UE -ÎMERrcA.V ECCLESIASTICAL

review

n;„v:r„ r..7n(:t·
. ., 1 , iec m “Θ1Γ works. Bui here rises then:
preci0'LXLj?i^^^aîFær3.f° Kai'· In
™st a liters
recommends 25
dec,Je-yncn to choose. BishopMey

?

Augustine, St.

the

Scriptures'and ώβ wX* θ- ΐ/Χ .**“’'?« faook after ώε &σ;ί
It contains enable·,™ . ?
æ? 1S thc I,)lilahm <*
inc ever· «1^°··· *·" ‘ "" an<^ aspiration for everv condition of i&
a.no C't n suite o, muid. It is ail UnfaÎIin,r
;f con5oIa<;r
SXST- J*
thoC.7hLi^;;*
à*
"«1
Μ i”"'1 fc e< ΐ:
his Ο7.-Π work. but otbei
1 ”‘lS Πθί’ °f
fî-d oeace rd mm'
'vho have ^ght m vain elsewhere may
«2
^>rt m
wo^rful little book. the

’
j

the
ScriptUres’lhe writings of the Fa th·.·'. J
with a list of
.fnX £œrn ;l,ÎVÎSaÎ-'k·t0
that they are objective^ thf S
’

gives a valuable
Y ■
ljnciu<?rc.v in 1 ,!e
works from tire PaL'Î^ W?Ud’’S lhe more

’

’.'

CkrisiianS/iiriiuaii^"° °Ur ”'νη da-vF'
literature. *
a complete survey of the îieM of

.
'

In this connexion ;>■
, λ .
or in time onxlcccs <■■ ■ ■ "
\ n°tin?
evei>' re!i=:oUS ,;Γ ‘
and best exnrt-<s
'';)rks which breathe the spirit of the
most appropriai *ώαΓ-ϊΠ3' pnncipIes’ and P^uliar teachl·^ - »
for such works
*
&e nieir-^ers
an order have a special spt
’■^portancTfor its ep

I

recipænt °f actual grace is of the ·*»■'

is so frequeat»vti,Ca<y “d ?ruitful-ess-

.

And since spiritual

*l> the dispostinn . j occ*13’on °I grace and so closely connec..’ ■ * ■
j4**» of paramouX WX’ie one
to-.vanl spiritui
Λ
aeed of habitual and 1Jnp’3rtance· Tuere must be a rcaiizao. .: ■■ ■ ■■
?need. Spfa-EuaI^yj;W^.d reading. E^.e-.-fries-- ; .
fttwin? bv r<w * ie*x·^ 3olair*I -n the past nsust oe kep- Λ
~ûd Productive ”’ 'SJed '1"ίί "eÇuent reading if it is œ he -rig ■"*
Atchis-yf, I*
Bonaventuhe

-,ς&.
ScHWDaf, tf·5·®·

1
j

\X V'CU'ATIOX AGAINST SCHOOL THEOLOGY
r- it: Eicvc'ical Mystici Carperis has natural y .-.r-vK-d .ι
.. : interest in ti.e te.nchir.a abo-it Christ's Myst..'.i; Body.
:: by-pr-. litct oi that inter-st has bee- the irequcutly re. . .«v'Cki tnit ’.he school ihe^iouy since the Maldie Aues lit’ .n
y. :.e_'C.'teil to consider the Church .is the Body of Jesus
> a serious charité. It .'.escrves atte.:l?>n.
■ ■ .r.·;·. ;..tlon seems to be ’.hat the '.inters 01 t.)to,og:c.i. vocks
' · ‘ ->i;'.·.·,.:rks and universities si.ice the Mu! l.c .lires nave laucd
■
' ;t the truths preserved in the doam.’ic ;κ.π:.>η ot tie
ri'ris. If the 3ccjs.ili.>n ha- any ’.-U’·toute munda t·.·.:·:
■ i-"·.;. :ü ■.! sia.uid contain a te.iciimu utv.r.y alien to ti’.c iitera' - .'ο 1 ti-.-io’-ray troin tne tni-ldie of the uteentn century u: tu
'■ ’’ ’..eu'nring of the twentieth. The ana? sis of the Mystic.
r ' ' t wd’. show whether the charge jusirie : or no'.
- rxati· set’jn u: the Mystici C-rpwis is dl.-idλ!
’.-.o
r ti.c first part tlx Holy Father desert'· e? me V -lurch .in
''.‘i. Body of Chri-i. In :he second ne *·.■'■-b' et me um

,

.·

i
.

■ ·’ i’ -s XII begins his first section by ic-h.ng "cs.y the Catr.oiii.
■■' ' ■■: -pi.y d-wtribed as a Λ-’ϊν. He irjornts us mat u:e Cnur. h
■· ;· η·,e·; because it is visible and organized, possessing a vis’.bie
• -t.t.at. ·η. visible sacramental worship and visible members.
tr.e body of Christ because our Lord is at once its feunde».
........ ".e vs support. The term Mystic ti Br-dy ot ( hrist is appued
- - '.’■'i. since it is distinct from our Lord's -.'nysicii t-'ody an-i
- ‘-'.e ‘une superior to an ordinary society or m<’r.'.. uo.iy m tear
■ i-'-'.c.yde o: unity absolutely ind· pendent o: an.l s.-;;>erior to

“ -cd section .-.f the -dcginatic part, the dlyric: Corpsrts
-·' ’ *.-.e —■ <, t- pes r.· bonds or Communications by ’.· aicn. men a.e
“'' ' ' .nrfr within the t ’hurrh. Those men -.’ ho are united to
• ■<· pr-’t-ssing Ills ianth. being sub.ect tn tne egi-.imj.,e
• ' “■ r--TH He has set over His sheepto.d. -nci partaking m t^e
'■' '■ rs,.ip. ->. hi.'h He instituted, are i-td to r-e .■■‘■u.ed m poda_.
■

mmunicaticii with Christ.

■ -Ï ■ .-m

- ~t <

;
,.

The secon.i type ot com-

3.--C- ÙÛ t: P’-tber ’’■s-rh Eawit’s eciu-.n

.χ-.-,ν Y.irt. The Azie-ica Pre-s. W· PP· ;4--7·

si the

\

ί

: I

h

214

S

1

H·

g1
il
■:h
’λ·ί

I

THE AMERICAN ECCI.ïNTASTICAL REVIEW

munîciition is spiritual an ! inv isihïc. 1! consists m tfec
1 ’’ ■
ical virtues of faith, hojv and charity. < ’ur union •v’.t!' (·.·- ■
perfected by
Ibn Holy Ghost diveliing within us. It >«:'·· ’
in the Eucharistic sacrif-e, which is pre-eminently ’-he a·· ■
^bstical Body.
. .
In the light of the actual tc.xt of the .Vys.'iW G'ri··’’:·'J
made against the school theology wouid seem to be groanm*»·
various elements which are brought together in the F.r.tyii*
matic section have all been considered in the standard litc^--·
sacrerf theology since the Middle Ages. Moreover, sev“t~- ·■·
theses used by the Holy Father have been developed m rJ« s
thec.îr^- since the controversies against the early Protester».*
There is certainly no ground f<>r saying that the thesis on
■
bili'y „f tf-.e Catholic Church has been neglected sm* e tiie ·*■ ·'
Ages. These conclusions received their scientific develop*1-®
the hands of the Controversialists. Cardinal Stanislaus 1
(1579; felt called upon to refute the objections of Breni'.us by P'0'1 that (Jiir L0Td Himself, and not Peter Soto (1563), was aids*®··
responsible for this thesis?
Although earlier theologians commonly taught that our E;?r£1^ *
the Founder of the Chun n. >his portion of rheology did not lec1"^
have anything Hte its present theological dcveloptnert untilat0'
the end of rhe seventeenth century, The {xet-mcdueval - ζ
theolc-gi,-.r.i dealt with our I/ rd’s fur.-tirr. as the bead ar.il the s :riP
of the Mystical Body', not ••r/iy in ’.ire treatise D·'
t '*H‘;
also in various parts of the s<-<"i;<»r 7j- Verio Tiwamaio. s t-!·- c’-!‘ g‘
of the Cburer. as the A/y.-h>c' B.icy was never ab.-eni
theology, γι :4 found quit'? we!. develop-ed in tin- Si
of the Cardinal J< bn de Turnxreir.au·. 146$’, ore <
theologian after” the M’.dd'e Ase., R w.-s ti c terrrrost important -imitrov crs'.e- ir. e- < les?■;.·<".· fn.-m 1 Tae tcail u.g on the double h.md ί·ί ur.ii.n with <
Cutarlic Church was dev'.-’.'.pcd I·;, i’ai-h·.!:-.: cr.utrovi-r?:.;.:-·’
scho> l thw kk-i.xe from J··;··.’. l ri.··.'?. (l-.=5. iwl lames G’?'-'’''
f1>'s6) to St. R* ijert Beftirr.i.ti- (but). The «l.jctdr.r ■··.: "’· ®'
dwefirg Pi' the Holy Ghosf ■■ ■- faw. : i,- treati.-cs Lk
ijiv.nis. Tie various tracts I)· Ew'-wi.: ,a, De Sa ri ' :;> .m-i
S'ifdfiie nïiught out the tru h thu*: the Ma-s is ire .Act- ** ‘®e
My st’eal Body.
sCt. .βν’ιΛώ Prai^fovtrna» Bntuïi, I.iK III.
’.Γ ·4, Vol I. ; . 535; also p;. cii., L? . U.
4"**.

I»

1

Ai'tTSATIOX AGAiXST SCHOOL JIIf'OLOGY

215

Int.·.·- is r.-x one dogmati.: element in the .îf w.';. i Corporis neglected
v overlooked in the standard literature of scho<»’ theology since th··
MC1? Ages. Obviously not every author taught every p'in’..
.'-.’ain there •.■■ere various individual wri:er< and tea».iters wh > preCements nt the Mvsti.-at Body d-itrn·- imperfectly and ir.The charge however is ievcl'ed a' school theology .1»
·. .· . ..··. : ·'■·.: - h.irire cannot i>c nus‘..i::ied.
is c.ne thing to sav ’.hit the older school ihe-.i jgians did nut
■ '.·.-■ ' ;:.e theology o; ’.heMvstic.il Body and quite -mother to deny
!.t •he 7y;/:.-i Corbcr:< and ’.he various competent theological
on'ths same subject Li our own time repre.sent a definite
<s
theological science. Modern theologians such as Mura.
Û. mo .nd Gtuden have advanced the work of sacre I theology enn:Ale:..bIv bv writing their treatises on the Mystical Body. They nave
?râ«l a work which previous theologians h.ul left undone, not
because the older writers failed to consider the t-udtrng. but simply
st-Melv because the science was r.ot id r enough ub ^.-el m prevu-us
fixes fr th? sort of work these re- ent theologians nave accomp^ne-c
Atat Pope Pius has dune, --nil what the
-s...·» -. ».η·,.ο,ια.ι.
c: ta- M-Hcal Bodv has e done, is to bring tngetner lr-.m even- parr ot
■.Wo,--':?c· various theses which will heln men t·. appretute tnc
ί'.ή nit· truth <■: the Carholu Lhurcns u.mr. · -th <>ur L-nd. Li
T.i-E thi- they acred in accordance with thu prmcip-.c laid aown :>y

& Constitution
Γϋ·; rak-ht obta

certtû" understanding.—and a most
ne divine mysteries through the use of
r,itur.’.’..y and by a comparison of trie
;
with the List end of man? The
ns nt th.'-- Mys'.i-al Body hive simply
-t·-eni ’u ©f their doctrine by bringing
n- er lem, nt* which arc- e.plained in many parts of .sa- red doctrine.
I1» -vi'ers <■; S.A.,,; -he-.'onv ΰ™! the fitn-en -entury to ths nmets-n h -.re
^lectina the teachh-g on the My-Jtictl Body
*tpr« L-cause’this' section tf x-.cred d-wtrine -ms t-en cavel-iped ir.
tmrov,n times. Thevknew audespu·.. -td t .-■. - e.
i
•W.· even though d-.-y did not
'"d ’ •·ιΓι·,:
1 h-.· Mvs'.iral
’-•7* >f treatise on this subject- Γ,:- ’
’
“ vv’‘z Chrst. ;ind the u'.'ler sclii’" -'·at
; *-· ‘a. -.. Th,‘ theology of **
b”':
·'■■ :: i ’ « --nn ;»» Λ?i- h

uni

4^

216

THE AMERlC.tN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIE'A

message about the ccr.nection of the Catholic Church with
The school theologians knew and taught the theology ot tneMys- Body. A complete theological treatise or. the Mystica! Bouy ;
in v-hicb all the theolog:·.al elements pertinent to the Church1·.' ·
wrth our Lord are brought together and compared, for the .<.<■: ■ ■
still mr-re pc-nect and profound understanding of the ntyster-. ■'
complet’' !.heo!»ginil treatise on the Mystical Body i= or.e c:
giortes ot <;-jr can day. It would be neuve in the extreme :·'j~"
eurlitr theologians for not having done what has been distinct■·.
a twentieth century work.
the theses which have formed the school theology on ira· Ls*Church since the nrst part oi the eighteenth century were ifeve- ?in scientific theological form by Lhe classical ecclesiolrçists tr "
(animal John de Turrecremata to Francis Sylvius (16ίΖ· M ■
group these men devoted great attention to the teaebirg er
Mysiiatl Body. Some of them, like rhe brilliant controversial-" / -:
Flk (1543/ and Cardinal Ifnsius made the formula ‘'Β<κ!ν o: L-r··
serve as a définition of the Church.* All of them joined the ·■-"
M;.^t>cal Body o: Christ’' to a great number of other des.gn, .‘.j'
a.l ct which served as names and figures of the Catholic Church.
c-t-Mcai eceesiologists used all of these names in their proo'.s.
te..,. Bone o: Cnrist m any one of a dozen variants occup··’-·
n",f,e
pe rmirent positions among these names.
, I r.ese names or figures listed and used by the sch.··^:i
designations, both proper and mrtaj>h«rkal. found i.i the >· -·:■
or m the Fathers, und applied to rhe Catholic Church. S.m·- ■ :
like .igez and
were Liken from o-ir Lords ρ.-.Γ-ώλ-5 ■■■ - '
Kingdom. . Others. as fc.r example Corfiu,. Cdumna ,md
are found m St. Paul's epistles. Still other1 -kc
ar.·! i' '■
came
from
Old
Festam-t
,.
L
■
'
...
r.,
.
.o—i Η.ι-.·.αη..? Λ-ίικ,-ι the I-atners j.r>p.;·· ,· ...
- ? . .· Y1"’’*
ug-.-.re- c: ·.:æ t a ;rch îræXsV

!’■*

5»“·„Λ

J’.*

x ,
Lie ■ nt; red vn»z
.. >\f
,,
,
7 '

’••cclcsiologists ad l(f these
. i ,, r. ;n,r-u,. t rfik Thev .ve.e ?

Λ/«·· t'rn

r.·

"

\

L,‘- “ ·j
’'‘.i.ltrs ςπγ our J-·· rc s
, .· â.. >
, „ .
“ 1 **·'··4 '”4K- cx^tnatiGa of *j-e vihtu.- ’··'■■*
t;.·.' · Uissical ec-dcsiok-gisis empl- j- : j, s- p, ?,C£_.... ·. ; ...

'

ACCUSATION AGAINST SCHOOL THEOT.OGV

21/

Tb.fi names Sagena and .1/»'^ were used to snow tnat
i-rs a? ’.veil as riifntenus men were to be found tn the ran^s of the
Mki-ant. The visibility of the Church was attested in pass­
ai ·■■?? !; spoke <_>; it as Cit'i’cs and .Hoe·. In each case the classical
■ :
took either the passage in fcripturc meeting directly to
■ .■■-r-.n or the patriotic. statement in which a scriptural text was
' rùted in :be Ciiureb. and. employed this statement in proposing

··;.

■ in· ■■ pre □ grr.ti many of these names, i'urrecrcmata·’ explains
-7 *■'·(· of ’J.em ard Francis Sonnies /1576 1 eighteen. 1 nomas
■' ’
t';Â . Francis Suarez (1017), St. Robert Bellarminc (1621'
"is Syi vins ' ΐό-ΐρ ■ ali employ over forty of them. I’.acii name
··,. «.-..y,·, tjæ existence of one definite set <» c-.aracteristics in
■ ·■.*.:·'Cb.urJn. The ven- multitude of these names tended to
’ ’ ■! «e c:..i«sicai theologians against the temptation to earn- any
- · .".■·. ■j^v i.·; extmva.yant lengths. Tuey could not etisni forget
’·■' ' ·■ -i.r.·- ■■.rcini.cation which St. Paul called the Body of Ciirist
’· ' -r. '. anpared i;y our Lord to a net in which bod: good and D.id
=-·.- ■.■■riv r-r.idnicd. The Church which was calieu the garden ei ■ 'Γ · w is ah·.· known as rhe sheepfold of Chris:, containing tii'/se
"I- · ..-r -.-?-r.n·. our Lord bad set Ilis vicar on earth. As a result
···· ;r. ι·.·.;η •.hro'ig!’. the writings of these classical school theo-.otne errors relu the to the Mvstical Bodv reproved ia the

Άϊ- n.’.me Mvstical Body was r. vita’* factor in >he

■'

■: -’· · ■ t:·.;·
sdc.d tiieojogians. In the nays m trie mil;·.'.'.a«
■■
the merit imrxrtant controversie* in ti’.c treati.-e .0.·’
■■ ■ '_----.i e.;·.:.?, v.idnus ways of ir.terpr?·.’’··.: tite term Body ot
“··· Ti'tii· >■,;.·■ ,ίη,Α{ djuerer.res were seit.vd a s· .’.ο·.ιην λ'Λ.
' ■- ..- ri itv "I. it marked, the del.-.ius .>!·
emc..·':·
grace,
ar-.· a-.; as wel: k.-i.-wn as
d spatc ■.ulwfien the

·■ ' ■·■>
ι’-··; Af/ilinists, t-ven thoug-i ir-ty cor.Tit.Ui.ci a grva^
■■· ·.- rd; .·<!■ th^dotri· cf ire ('atao'i·.· l.'mircn. .ne prini’.imi-m
■■■·■'■ ·: ? ussions are arsons the Lest theo:·e
■>.'

; i;i

Ba·
218

THE BMOS r.CO.ESLWT.CM. W.Vtt»

the Church as receiving a vitii
considere0 a merabe s
Dominican Cardinal John de
3* resuit he refused the utie^
a living part, of a Jiving organism. ' · 1
g;n
\'ithoegh sanes®
member to Catholics in the state ot mocburch nr be jarti ■
well as righteous men could beiont, * 0
dignity ami the -.lesJriCatholic Church, they had no righ>
of members.7
,
. w!;nued for some —The restricted use of the term_IT1cn^.'1 ‘
.,.,ηρηΐ ·»ΐ d>* ^utW
Theoretically St. Robert Bellanmne did >

π
I
ϊ

KM

practice he habitually spoke of smful
‘
^r(;gor.· »i
’
Church rather than as members ot this aocx -· ·
‘^«εγο f- '■"
(1603) rightly considered that this ,1:fferC™Ltance? Ada* D—
title of member was a matter ot slight
T
cremata‘s tgr~ '
(1632)«- and Francis Sylvius11 finally rcjccrc■
oi
ology since it rested upon an unwarranted ■■ * b
lake Turrecremata and like the other
Latomus taught that the Mystical Bociy ot < o*- _
conta-,w:£"
existing Catholic Church. However the ?re®·' ^,Μ-,πΙν'
sialist believed rhat the title Mywicai Body oernngeu p *
group li-rir.g lb? life of charity within that Church.
·ίΛ.:
existing Catholic Church, the
permixia. possesses
spiritual n
sources ar.d dignities by reason of the righteous
\
risr,
rocrabcts. Thus, according u> Latonnis,
Ecrle^ .
prii'tK-rly thnrmh n-vt primarily designated as the Bocy
—
4,·Λ·· js s
1559) drew a «omewnat simiP-r
j, .-.^i
Aiphonsu
■ ween he names Cerfus Christi and O^i<f Chriv.i.· ΐ'^·
di £:desiu,
’(.i. iïiipuinliw'
: Robfr.’iUb
B·
<
i-w.it n;.i
{‘ .aria Ci

■ ' ’· 7v»’’-11

■ : J·..-!.vit. j~ '··
-■ .tf-.’iMnle, Liber

2Λ·

Cf.
!. c> - Schools.
t.
tub 2, coi ’3
5u.· i- if
Surr-’ikis, I il, r . ! 1 .*'· f...

'-TD M*. ■. ·

■a;. =>"

X

r
’

- -1s·. lit, 1605. Vol. ÎH. D\. L Pe
ît». c·’.. 1

ïii’.

ni.

f. .n> ‘r'“
■■’■jîïî Cf."» J

·

the (7

.pu·.

0“«*«*! jfr,»..
î. Γ4

'I

♦
f

ACCUSATION AGAINST SCHOOL THEOLOGY

'■■.·

219

tv.iching on ilie unitv of the Church '.vas instrumentai in
the sermo· thenlngv away from Gits manner <>t interpreting

·: e- r.rin·? of the Mystical· Body.
The
controversy relative to the proper definition oi the
;■ n triaiant of the New Testament was likewise decided in toe
■<: ;r.<· name Cjrbiis .If vs‘ic:irn. Some of ilie classical ecclesioloΙ,ιϊν Su.i"ez and. Svjvius.’4 were convinced that an occuit
’
'hock; r.nt i.-c numbered among those who belong to the
Church. Basing their argument ujxjn the fact that me
■·■ : is he Body of Chris·., thev reasoned that a man who belongs
’■■■.· i..f.;r>···. s-.ould have some part of that iite. Since faith is the
m.ti act in the supernatural order, they concluded mat the
■dr· ·· rc-h-cted the i;ihh received no vital influx from Christ and
■·
-nr i,e considered as a member ot me Church.
:s they io sted '.iron deiir/ng the Church as me society of those
■ - : y ‘ ave ι’χ· divine l'ait’i, rather than as the congregation of
■
-iorr-.ess ;'·;>τ faith/' A good number oi early school the,ή-l
(ypc.
,χΰΐΐΐΒοη.
1 -. -r ’"‘:'!,r-ci.;.ns, among teem St. Peter ( anisius \ 150, > isc. tv inert
■
Gregorv 0; Vn’a-niia. preferred to donne the < hutch
'-r. ‘.ion of i:;c profession of faith rather than in terms oi the divine
-''ΐ’-ί. Tlu.se theologians m-o used the concept of the Mystical
:
: t;!,satiate th,dr owe. conclusions. They distinguished two
■■■' ■■■ ■■■.-i'.h t::e member* of die Mystical Body are connected with
-* L. rd. Thev s-jokc of an externa: and an internal communication
the Church, and thev held that the external communication
ζ r,-, ,',;r.s’.i:.ute a man as a member ol me (.run.;,
■ ■ ' <“ ·■■.■■ 'iit iwretir. lacking Gm inward b-v.'ds m’ ιγ'ιι a».·! '
■ ί·'·-'-'. se t:-jTnhere»l aiirir the ranks >Ί the < 'lurch Military
■■
Iri- -^essii r.
the exterrai communv-aüi-n.'1*·
• '· - ·. ; ;■ ; C.-rr-ri·: steaks of l::c*e two bonds of ur.ini! wit!·. l’bf.st
■ · -*■ -ia-s ri em as St. Ro-sert Beiiarmine d.id. in liis /> s^:j
" -‘f' T. i- intervst'mj t·' n- rc that in tl’<·
.IÎm.'-’Wi'

Ci'’ K. c. - ïï

‘ ' ¥

■-s

À
4

?

TilE AMERICAN' ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

220

the irward and ottt"an' bonds of unity with our Lord are
under the na^'s ηί the Soui akd üle bod-v' οί ώ<? Ch'irc?J? Ve>s
before St. Rof erl- J‘lines Cornus had fully described these t;u>»

of unity and had designated them as the spiritual and th'; ;.’ â
conummicaticn "ith thc C«urch.” Si. Robert simph WÆ
distinction which Latomus had employed to show the effects of acommunication and user! that distinction to show that even nt :?■
heretics might be trub’ *v itr.in the Body which is ü'<! Char··;. ■·! .i··-·
Christ, in as much as they possess a real, though c.utcn:-* l-:-i ’·unity with the head of that Church. Catholic Theology since his V
has accepted his argument and his definition. It has thereby approx
his use of the Corpus ifysiictix.
The concept of the Mystical Body enters into most of the
j!
the De Ecclesia iiSstoute as a proof or an explanation ot St. Rc.vr1. *
teaching. The other names of the Church are used witr i- ·*■
Robert, lise the other classical, ecclesio'ogists. never permitte·! r/Ji’K ■
to forget that the institution he wa? describing and defendh-’ >■* -·
society which St. Paul had described as Christ’s Bodv. V ■·' ’
the theses of the classical theology on the Catholic Church
- ·■

I

SXJ Wn T *ε theSfS

E

in the
light of
theremaùal
Mystkal ir.E·/.·
™«red
and
?-·

Whatever else it may have??
Mystical Body °certam^ ''id not neglect the doerac - ■■■■

theologians
unregulated anviînt·
failure ip consider

1

CrSpt
'Λ'°^
'^oberi and his fellows came ’rem
Bod>'-anai”gy rather than
A eO'-’d number of subsequent üw)osb&·
”?

of
terms body and soul oi **
include them in their own writings, i
neglected the purpose for which St. R·’’?1·’7·
terms. Thus the body and the soul ;.f d:-* ■
ciere ultimate
to oe considered as societies in some way distiriron·, f-n* u;:n-j
2'
of vJ-.jt tm-y bad been in die I f Etri#*
Γ. '■ * r‘il ?ï n'·®1 were joined together ir. t::c imit) ’
ti·-’-· GrnoiL « hun-j
It :i.ak well over
■■ir.d a ha:: ίο o^mpLcte Üdf
St· Robert BrEanr.fc^·
ir.-i. Tbo. pr-xf·--? however

■- -

ïI

■

I

■X''

·.■:/

π.

! I’M.
■>ί -w. and

>·

;
<

ACCrSATfOX
•'®e.

ί

‘
’·
immensely
„T' ’-rtiEOLOGV
xsT
SCli°jfjii
01

nr.- of
about lie soul and
. <7ontr°'c
John Polnaan
nary manuah U’4' tcrthiU.^
: ult; purpose fo_
■copied what bt•:--7,u, 'cjst:a'· reader of Polman
f ’’^ch
■■ M-fthout
"
.,-ed.'thing
19 ’’“any
'ii to ”factors
rât of which had i-.'ng
tenns had been
re^Tii ' j the outward Iwtids of

s.
’"Wr

- of
t ett'5 terminolo-v
on the
the
ndhm ....
:heeaasiolops
visible
of jes^
St-theology
through
'
^‘-'pnjwn * Bl.al? ,,£ 5?-4().· and Honoratus Tour. a ii·. fc.,, ... Lr.-lCr<x sotη* ξ, ιλτοΠ^’ ‘ 'Thec^iica appeared some

ci:arles du Pics?^
.,, de Ecclesia Christi of hir
. *„
' ?’ Argentre,
n[ the Mystical Body for
;ç\’,’’r ::ίιη '■i\e Eraelec·^', conccp
great, is the analogy
i a."j!" J lr‘" <On:rere· υ8β£1Λπ fnu*'4·'·1' j tfac natural human body
■
u
a!nental
teaching
n ineh<>
Cb«r‘:,ta?aal
properties of the
J-. -«« ■iae
Mystical
Body °of
‘ jd
iV,”
^er^‘~d
. «-.gsecÛEg tiie concept of the

body. However he
prdP«V Wlth
.^t care’ess rahmdung his
-"■ -■ nd -.ailed to check hjs tc3X‘*
ratively -£tif attention to the
Kiiin-Biai
...... jfv paid con ç
micrences quite at
■' -iTra-s of rhe Church- A* - T . ,.-s predecessors,
-ince Wi;t, îr,. pn.aruncef’.cnŒ
Church cor.ld be defined
tY o-'-'-g êe first t·" sUg^{ ïiaroed the soui o£ the Church.-3
ς ·.οπ of What st. R'·'*”. £;mSeif had brought up the concept
■■

..
r’‘.‘ry..,t nOt be an
such a deonition
ti*;UO:ΐΣ •*Φθΐ·»··
* element
- . name
. insoul
,
apph'ed
the
to it precise!.
'■'■■•ητχ .,. .j. : ..„ is of D’-Vgentre» tftrs inward conunumcalion
■'*■■ ■ ■■<.......'· -N t hut-ch. a b.-»sir factor in seyeraj faulty expLira'J· -■-■ e. t>.< .-.s·'.·.· c'hurch itscii,ratner than cheex+'-m-’il bond
Γ’. ’Ί1’ .............
T'”1’
,au?h: tha·: ■.■atechumens
■

mtn tor· r ·

'
- ■<

>■ 4 *

’

'-•’’■urer tnight be saved

' L ';"

■ ·.->.■■ ''
"· p- ÎC15

'«•P· Hi.

222

ΤΗΓ. AMERICAN ECCl ί· ';Λ·'Ί 11 Λι>

Toumely listed a great number ot

<dif·

01 - ·

In his theses hov.evcr. the name
others. The same tendencies v.’hi'i-1 apjtear Ji
-- ^"■_l£s
f ,-nct,Toume!v'veati-r::’.ers.
are manifest in his. As a matter of ι··Λ ’
· . . .
_...
,-,,τv
«'hcc D’Argentre hail
than had his vounger colleague. W11-.
- ,
.
.
, . . .
- λ
, ■ ’■ „ of the soul. rourneiv ac'.'Jj;
rieuniii'in ot the Church in tunction *'*
.
n,
,
- !> .Uxrmore Toumelv was mudinas
offered such a definition.-’ Lurthern11
*
_ .
.
, . .
,.
„f,s on Hurter’s A
ettective tn popularizing uns com"··
.
Li
Liierarius lists D’ArgcnIre’s Element# Tuenla^·. <..s a ra·■
.
■ ■
■ most ixrpulat .’landboo-.- B
Toumeiy s manuals '.'.-ere aiming tne Π·1” ‘ F
hision-of theological education.
....
t Λ r-r-S». !
Where Toumely had simply offered a deùnui'^ “
terms <-i the soul, the brilliant German Je“uimade a triple definition of rhe Church tbc J’"'1;5
al"
.. ....■
Two of Kiiber’s formulae describe the Church iruf« cia.u... ·
function of the soul alone, and the other io iuncii·-··n· ■·-,' , ς.
The inadequate definition in the light
l‘æ
’".-..-i ·.
Robert’s definition of the Church itseH· ^Iie 1
./· scribed the Church “adequately’· took in botn ihe $o-··
The famous Sorbonne theologian Louis
the soui of the Church as a society in some manner ll'sllCC· ‘

t-

visible Church itself.”
-:.jg
Although some few school vaMs incorp<irate^
S th;s tisabout "he soJ. <>f the Church into iheir trea^ses
11
a! Aae-âl
applicarion <>i the Mys-.:<a! Body concept w:lî’ neter ,,εΐ5Γ
aianr.g the > h-LstLs. I'opu'urizers rathe7 'nan proponents^
school :heo!<-jj· employed it. The school theology as a w. ■■ _
tir.ued the th”«5 ui the ..lasaicil ecdesiolog*315· î^sscs
the lig’T. of ar; .ur-irate Mystji a! Body tea· hi11^· Tnc sc-oo m·
since the middle aç-s prepare i the way for rhe
' ■'rA'’ru·

Wcskitigoti. D C.

T?st.?iI ' rTFi/>Kn Fi.vt**

* PrtsitrttoK>·■ î >A. Tfc-,·' Di Jbcclr’i; l'Ânit'. S-.-jn^ -'bo'. I'·*-'’·1
» .V, •ΜΓΛ.·.·-'··
. Ec.·. ...b.rx,.|,K. 19t·’ r,· :**H

’Γ>Χ··|’ί: Tms ■’·■
k
4 ^.ϊβί·
.
·. ··■· Λ:.·ι ■*
-Ks J·.-idKiiimiifu P\·'···:· ·>. .1>-· '
'Λ’.ν··. r.,
4u-.-«Kodnia, Ed'.tio ■.-■<. r - s.-S'.
” D« 5<xA’*m. Tu S’..·.: ·■ M.c— , s ΐ --ώίβ^,βί (λ"·”:ι ('cr.,i'· ·’>'

'·

I
'

Answers to Questions
THE COLOR OF THE AXTEPENDIUM
'S.Ji-fs. The An»epen<l:i:m—Ptf/.'MiW Altaris—is supposed to
r.d ir. color io the feast <·ί the day or the office; before the
c- -i··. : i-i-niment exposed it is to be white. Now, when the a'tar
-in proriTÏv adorn:·;! f«.r a feast, e.g., the Exaltation of the Holy
' -r. ·ϊ· es t’re reti antependium have to be removed for Benediction
• 'a·
Sacrament during the afternoon? Or. again, what
• ·■■::< the color ni the antipenilium on the Vigil of Pentecost when
■ -r i··- notes—_\lb. in Off., Viol, in Bcned. Fontis. Rub. in Miss.r

rr Our correspondent is quite correct in his general statement
■ ·: di·.' antf-pendiem should correspond in color with, the office and
·'·! the <!av, White, however, is always to be uv.i wkn the
·■ ·-··'-: Sacrament is solemnly exposed, even though a diierent ·όλγ
’■ i ■· ' rihed fi-.r the vestments of the Mass. Thus, it the l ory E’">ure
■· ■■
C>;ns on Pentecost Sunday, a day which excludes tr.e x otivc
'·-:·· ■ i the Blessed Sacrament, the vestments should tie re·! but the

■•'• r.'-r. l.-m, v ’niu·.
■'
c-.-aj r-ronosed, · η die Feast of die Exaltation of ’.he Iloly
’ ς'· the red untqxïndiuzr. should be replaced by a wi-.itt on·- ’or
jt
ir, ihr aitemcon. In any case, white is th.’ o-ior for τι;-': rs
d at.
a3 rhe day following is the Feast of :1k Sewn
• ■
Et·.- the \ igii
Pentecost, authors generally . v. c. Martin* * f λ II. C.r.\ XXXI, 4’, direct that tiie violer .intcpcndiir: be
: » 'J -er t e red one, the former to be removed jusr before the M iss.
■’1 ri :.’i n is rxiij tt the white color designated in the (V.h; mr the
·:·; Litte Hours being recite»! with the altar hu-.g -nm tts
.■nt .r^iptndiun·!. (Cf. Martinucci et ai.
WniXAS J. I.U.Î.OV.

HOSPITAL TRi’.-BLEMS
.^c.’tfvrrt j. May the authorities oi .·. Cathode h'Wpba’. permit :
i·· ·.ertom· the rite of i-imumcision ·>π a child in tH.e