trying to make tilings suit the individual; 3) dislike of coherence in teaching.
Traditionalism (as the anecdote to modernism).
o
Tliis includes the acceptance and embrace of Holy \XTit and Tradition, along with a tendency to judge things that change in favor of
Tradition.
■
Does not fall prey to the error of modernism; the self is not die principle of judgment, especially in regard to liturgical
tilings (acceptance of rubrics and custom).

Includes an undying adherence to the Tradition and what has been handed down by the Magesterium, regardless of cost;
however, one must be tolerant and patient with those coming from the new rite who have modernist baggage (we all do).
Not connected to Tradition because of itself, but because of the inherent goodness in it, along with an undying adherence to the
Magesterium, not just the present one, but to it as a whole single unit.

■

o

V. Solutions to Modernism.
•

•

Personal.
o
o
o
o
o

Know your enemy: modernism must be understood in order to combat it, and thus one must know correct theology.
Humility this helps one to recognize one’s place and competency, along with who to subordinate oneself to.
Intellectual discipline and mortification to combat curiosity (diligence); appetites must submit to reason.
Detachment from novelty and attachment to Tradition.
Embrace of scholastic theology and submission to authority of the Fathers and Theologians, while giving pride of place to Aquinas;
since modernists make themselves the principle of judgment, they naturally shun these.
o
Life of deep prayer and adherence to the traditional schools of spirituality and asceticism.
o
Devotion to our Lady; she is the antidote to modernism in that every virtue she has counters heresy.
o
Preaching against modernism from the pulpit.
o
Clergy must be willing to suffer and not to be disillusioned when Magesterium is not doing its job; times today call for intelligent and
disciplined clergy.
■
Problem with the neo-conservative position is that, although most adherents are good-willed and wish to be orthodox, it
implicitly embraces modernism because it requires the embrace of the mode of Church teaching over the last 45 years.
•
An error in the possible intellect leads to an error in the will; what happens is that one may become appetitively
attached to being the standard of orthodoxy rather than Tradition; this is done mostly out of ignorance.
■
Rejection of modernism will result in being labeled rigid, non-docile, or judgmental; prejudice is a function of the cogitative
power that makes an association of one thing to another before judgment under which the judgment is based (not
necessarily bad).
Ecclesiastical/ Societal.
o
Victims of pride must be placed in the lowest and most obscure ecclesiastical offices in order to humble them and minimize damage.
o
Seminarians suffering from excessive pride (intellectual or moral) or modernism are to be removed from the seminaries.
o
Modernists must be kept out of positions of power and teaching, which they naturally tend to gravitate.
o Vigilance on the part of the Magesterium regarding modernism; adherents should be deposed and condemned.
o Re-establishment of the ancient liturgical rites (including ones proper to religious orders); this will give people a proper understanding
and model of what true worship is about.
o
Return to correct theological principles regarding the liturgy, from the top down.
o Re-establishment of the deposit of faith as the object of catechesis, which requires clarity of expression and the norm and method.
o Re-establishment of Catholic culture, which must be organic (communes are artificial); this begins with restoration of cult.
o
Forbidding Catholic authors from publishing heretical texts; restore the value of the imprimatur and nihil obstat.
o
Re-establish patristics and Theologians as the normative method of Scripture scholarship.
o
Get issues of theological debate back behind closed doors and out of the hands and access of the laity.
o Re-establish moral code among clergy and seminarians; there can be no tolerance of homosexuality or those who are unable to
control chastity, since heresy is often the result oi pride and/or sexual immorality.

VI. Short History of Modernism.
•

•

•

•

Philosophicalgroundwork for modernism was laid by 1832.
o
The philosophical groundwork began in Protestant spheres but began infecting the Church by 1750; American and French
revolutions had influence politically.
o
Schleiermacher (1798-1834) built his own theological system of which modernism is an offshoot since subjective experience is
considered to be the heart of religion.
o
Church recognized by 1832 the problem with the issuance of the document Mirari Uos\ term initially used for modernism is liberalism.
■
Perin (1850-1905), a professor at Louvain, was the first person to coin the term modernism but later softens it to liberalism.
Initialphase of modernism (1832-1869)
o
1863: Ernest Renan writes Life of Jesus which attacks the authority of the early Church; had dramatic adverse effects on Scripture
scholarship.
Intellectualphase of modernism (1870-1907).
o
1870: Vatican I starts addressing the intellectual aspects of the heresy, authoritatively speaking about faith and reason and their relation
to authority.
o 1893: Loisy writes against Vatican I; two books placed on Index, although he later makes a submission in 1904.
O 1905: Troubles of innovation plague the diocese of Italy; bishops there begin to issue warnings against modernism.
o
1906: Several pastoral letters are issued in Italy using the term modernism; Tyrrell dismissed from the Jesuits for refusing to submit to
Vatican I and not retracting heretical statements.
o
1907: Authoritative acts of the papacy, which will begin the underground modernist movement (1907-C.1962).
■
July: Lamentabile published.
■
September: St. Pius X issues Pascendi.
■
October: Tyrrell excommunicated for publishing heretical works; St. Pius X issues warnings to submit to PBC (which was
part of the Curia); modernist Scripture scholars begin inundating PBC with questions in order to erode its authority.
Undergroundphase ofmodernism (1907-c. 1962).
o
1909: Public force of the modernist movement dies with the death of Tyrrell.
o
1910: Motu proprio of St. Pius X implements the anti-Modemist oath for all seminary professors; leads to the purgation of seminaries
and modernists pretty much silence themselves.

ο

1914 (November): Beatissime Apostolorum of Benedict XV warns against excessive accusation which starts the end of the purge,

although the oath still required to be taken into the early 1970’s.
1920’s: Liturgical movement gains force and is begun to be infected with modernists; since lil urgy was considered more a matter of
discipline (thought that one could not be labeled a heretic in disciplinary matters).
o
1937: Modernist book Catholicism: It’s Dying to be Reformed published anonymously.
o
1945: Modernism begins to become more apparent in seminaries as moral codes decay among clergy; theories include:
■
Right-wing to be associated with fascism.
■
Atrocities of WWII led to buildup of humanism, as men turned away from faith to seek answers.
■
Moral exhaustion prevalent in the USA after the war; same generation of people were psychologically wearied by self-denial
needed to fight the war and endure the Depression.
•
People lacked the appetitive energy to maintain a moral code and failed to pass it on to children (Hippie
generation); lack of vigilance among the clergy (Church was materially strong in US in 1940’s and 1950’s which
gave a false sentiment of complacency) and Americanism contribute to this.
•
When Vatican II occurs, few are vigilant about the modernist trends present.
o
1950’s: New Theology on the rise; Garrigou-Lagrange convinces Pius XII that this was really a form of modernism, to which the Pope
issues Humani Generis as a response (ideas condemned in Humani Generis are found in the periti of Vatican II).
■
Pius XII begins preparation for a council but stops because of the infestation of modernism within the intelligentia.
o
1959: John XXIII begins preparatory work for Vatican II; four schemas are drawn up that follow progress of thought in Vatican I; all
except one are rejected in the first session and replaced with ones that are strikingly disassociated from Vatican I.
o
1962: Veterem Sapientiae of John XXIII speaks of the importance of Latin, but is ignored.
Superfiaal stage ofModernism (1962present).
o
Vatican II dominated by periti who were the modernist intelligentia in the 1940’s and 1950’s.
■
Heated debates occur on religious liberty and there was desire to liberalize contraception;periti begin leaking out to people
that the Church will soften its stance in order to sway public opinion.
■
John XXIII opened the council to all theological viewpoints (council becomes a theological free-for-all).
o 1964: Protestant hymns begin to appear in Catholic hymnals ^People’s Mass Book).
o 1964: Hans Kung states that the Gospel message is to be reinterpreted and that truth is not static; ecclesiology takes on a descriptive
method rather than a definitive one.
o
1965: John Courtney Murray declares “liberty to have been put back in common Catholic vocabulary”.
o
mid-1960’s through 1970’s: Liturgical abuse on the rise; Hans Kung maintains that the “spirit of Vatican II” must not be allowed to
die, promoting collegiality and democratization of the Church (appeared in Commonweal).
o
1966: Modernist Dutch catechism published but is later recalled.
o
1968ff.: Curia is reconstructed and CDF (Holy Office) loses its authority; Humanae Vitae rejected by majority of theologians and Paul
VI later laments that smoke of Satan has entered the Church.
o

+
Nisi Dominus aedificaverit domum,
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedificant eam.
Sit nomen Domini benedictum in saecula. Arnen.

TRACTUS DE RELIGIONE ET TRADITIONE

A.D. MMIII