$5.0( understandable encyclopedic form. For Reference ΓΝοΙ (o be Liken from this room Dictionary of DOGMATIC THEOLOGY By Msgrs. Pietro Parente, Antonio Piolanti, Salvatore Garofalo Translated by Rev. Emmanuel Doronxo, O.MJ. ί: ï£x ÜjibriH Λΐ.Ι'ΜΝΙ SnllAIITV ·Ί A LL the questions of faith from “AbsoΪΑ. lution” to “Yahweh” are adequately answered in everyday language in this modern, exact, up-to-date ready-reference book on dogmatic theology. C)l’H I ADV Λ τ a? η II I'l l Marinin ,|(/ ( 'till i are amazingly concentrated into a readily The first Italian edition of this re­ nowned work by Monsignor Parente, one of the outstanding theologians in Rome, and his coauthors Monsignor Piolanti and Monsignor Garofalo, was exhausted shortly after publication, requiring sub­ sequent printings. This success prompted ii consultor at the Apostolic Delegation in Washington to recommend an English version. Father Emmanuel Doronzo, O.M.I., associate professor of theology at I he Catholic University, has given our country that welcome English version. A Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology Covers the whole scale of theology con< rrning the truths of God and His works. Here the Church’s teachings on the II lune God, on God as Creator, the Divinity of Christ, grace, the sacraments The material covered also takes in some philosophy providing concise, brief answers to such problems as free will and evil, as well as ethics, mystical the­ ology, ascetics, and law. In its historical aspect, it defines and answers the heresies that have sprung up through the centuries, and clarifies such important events as the Inquisition and the Reformation. Besides its reference value, this book offers material that can well be read straight through by any Catholic who wishes to be informed on these phases of theology and direct this knowledge to advantage in conversation and thought. In format it conforms to the best practices of modern typography. Each entry is set in boldface type, placed in alphabetical order, and followed by a brief bibliography for further study. Two-column arrangement makes for easy itstad"”11 ” the °"ly of the reader by present’ ? of dogmatic doctrine in Tfc «< mmdS veys synthetically but faithf n * hi«eninthesch„lastic(^'by»« DICTIONARY OF Dogmatic Theology PIETRO PARENTE ANTONIO PIOLANTI · SALVATORE GAROFALO TRANSLATED FROM THE SECOND ITALIAN EDITION BY EMMANUEL DORONZO, O.M.L, S.T.D., Ph.D. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA FIRST THE BRUCE ENGLISH EDITION PUBLISHING MILWAUKEE COMPANY Imprimi potest: Stanislaus A. Larochelle, Superior Provincialis Nihil obstat: John A. Schulien, S.T.D., Censor librorum Imprimatur: 4" Moyses E. Kiley, Archiepiscopus Milwaukiensis May i, 1951 (Third Printing —1957) © 1951 by The Bruce Publishing Company MADE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PREFACE TO THE FIRST ITALIAN EDITION It is not in order to follow the fashion of our hurried day with its pre­ dilection for outlines, condensations, and telegraphic style, but to fill the need of a class of Christians for whom the catechism is too little and theology too much, that we have set about compiling this brief Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology for laymen. It should be judged according to its purpose: choice of the entries and their development, style, bibliography — all must be considered in relation to the reader, who is the cultured layman. To achieve brevity and clarity, we have sacrificed erudition, dialectic virtuosity, technical formalism, and many other things. What we have set our hearts on doing is to enlighten the mind of the reader by presenting the substance of dogmatic doctrine in a form that is pleasing to the non­ theologian and that conveys synthetically but faithfully the riches hidden in the scholastic formulas. Both the choice of entries and their manner of treatment prove difficult in works of this kind. It has been our desire, in this first attempt, to present an all-inclusive work, but we do not presume to have successfully accom­ plished this end. The readers will judge and their observations and sugges­ tions will be a guide in any future attempts. Two able colleagues have collaborated with me, and others have been generous in their counsels: Professor Piolanti, whose name I wish to place next to my own, has treated the sacramental and ecclesiastical material. We indulge the hope that our labor is not in vain. Pietro Parente Rome, October i, 1943 PREFACE TO THE SECOND ITALIAN EDITION The flattering reception accorded to the first edition of this Dictionary, out of print in a few months despite the difficulties of the moment, assures us that our labor has not been in vain. Evidently the work responds, at least in substance, to the desires of many people, and so it is with pleasure that we take it in hand again with the purpose of eliminating the defects, enriching the material, and rendering it in every way possible more worthy of the readers, especially the more discerning and exacting ones. Favorable judgments have been welcome, but even more so the critical observations, insofar as these have been more useful. Criticisms of the first edition were put to good use. We wish to avail ourselves of this opportunity to remind our readers of the criteria that have guided us in the compilation of the Dictionary. 1. The work is to be judged and evaluated for what it sets out to be: a clear and concise ready-reference book of dogmatic theology for cultured laymen. 2. As a consequence, the development of the entries is reduced to the necessary minimum. The scientific exactness of concept and expression is tempered in order to maintain contact with readers not accustomed to the scholastic style. 3. The choice of items is governed by the limits imposed by dogmatic theology proper; account, however, being taken of borderline material (philosophy, history, ethics and moral theology, ascetics, and law). 4. The bibliography is not and does not intend to be exhaustive. In gen­ eral, works that are voluminous or too scientific or difficult of access are not cited. To cite for the sake of citing is pure ostentation, particularly in works of popularization. In this second edition we have continued to be inspired by these criteria, but have wished to go along with the best suggestions. Speculative theology has been integrated by the addition of more than 150 entries; so-called positive theology has been amplified, considerable space being given to biblical, historical, and philosophical entries. Nor have we failed to insert the most interesting items of ascetics, mystical theology, ethics, and law that are more closely connected with dogma. Moreover, the general and special bibliographies have been retouched and brought up to date. Finally, we have favored the request for a synthesis of all the dogmatic material: this will serve to overcome the inevitably frag­ mentary character of the Dictionary, orientating the reader in the vast field of theology. We confidently await the public judgment on this laborious rewriting. Beside my name I wish to place, in addition to the already known name vii viii Preface to the Second Edition of Prof. Piolanti, also that of Prof. Garofalo, for his long-standing extensive co-operation in biblical material. May this humble work strike or rekindle in the minds of men that light of Christian faith, which is the best reconstructive force in this grave hour of the world. Pietro Parente Rome, June 29, 1945 BIBLIOGRAPHY· General The Catholic Encyclopedia, Ch. G. Hebermann, 17 vols. (New York and London, 1907-1922). Catholicisme Hier, Aujourd'hui, Demain, Jacquemet. Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique, D’Alès. Dictionnaire d’Archéologie chrétienne et de Liturgie, Cabrol, Leclercq. Dictionnaire de la Bible, Vigouroux. Supplément au Diet, de la Bible, Pirot. Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastique, Baudrillart, Richard, Rouzies. Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, Viller. Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Vacant, Mangenot, Amann. Cayré, F., Manual of Patrology and History of Theology, trans. H. Howitt, 2 vols. (Paris, Tournai, Rome, 1936-1940). McSorley, J., An Outline History of the Church by Centuries (St. Louis: Herder, 1944). Mourret, F., A History of the Catholic Church, trans. N. Thompson, 6 vols. (St. Louis: Herder). Otten, B., A Manual of the History of Dogmas, 2 vols. (St. Louis, 1918). Poulet, Ch., A History of the Catholic Church, trans. S. A. Raemers, 2 vols. (St. Louis: Herder). Quasten, J., Patrology, 4 vols. (Utrecht and Westminster, Md., 1950-). Tixerant, J., History of Dogmas, trans. H. L. B., 3 vols. (St. Louis: Herder, 1910-1916). -------- A Handbook of Patrology, trans. S. A. Raemers (St. Louis: Herder, 1946). Among the numerous Latin manuals of theology one may easily find and usefully consult: Tanquerey, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae, 3 vols., published in numerous editions by Desclée; Herve, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, 4 vols. (Westminster: The Newman Bookshop, 1943); Collectio Theologica Romana, of Peter Parente and A. Piolanti, 6 vols., recently published by Marietti, Turin, Italy. General works of ampler size are the 12 Latin volumes of Billot, published by the Gregorian University, Rome, Italy, and the 12 English volumes of PohlePreuss, Dogmatic Theology (St. Louis: Herder, 1945-1946). Very useful also to the English reader will be M. J. Scheeben’s work, The Mysteries of Christianity, trans. C. Vollert (St. Louis: Herder, 1946), and The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. G. D. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), which is a summary of the popular work Treasury of the Faith Series, 36 small volumes, edited by the same (London, 1928). • The original bibliography, here as well as in the text, has been revised and augmented in order to make it suitable to users to whom works in English are more available. — Trans. ix X Bibliography Particular God Arendzen, J. P., The Holy Trinity (New York, 1937). Breton, V., The Blessed Trinity, trans. V. B. Miller (St. Louis, 1934). Garrigou-Lagrange, R., The One God, trans. B. Rose (St. Louis: Herder, 1943). -------- God: His Existence and His Nature, trans. B. Rose (St. Louis: Herder, 1947-1948). , -------- Predestination, trans. B. Rose (St. Louis, 1939). -------- Providence, trans. B. Rose (St. Louis, 1944). Gelle, F., Le mystère de la Sainte Trinité (Paris, 1921). Hall, F. J., The Being and Attributes oj God (New York, 1909). Heydon, J. K., The God of Reason (New York, 1942). Hugon, E., Le mystère de la très Sainte Trinité (Paris, 1930). Klein, F., The Doctrine of the Trinity, trans. D. J. Sullivan (New York, 1940). Leen, E., The Holy Ghost (London, 1937). Messenger, E. Ch., Evolution and Theology. The Problem of Man’s Origin (New York, 1932). Miller, B. V., God the Creator (New York, 1928). Parente, Peter, “Il mistero della SS. Trinità,” in II Simbolo, I (Assisi, 1941). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, I and III God, 2 vols.; II The Divine Trinity (St. Louis: Herder, 1946). Reany, W., The Creation of the Soul (New York, 1932). Stufler, J., Why God Created the World, or the Purpose of the Creator and of Creatures, trans. E. Sutcliffe (Stanbrook, 1937). Woods, H., The Creator Operating in the Creatures (San Francisco, 1928). Christ Adam, K., The Son of God, trans. Ph. Hereford (New York, 1934). Arendzen, J. P., The Atonement (Cambridge, 1928). -------- Whom Do You Say? A Study in the Doctrine of the Incarnation (New York, 1941). Bougaud, E., The Divinity of Christ (Baltimore, 1926). Boylan, P., The Incarnation (Cambridge, 1926). D’Alès, A., Le dogme de Nicée (Paris, 1926). -------- Le dogme d'Ephèse (Paris, 1931). De Grandmaison, L., Jesus Christ, 3 vols. (New York, 1930-1934). Fahey, D., The Kingship of Christ (Dublin, 1931). Fillion, L. C., The Life of Christ, trans. N. Thompson, 3 vols. (London, 19281930). Garrigou-Lagrange, Christ the Savior, trans. B. Rose (St. Louis, 1950). Graham, A., The Christ of Catholicism (New York, 1947). Grimai, J., The Priesthood and Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, trans. Keyes (Philadelphia, 1915). Heris, Ch. V., The Mystery of Christ, trans. D. Fahey (Westminster, Md., 1950). Hugon, E., Le mystère de l’incarnation (Paris, 1931). -------- Le mystère de la Rédemption (Paris, 1927). Lebreton, J., The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ, 2 vols. (Milwaukee, 1935). Lepin, M., Christ and the Gospel (Philadelphia, 1910). Mannion, Columba, Christ in His Mysteries (Edinburgh, 1924). Bibliography xi Mersch, E., The Whole Christ, trans. J. R. Kelly (Milwaukee, 1938). Parente, Peter, “Il Verbo,” in II Simbolo, II (Assisi, 1942). Petrovits, J. J. C., Devotion to the Sacred Heart (St. Louis, 1925). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, IV Soteriology (St. Louis, 1945); V Christology (1946). Prat, Jesus Christ, trans. Heenan, 2 vols. (Milwaukee, 1950). Ricciotti, J., The Life of Christ, trans. A. I. Zizzamia (Milwaukee, 1947). Rivière, J., The Doctrine of the Atonement, 2 vols. (London, 1909). Vonier, A., Christ, the King of Glory (London, 1932). -------- The Personality of Christ (London, 1916). The Blessed Virgin Mary Bourke, C., Mary. A Study of the Mother of God (Dublin, 1937). Campana, E., Maria nel dogma cattolico (Turin, X943). Du Manoir, H., Maria, 3 vols. (Paris, 1949-). Garofalo, L., Le parole di Maria (Rome, 1943). Hogan, S. M., Mother of Divine Grace (London, 1921). Jaggar, J. B., The Immaculate Conception (New York, 1925). Le Rohellec, J., Mary, Mother of Divine Grace, trans. L. Rigby and D. Fahey (London, 1937). McKenna, B. A., The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Washington, D. C.. 1929). O’Connell, R. V., Mary’s Assumption (New York, 1930). -------- Our Lady Mediatrix of All Graces (Baltimore, 1926). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, VI Mariology (St. Louis, 1946). Roschini, G. M., Mariologia, 4 vols. (Milan, 1940-1949). Scheeben, M. J., Mariology, trans. T. L. M. J. Geukers, 2 vols. (St. Louis, 19461947)· Smith, G. D., Mary’s Part in Our Redemption (London, 1938). Smith, M., Unspotted Mirror of God (Denver, 1943). Ullathorne, The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God (London, 1905). Vassall, Phillips, O.R., The Mother of Christ in Tradition, Theology, and Devo­ tion (London, 1922). Vonier, A., The Divine Motherhood (London, 1921). Grace. Virtues. Ascetical and Mystical Theology Bainvel, I. V., Nature et surnaturel (Paris, 1931). Bastable, P. K., Desire for God. Does Man Aspire Naturally to the Beatific Vision? (London, 1947). Cuthbert, Fr., God and the Supernatural (London, 1920). Descoqs, P., Le mystère de notre élévation surnaturelle (Paris, 1938). Divine, A., Manual of Ascetical Theology (London, 1902). Froget, B., The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Souls of the Just, trans. S. A. Raemers (New York, 1921). Garrigou-Lagrange, R., The Love of God and the Cross of Jesus, trans. Sr. Jeanne Marie, Maryknoli (St. Louis, 1948). -------- The Three Ages of the Interior Life, trans. Sr. M. Timothea Doyle (St. Louis, 1947-1949). -------- Christian Perfection and Contemplation, trans. Sr. M. Timothea Doyle (St. Louis, 1937)· xii Bibliography Goupil, A., Les vertus théologales (Paris, 1935). Joyce, G. H., The Catholic Doctrine of Grace (London, 1930). Lumbreras, P., De gratia (Rome, 1948). Many, V., Marvels of Grace, trans. A. D. Talbot (Milwaukee, 1934). Matthews, J. V., With the Help of Thy Grace (Westminster, Md., 1944). McKenna, P. P., The Theology of Faith (Dublin, 1914). Murray, Tractatus De Gratia (Dublin, 1877). O’Connor, W., The Eternal Quest (New York, 1947). Parente, Pascal, The Mystical Life (St. Louis, 1946). -------- The Ascetical Life (St. Louis, 1947). -------- The Well of Living Waters (St. Louis, 1948). -------- Spiritual Direction (St. Meinrad, Ind., 1950). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, VII Grace (St. Louis, 1946). Poulain, A., The Grace of Interior Prayer, trans. L. L. Yorke Smith (London, 1928). Pourrat, P., Christian Spirituality, trans. W. H. Mitchell and S. P. Jacques, 3 vols. (London, 1922). Rondet, H., Gratia Christi, Essai d’histoire du dogme et de théologie dogmatique (Paris, 1948). Saudreau, A., Les degrés de la vie spirituelle (Paris, 1920). Scheeben, M. J., The Glories of Divine Grace, trans, by a Benedictine monk (New York, 1886). Tanquerey, A., The Spiritual Life. A Treatise on Ascetical and Mystical Theology, trans. H. Branderis (Philadelphia, 1938). Wirth, E. J., Divine Grace (New York, 1903). Sacraments Brodie-Brosnam, J. B., The Sacrifice of the New Law (London, 1926). Coghlan, D., De SS. Eucharistia (Dublin, 1913). Connell, Fr. J., De Sacramentis (Brugis, 1933). D’Alès, A., L’Eucharistie (Paris, 1933). Dalgairns, J. B., The Holy Communion, 2 vols. (London, 1911). De la Taille, M., The Mystery of Faith and Human Opinion Contrasted and Defined, trans. J. B. Schimpf (London, 1913). -------- The Mystery of Faith, 2 vols. (New York, 1940-1950). Divine, A., The Sacraments Explained (London, 1905). Doronzo, E., De sacramentis in genere (Milwaukee, 1946). -------- De Baptismo et Confirmatione (Milwaukee, 1947). -------- De Eucharistia, 2 vols. (Milwaukee, 1948). -------- De Poenitentia, 4 vols. (Milwaukee, 1949, 1951, 1952). Dowd, E. F., A Concept of the Modern Catholic Thought on the Essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice (Washington, D. C., 1937). Fortescue, A., The Mass (London, 1913). Gannon, P. J., Holy Matrimony (London, 1928). Gasquet, A., Sacramentals (London, 1928). Girh, N., The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Dogmatically, Liturgically and Ascetically Explained, trans, from the 6th German cd. (St. Louis, 1931). Hanley, P. J., Extreme Unction (New York, 1907). Hedley, J. C., The Holy Eucharist (London, 1907). Hesburgh, T. M., The Relation of the Sacramental Characters of Baptism and Bibliography xiii Confirmation to the Lay Apostolate (Washington, D. C., 1946). Janot, E., Les sept fontaines (Paris, 1939). Joyce, G. H., Christian Marriage (London, 1948). Kern, J., De Extrema Unctione (Ratisbon, 1907). Kilker, A. J., Extreme Unction (St. Louis, 1927). Kurtscheid, B., A History of the Seal of Confession, trans. F. A. Marks (St. Louis, 1927). Lambing, A. A., The Sacramentals of the Holy Church (New York, 1892). MacDonald, A., The Sacrifice of the Mass in the Light of Scripture and Tradi­ tion (London, 1924). Mahoney, E. J., The Secular Priesthood (London, 1930). Martindale, C. C., The Sacramental System (New York, 1928). Masure, E., The Christian Sacrifice, trans. I. Trethowan (London, 1944). -------- Le sacrifice du chef (Paris, 1932). O’Donnell, M. J., Penance in the Early Church (Dublin, 1907). O’Dwyer, M., Confirmation (Dublin, 1915). Piolanti, A., Il corpo mistico e le sue relazioni con I’Eucaristia (Rome, 1939). -------- De Sacramentis, 2 vols. (Rome, 1945). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, VIII-XI The Sacraments (St. Louis, 19451946). Pope, H., The Doctrine of the Catholic Church Touching Indulgences (London, I9i5). Pourrat, P., The Theology of the Sacraments (London, 1924). Quinn, A., Extreme Unction (Dublin, 1920). Rauschen, G., Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, trans, from the second German edition (St. Louis, 1913). Thurston, H., The Catholic Church and the Confessional (London, 1928). Tixeront, J., Holy Orders and Ordinations, trans. S. A. Raemers (St. Louis). Villien, A., Les sacrements (Paris, 1931). Vonier, A., A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist (Westminster, 1946). Wirgman, A. F., The Doctrine of Confirmation (London, 1902). Eschatology Arendzen, J. P., What Becomes of the Dead? A Study in Eschatology (London, r925). Bartmann, B., Purgatory, trans. E. Graf (London, 1936). Billot, De Novissimis (Rome, 1908). -------- La Parousie (Paris, 1920). Buckley, J., Mans Last End (St. Louis, 1949). Canty, Purgatory, Dogmatic and Scholastic (Dublin, 1886). Coleridge, The Prisoners of the King (London, 1936). Jackson, Shirley, The Millennial Hope (Chicago, 1918). Jugie, M., Purgatory and the Means to Avoid It, trans. M. G. Carroll (West­ minster, Md., 1949). Lanslots, D. I., The End of the World and of Man (New York, 1925). Morton, V., Thoughts on Hell; A Study in Eschatology (London, 1899). Osterley, W. Ο. E., The Doctrine of the Last Things (London, 1908). Oxenham, Catholic Eschatology (London, 1878). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, XII Eschatology (St. Louis, 1946). Raupert, J. G., Hell and Its Problems (Buffalo, 1917)· xiv Bibliography Rickaby, J., Everlasting Punishment (London, 1916). Sadlier, Purgatory (New York, 1886). Sasia, J. C., The Future Life (New York, 1918). Schneider, W., The Other Life (New York, 1920). Sutcliffe, E. F., The Old Testament and the Future Life (Westminster, 1947). Vaughan, J. S., Life Everlasting (London, 1922). Vonier, A., The Life of the World to Come (London, 1926). Church Agius, G., Tradition and the Church (Boston, 1928). Anger, J., The Doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, trans. J. Burke (New York, 1931). Arendzen, J. P., The Church (Cambridge, 1928). Bainvel, J., Is There Salvation Outside the Catholic Church, trans. J. L. Weidenhan (St. Louis, 1917). Baudrillart, A., The Catholic Church, the Renaissance and Protestantism, trans. Ph. Gibbs (London, 1908). Berry, E. S., The Church of Christ (London, 1927). Boylan, E., The Mystical Body (Westminster, Md., 1947). Carrère, J., The Pope, trans. A. Chambers (London, 1925). Chapman, J., Ecclesia: The Church of Christ (London, 1906). Clerissac, H., The Mystery of the Church (New York, 1937). D’Arcy, M. C., Catholicism (London, 1927). Doyle, F. X., The Defense of the Catholic Church, combined with a study of the life of Christ (New York, 1927). Duchesne, L., The Churches Separate From Rome, trans. A. H. Matten (London, 1907). Fahey, D., The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World (Dublin, 1944). Finlay, P., The Church of Christ (New York, 1928). Fisher, A., De salute infidelium (Essen, 1886). Fortescue, A., The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1916). Gruden, J. C., The Mystical Christ. Introduction to the study of the super­ natural character of the Church (St. Louis, 1936). Huby, J., The Church and the Gospels (New York, 1931). Jung, N., Le Magistère de l'Eglise (Paris, 1935). Kosters, L., The Church: Its Authority, trans. E. Kaiser (St. Louis, 1938). Lattey, C., The Church (Cambridge, 1928). -------- The Papacy (Cambridge, 1924). Lippert, P., L’Eglise du Christ (Lyon, 1933). Martindale, C. C., The Faith of the Roman Church (London, 1950). McNabb, V., Infallibility (London, 1927). Mersch, E., The Whole Christ. The historical development of the doctrine of the Mystical Body in scripture and tradition, trans. J. R. Kelly (Milwaukee, 1938). Rousseau, R., The Church of Christ (Milwaukee, 1936). Ryan, J. A., and Millar, J. F. X., The State and the Church (New York, 1924). Sertillanges, A. D., The Church, trans. A. G. McDougall (London, 1922). Sheen, F., The Mystical Body of Christ (New York, 1935). Bibliography xv Apologetics Baierl, J. J., The Theory of Revelation, 2 vols. (Rochester, 1927). Batiffol, P., The Credibility of the Gospels (London, 1912). Bonniot, P. J., Le miracle et ses contrefaçons (Paris, 1887). Brunsmann-Preuss, A Handbook of Fundamental Theology, 4 vols. (St. Louis, I931)· Cotter, A. C., Theologia Fundamentalis (Weston, 1940). Devivier, F. W., Christian Apologetics (London, 1924). Falcon, J., La crédibilité du dogme catholique (Paris, 1933). Felder, H., Christ and the Critics, trans. T. L. Stoddard, 2 vols. (London, 1924). Fenton, J. C., The Concept of Sacred Theology (Milwaukee, 1941). -------- We Stand With Christ (Milwaukee, 1942). Finlay, P., Divine Faith (London, 1917). Garrigou-Lagrange, R., De Revelatione (Paris, 1926). Gibbons, J., Faith of Our Fathers, 69 ed. (Baltimore, 1917). Hettinger, F., Revealed Religion, 2 vols. (London, 1905). Joyce, G. H., The Question of Miracles (Roehampton, 1914). McKenna, P. P., The Theology of Faith (Dublin, 1914). McNabb, B., Frontiers of Faith and Reason (London, 1937). O’Brien, J. A., Truths Men Live By (New York, 1946). Schmidt, WThe Origin and Growth of Religion (New York, 1931). Sheehan, M., Apologetics and Christian Doctrine (Dublin, 1929). Sheen, F., Religion Without God (London, 1928). Walshe, T. J., The Principles of Catholic Apologetics (New York, 1919). St. Thomas Aquinas Bourke, V. J., Thomistic Bibliography 1920-1940 (St. Louis, 1945). Chenu, M. D., Introduction à l'étude de Saint Thomas d’Aquin (Montreal, Paris, 1950). Chesterton, G. K., St. Thomas Aquinas (London, 1933). Collins, J. B., The Catechetical instructions of St. Thomas Aq., trans, with commentary (San Francisco-London, 1939). D’Arcy, M. C., Thomas Aquinas, Selected Writings (New York, 1939). Deferrari, R. J., and Barry, Sr. M. Inviolata, A Lexicon of St. Thomas Aquinas, (Washington, D. C., 1948-). Farrell, W., A Companion to the Summa, 4 vols. (New York, 1941-1942). Firminger, W. K., The Most Devout Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer of St. Thomas Aq., trans, with introduction and notes (London, 1927). Garrigou-Lagrange, R., Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought, trans. P. Cummins (St. Louis, 1950). Grabmann, M., Introduction to the Theological Summa of St. Thomas (St. Louis, 1930). Hughes, P., St. Thomas, Meditation for Lent, trans. (London-New York, 1938). Mandonnet, P., and Destrez, J., Bibliographie Thomiste (Le Saulchoir, Kain, Belgium, 1921). Maritain, J., St. Thomas Aquinas, Angel of the Schools, trans. J. F. Scanlan (New York, 1938). Meyer, H., The Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. F. C. Eckoff (St. Louis). xvi Bibliography O’Neill, F., Si. Thomas Aq., The Blessed Sacrament and the Mass, trans, with introduction and notes (London, 1935). Pegis, A. C., The Basic Writings of St. Thomas, 1 vols. (New York, 1945). St. Thomas, The Summa Theologica, trans, by the Dominican Fathers of the English province, 22 vols., 2nd rev. ed. (London, 1912-1936). -------- The Summa Theologica, trans, by the Dominican Fathers, 3 vols. (New York, 1948). First complete American edition. -------- The Summa Contra Gentiles, trans, by the Dominican Fathers from the Leonine ed., 5 vols. (London-New York, 1928-1929). -------- Compendium of Theology, trans. C. Vollert (St. Louis). Schapcote, L., On the Power of God. Translation of St. Thomas’ De Potentia Dei (New York, 1934). Sertillanges, A. D., St. Thomas Aquinas and His Worp, trans. G. Anstruther (London, 1933). Aids The Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology cannot be fully utilized without these substantial aids: 1. The Bible in the Vulgate edition with a good commentary.1 2. Enchiridion Symbolorum of H. Denzinger-C. Bannwart-J. B. Umberg, ed. Herder. It collects, in the form of an ample anthology, the principal definitions and the formulas of the faith issued by the magisterium of the Church (creeds, councils, acts of the Roman pontiffs).2 3. Enchiridion Patristicum of Rouet de Journel, ed. Herder. It is an anthology of the teaching of the Fathers on the principal dogmas of the Christian faith.3* 8 4. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica and Summa contra Gentiles (Leonine text in small format, edited at Rome in 1948 for the first work and in 1934 for the second). A better edition of the Summa Theologica is that of the Dominican Fathers of the Canadian Province, 5 vols. (Ottawa, 1941-1945). There is an English translation of both works mentioned above. Principal Theological Reviews Angelicum, organ of the Dominican University (Pontificio Ateneo Angelico), at Rome, Italy. Antonianum, organ of the Franciscan University (Pontificio Ateneo Antoniano), at Rome, Italy. 1 E.g., J. E. Steinmueller, A Companion to the Scripture Studies, 3 vols. (New York, 19411943); Charles Pickar, A Commentary on the New Testament (Washington, D. C., 1942). 2 The acts of the councils have been gathered in large collections by various authors. It suffices to cite J. D. Mansi, Bishop of Lucca (d. 1775), who published Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio (Florence and Venice, 1759, 1789), in 31 vols, (reprinted at Paris in 35 vols, in 1901 fif.). For the later councils there is the Collectio Lacensis of the Jesuit Fathers, published at Fribourg in 7 vols., 1870-1890 (Vol. 7 contains the acts of the Vatican Council). 8 The writings of the Fathers were diligently collected by J. P. Migne in the monumental Patrologiae Cursus Completus (Latin series of 221 vols, and Greek series of 161 vols.). In addition there are two later collections, more critical but far from being completed: the Corpus of Vienna and the Corpus of Berlin. There are being published at present two English translations of the main works of the Fathers: Ancient Christian Writers, edited by Joannes Quasten anti J. C. Plurnpe (Washington, D. C.: Catholic University Press, 1948 ); The Fathers of the Church (New York, 1947-). Bibliography xvii Divus Thomas, organ of the Vincentian Fathers’ “Collegio Alberoni,” at Pia­ cenza, Italy. Doctor Communis, organ of the Pontifical Roman Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, organ of the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium. Euntes Docete, organ of the Pontifical University “De Propaganda Fide,” at Rome, Italy. Gregorianum, organ of the Jesuit University (Université Gregoriana), at Rome, Italy. Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford. La Scuola Cattolica, organ of the Major Seminary of Milan, Italy. Nouvelle Revue Theologique, edited by the Jesuit Fathers, at Louvain, Belgium. Recherches de Science Religieuse, Paris. Revue de Sciences Religieuses, organ of the Catholic University of Strasbourg, France. Revue Thomiste, directed by the Dominican Fathers in France. The American Ecclesiastical Review, published by the Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D. C. Theological Studies, published by the Jesuit Fathers in the United States. The Thomist, edited by the Dominican Fathers in the United States. Zeitschrift fur l^atholische Théologie, Innsbruck. ABBREVIATIONS AAS ASS CE CIC DA DACL DB DBV DBVS DDC DHGE DS DTC EB EFHE RJ O.T. (Lat., V.T.) N.T. (N.T.) Abd. (Abd.) Acts (Acts) Ag. (Ag.) Apoc. (Apoc.) Bar. (Bar.) Cant. (Cant.) Chron. (1-2 Par.) Col. (Col.) 1-2 Cor. ( 1-2 Cor.) Dan. (Dan.) Deut. (Dent.) Eccles. (Eccl.) Ecclus. (Eccli.) Eph. (Eph.) Esd. (Esdr.) Esth. (Esth.) Exod. (Exod.) Ezech. (Ez.) Gal. (Gal.) Gen. (Gen.) Hab. (Hab.) Heb. (Hebr.) Isa. (Isa.) James (Jac.) Acta Apostolicae Sedis Acta Sanctae Sedis The Catholic Encyclopedia The Code of Canon Lato Dictionnaire apologétique de la Foi catholique Dictionnaire d’Archéologie chrétienne et de Liturgie Enchiridion Symbolorum (Denzinger, Bannwart, Umberg) Dictionnaire de la Bible (Vigouroux) Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément (Pirot) Dictionnaire de droit canonique Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastique Dictionnaire de spiritualité Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique Enchiridion biblicum Enchiridion fontium historiae ecclesiasticae (Kirch) Enchiridion patristicum (Rouet de Journel) Old Testament New Testament Abdias Acts of the Apostles Aggeus Apocalypse Baruch Canticle of Canticles Chronicles (1-2 Paralipomenon) Epistle to the Colossians 1-2 Epistles to the Corinthians Daniel Deuteronomy Ecclesiastes Ecclesiasticus Epistle to the Ephesians Esdras Esther Exodus Ezechiel Epistle to the Galatians Genesis Habacuc Epistle to the Hebrews Isaias Epistle of St. James xix XX Jer. (Jer.) John (Johan.) 1-2-3 John (1-2-3 Job.) Jonas (Jon.) Jos. (Jos.) Jude (Judas) Judges (Jud.) Judith (Judith) 1-2 Kings (1-2 Reg.) 3-4 Kings (3-4 Reg.) Lam. (Threni) Lev. (Lev.) Luke (Lc.) 1-2 Mac. ( 1-2 Mac.) Mal. (Mai.) Mark (Me.) Matt. (Mt.) Mich. (Mich.) Nah. (Nah.) Neh. (Neh.) Num. (Num.) Osee (Os.) 1-2 Pet. (1-2 Petr.) Phil. (Phil.) Philem. (Philem.) Prov. (Prov.) Ps. (Ps.) Rom. (Rom.) Ruth (Ruth) Soph. (Soph.) 1-2 Thess. ( 1-2 Thess.) 1-2 Tim. ( 1-2 Tim.) Tit. (Tit.) Tob. (Tob.) Wisd. (Sap.) Zach. (Zac.) Abbreviations Jeremias Gospel of St. John 1-2-3 Epistles of St. John Jonas Josue Epistle of St. Jude Judges Judith 1-2 Kings 3-4 Kings Lamentations Leviticus Gospel of St. Luke 1-2 Machabees Malachias Gospel of St. Mark Gospel of St. Matthew Micheas Nahum Nehemias Numbers Osee 1-2 Epistles of St. Peter Epistle to the Philippians Epistle to Philemon Proverbs Psalms Epistle to the Romans Ruth Sophonias 1-2 Epistles to the Thessalonians 1-2 Epistles to Timothy Epistle to Titus Tobias Wisdom Zacharias SYNTHESIS OF THEOLOGICAL DOCTRINE Christian doctrine is not a fragmentary collection of truths, as a casual reader of this manual might suspect, but a compact system of truths organ­ ically elaborated, in which reason moves in the light of faith and divine revelation. It is also science, but science that transcends the subject matter and the method of common human sciences, because its principles consist in a datum or known fact which rests on the authority of God, the infallible Truth. The datum or premise is divine revelation consigned in two sources: Holy Scripture and Tradition. Custodian and authentic interpreter of both these sources is the living and infallible teaching authority {magisterium vivum et infallibile) of the Church instituted by Jesus Christ. The act of faith is a free adhesion of reason to truth revealed by God and as such proposed by the Church. Faith is a humble act of reverence to God the Creator, who is absolute Truth; a reasonable reverence, however, because faith, while of the supernatural order on account of its object, which is revealed truth, and on account of grace which helps the will and the in­ tellect to adhere to the divine word, nevertheless has presuppositions which appertain to the sphere and domain of reason. Such are the existence of a personal God distinct from the world, the fact of divine revelation histor­ ically ascertainable, the value of the testimony of Christ and the Church He founded. The serene study of these prerequisites prepares for faith because it dem­ onstrates the credibility of revealed truth, but does not determine the act of faith (“I believe”), which depends negatively on the good dispositions of the subject and positively on the grace of God. The Vatican Council (Sess. 3, Ch. 4) affirms that “right reason demon­ strates the foundations of faith”; and so Catholic doctrine proclaims the rights and dignity of human reason even with respect to faith just as it defends the integrity of human freedom with respect to divine grace. Apologetics is a scientific introduction to theology, demonstrating the possibility and the fact of divine revelation, proving in a rational way the presuppositions of faith. In the first place, apologetics takes from sound philosophy the conclusion of the objective value of human knowledge. This truth assured, it gives the proof of the existence of God, utilizing that part of philosophy known as theodicy or natural theology: subjective proof from the light of truth that shines in the intellect, or the thirst of an infinite good that burns in the heart, or the force of the moral law which dominates conscience: objective proof from the beauty, perfection, unity, and order of the world in which we live. Both orders of proof draw their demonstrative validity from the principle of causality, which, showing the characteristics of limitation and contingency of cosmic reality and of our own internal xxi xxii Synthesis of Theological Doctrine world (the effect), constrains the affirmation of an adequate Cause of both these characteristics in which is seen the raison d’être of ourselves and the world. The principle of causality makes us understand not only the distinction between God and the universe, but also the determination of their mutual relationship, which is actualized in the creative act. But this metaphysical demonstration does not remain in the sphere of abstract speculation; it has a confirmation in the individual and collective consciousness, in the ethicoreligious patrimony of humanity. Religion, tendency, guiding norm, and indestructible force of the spirit, is like the nervous system of human history and manifests in a thousand forms the persuasion of moral relationship between man and God, as between son and father. These relationships are generally consecrated by the concept of a divine revelation. There is not a religion that does not jealously guard a code or a tradition with the sacred title: Word of God. Confronted with this constant and universal affirmation, not even a twentieth-century man can remain indifferent. If God has spoken, man must listen to Him and draw from the divine word a rule of life and of orienta­ tion toward his supreme destiny. Hence the historical quest to find the true revelation. Among the numerous religions, which claim a divine origin, Christianity presents more evident and sure guarantees of truth. It embraces and domi­ nates the whole history of humanity; its code is the Bible, which records the pact (testament) between God and men and which is divided into two broad phases: the Old Testament which prepares the advent of Christ, the Messias, and the New Testament which accompanies and enriches the king­ dom of Christ on the move. This great book, which opens with the descrip­ tion of the creation (Genesis) and closes with the sinister flashes of the end of the world (Apocalypse), contains sublime truths and supernatural ele­ ments (prophecies and miracles) which seal its divine character. No book has been studied so passionately as the Bible, not to mention the myriad number of souls who have absorbed light and strength of holiness from it to the point of heroism. Let it suffice to speak of the ferocity of historical and philosophical criticism that has been unleashed on the Bible for more than a century. All the resources of genius and erudition have been engaged in turn; from this crucible, the Bible (particularly the Gospels) not only emerged substantially unchanged, but even forced the respect of its most hostile critics by virtue of its historicity and its authenticity. Now, the Bible is centered on Christ, in whom are accomplished mar­ velously the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament and from whom irradiates the new light of the Gospel sealed by the miracles, especially that of Christ’s own resurrection. The historicity and authenticity of the Bible being demonstrated, its contents must be accepted without reserve. Since Christ, on whom is focused the entire ancient revelation, declares Himself to be the representative of God and speaks and acts in His name, the teach­ ing of both Testaments must be accepted as something divine; and Jesus Synthesis of Theological Doctrine xxiii Christ, who seals His statements with miracles, must be recognized as the Revealer par excellence and, what is more, as true Son of God, as He claims to be. In guarantee of His truthfulness stand the ancient prophecies fulfilled in Him, His own miracles and prophecies, His wonderful psycho­ logical and moral equilibrium, the testimony, often in blood, of His fol­ lowers, the sublimity and victorious strength of His doctrine. Christ, moreover, has founded a Church in the form of a perfect society with its hierarchy, its teaching authority, its means of sanctification (the sacraments). He also declared that He will remain in this Church to the end of the world, making Himself one with it, especially with its visible head (the pope), to whom He has entrusted the task of acting for Him and taking His place, by governing, by teaching, and by sanctifying. Recapitulating the rational procedure of Christian apologetics, we may trace it schematically as follows: Man, with his intellect made for truth, examines himself and the universe outside of himself and discovers in it the character of creation, of effect, from which he ascends to a First Cause, to a creating and provident God. Religions deal with relationship with God, with divine revelation; in his search for truth, man encounters Christianity, which offers the greatest guarantees of truth. Here revelation has Christ as its center, a divine Repre­ sentative, nay, the very Son of God, who corroborates His declaration with supernatural facts. God, therefore, has spoken in the Bible through the prophets, has spoken through the mouth of His incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. And so man can and, what is more, should believe in Christ, in His word, His laws, His divine institutions. But since the demonstration of apologetics is not mathematical but of a moral nature, the intellect can remain perplexed, especially in the face of transcendent and mysterious truths and of laws imposing sacrifices and renunciations. The conclusion of every good apologete, then, will be the possibility and the moral necessity of believing; but the act of faith itself, the “credo,” needs the impulse of grace, and so it is free and meritorious. Where apologetics ends, theology begins. It supposes the truth of revela­ tion (objectively) and the assent of faith (subjectively). The object of theological science is God in Himself and the created world, man especially, in relation to God. The source of theology is divine revelation contained in Holy Scripture and Tradition and understood through the interpretation of the living and infallible teaching of the Church. Therefore theological argumentation is based on the authority of God’s revelation, and so is substantially dogmatic. A dogma is a truth revealed by God and defined as such by the Church; a truth, therefore, sacred and unchangeable in itself. Dogma both contains a truth accessible to human reason and, at times, a truth which transcends its capacity (a mystery). In the first instance, reason understands the truth and accepts it not only in homage to God who proposes it, but also motivated by its intrinsic evidence. Thus it is, for example, with the immortality of xxiv Synthesis of Theological Doctrine the soul, which is a truth of reason and of faith. In the case of mysteries, reason adheres only through faith and on the authority of God. From revealed truth, theology, by a dialectic process illuminated by faith, draws “theological conclusions,” which are a further explanation of the revealed truth and a more or less immediate radiation from it. These con­ clusions are certainly more than a merely rational truth, but do not have divine value like dogma. It is evident that dogma, even though it surpasses the capacity of human intelligence (as, for example, the mystery of the Holy Trinity), can never be in contradiction with rational principles, because it is always God who is the one source of supernatural and natural truths. God cannot be in con­ tradiction with Himself. Theology strives to demonstrate at least that the mystery is not repugnant or counter to reason. In a broad sense, all the sacred sciences which constitute the sum of eccle­ siastical knowledge belong to theology, because they move in the orbit of faith’s light and cannot prescind from the supernatural, which dominates human life in relation to God. But theology, par excellence and in the strict sense, is dogmatic theology, with which we are dealing in this work. Dogmatic theology includes the following treatises: 1. Triune God. In this treatise we study the existence, the essence, the attributes of God, especially intelligence and will with relation to the world and man. We also study the inner life of God, who is revealed as being one substance in three distinct Persons which are constituted by the relations between the terms of the two immanent processions (of intellec­ tion and volition). 2. God as Creator. God is the Creator of all things, including man. God not only has created these out of nothing, but conserves their being by His continual influence and determines their actions. For the angels and for man God has disposed a supernatural order, destining these privileged creatures to the immediate vision of His own essence. Both angels and men fall into sin: for the fallen angels, pure intelligences, no reparation; for man, composed of spirit and matter, God decrees redemption through the means of His incarnate Son. Original sin, transmitted in all the children of Adam (except the Immaculate Virgin Mary), wounds human nature without, how­ ever, destroying its essential properties. It creates in the life of man a vexa­ tious sense of moral uneasiness, which gradually resolves itself in an appeal to the future Saviour. 3. The Man-God. The Son of God (Verbum — Word) takes human na­ ture and makes it His own, partaker of His own personal subsistence. There is thus a “theandric" (divine-human) being, two distinct natures and only one person. It is Jesus Christ who goes forward to endure suffering, even the martyrlike death of torture on the cross, to free man from the slavery of evil and sin. Redemption is accomplished with the life, the passion, and the death of Jesus, followed by His glorious resurrection. Man, however, must make it his own, adhering freely to Christ by faith and grace, the Synthesis of Theological Doctrine XXV source of energies for a new life whose happy fullness lies in the future possession of God. 4. Grace. Grace is the fruit of the Redemption. This divine force is com­ municated to man through Christ the Redeemer. It is a certain participation of the very nature and the inner life of God. This force does not strangle but, on the contrary, demands the co-operation of free will for sanctification, the road that must be taken to arrive at the supreme goal: eternal life in God. 5. The sacraments. The sacraments are the channels of grace, a pro­ longation, as it were, of the sacred and holy humanity of the Saviour, the source of supernatural life. The assumed humanity is the instrument con­ joined to the Word for the sanctification of souls. The sacraments are separate instruments, which derive supernatural efficacy from the first in­ strument (Christ’s humanity). The Holy Eucharist is the center’of sacra­ mental vitality, containing in Itself the very source of grace. The other sacraments accompany man from the cradle to the grave in the various phases of his mortal life, providing him with specific helps for all the diffi­ culties and struggles to be overcome in the conquest of heaven. 6. The Church. By an ineffable mystery Christ found a way to incor­ porate in Himself the men who answer His call. He instituted the Church as a Mystical Body, of which Christ is the head and the faithful the members. The Church is a social organism, with a visible hierarchic structure and a spiritual vitality, nourished by Christ through the sacra­ ments. The life of the Church springs from Christ the Redeemer and is guarded and regulated by the bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, constituted by the Lord as the foundation stone of His Church and its su­ preme pastor. This marvelous Mystical Body, synthesis of all God’s works, rich in the light of truth and inexhaustible lifeblood of supernatural life, is open to all men of good will. The soul enters it, meets with Christ, purifies itself in Him, is transformed, treads firmly with Him the return road to the heart of God whence it came into being at the moment of its creation. These are the principal treatises that constitute the solid organism of dogmatic theology. This sacred science is like an itinerary, which scans the pace of infinite Wisdom and Love toward Its creature and the pace of the creature, who has found again the way of salvation, the way that leads to His Father’s house. God, Thought and Love, who contemplates Himself in the Word, His Son, and loves Himself in His Spirit, wishes a being outside of Himself to whom to communicate His perfections, His love, His life: hence the work of creation, in which man, made to the image of God and enriched by grace and other privileges, dominates. Man falls miserably into guilt and remains under the weight of sin and of the divine malediction for centuries. Eternal Love does not tolerate so much ruin and, bending over His wayward creature, He becomes one with it by taking on his flesh; hence the Incarnation of the Word and the Redemption, which reopens the roads to heaven. And the Word inserts Itself and rests in xxv*Synthesis of Theological Doctrine the breast of humanity to save it; thus we have the Church with its infallible teaching body, with her graces and sacraments, sources of supernatural life. The Church is the marriage between God and man, as it were, the pro­ longation of the Incarnation in which Christ continues His redeeming work made up of suffering and love, living in every soul which, through the struggles and tribulations of the present life, yearns for the light and peace of life eternal. A true romance: romance or drama made up of truth and living reality, in which man, in contact with Christ, redeems himself from guilt, liberates himself from evil, recaptures his true being, and moves on to the conquest of God, his beginning and his necessary end. DICTIONARY OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY cording to St. Hilary, this similarity proposed by the Acacians referred only to the concord or harmony of the will of the Son with that of the Father. In other words, these heretics were returning to full-fledged Arianism. A Abelard. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 302). absolution. See penance. BIBLIOGRAPHY Acacians. Followers of Acacius, dis­ Cayré, Manual of Patrology, trans. Howitt, ciple of Eusebius and his successor Vol. i (Paris, Tournai, Rome, 1936), p. 316. Clifford, “Acacians," CE. Gwatkin, Studies as bishop of Caesarea in Palestine in Arianism (Cambridge, 1910). Le Bachelet, (340-366). Acacius followed in the “Acaciens," DTC. Tireront, History of Dog­ steps of Eusebius in favoring and mas, trans. H.L.B., Vol. 2 (St. Louis, 1914)» embracing Arianism (q.v.) in a mild­ pp. 48-57. er form. An ambitious and incoherent man, he caused St. Cyril to be de­ accidents, eucharistie. See eucha­ posed as Patriarch of Jerusalem (357). ristie accidents. became sect chief at the Synods of Seleucia and of Constantinople (359360), and dominated the situation acolythate (Gr. ακόλουθος— he who accompanies, an attendant). The under the Emperor Constantius. He fourth minor order (see orders, holy). accepted the Nicene faith under The office of the acolyte is to carry Jovian (against Arius), but under the candlestick, to light the lights of Valens returned to heresy, and was the Church, and to offer the water deposed by the Lampsacan Synod and the wine for the Eucharist (cf. (365)· Roman Pontifical). The origin of Acacius and his followers are this order goes back at least to the called also Omei from the Greek third century, for Pope Cornelius in term όμοιος (like), which summed up his letter to Fabius of Antioch (261) their teaching. They reject the attests that at Rome there were 42 Anomoeanism (q.v.) of Aëtius and acolytes. Their functions, various in Eunomius, who taught the dissimilar­ the beginning, were gradually deter­ ity (ανόμοιος) between the Father and mined and fixed in the current form. Son; they do not admit the όμοουσιος (consubstantial) defined at the Coun­ BIBLIOGRAPHY cil of Nicaea (325) nor do they accept St. Thomas, Summa Theol., ΠΙ, Suppl., the όμοιουσιος of the Semi-Arian fol­ q. 57, a. 2. Duchesne, Christian Worship: Its and Evolution, trans. 2 ed. (London, lowers of Basil of Ancyra, who held Origin 1904), pp. 344, 352, 366. Kurtscheid, His­ a substantial similarity or likeness be­ toria luris Canonici, Vol. I (Rome, 1941). tween Father and Son; but they stop Leclercq, "Acolyte,” DA CL. Meehan, "Aco­ at simple similarity (όμοιος) between lyte," CE. Tireront, Holy Orders and Or­ the two divine Persons, appealing to dinations, trans. S. A. Raemcrs (St. Louis). the authority of St. Paul, who calls Christ the image of the Father. Ac­ action, divine. See operation, divine. 1 Act, Pure 2 Act, Pure. Connected with the Aris­ BIBLIOGRAPHY totelian theory of being, divided into St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 2, a. 3; act and potency. Heraclitus had re­ Compendium Theologiae (St. Thomas here all the attributes and perfections of God duced all reality to movement or refers to the concept of Pure Act). Dubray, “Actus change (πάντα pci); Parmenides, on et Potentia," CE; "Actus purus,” CE. Garthe contrary, had conceived reality rigou-Lagrange, Le sens commun (Paris, as an intelligible being, denying mo­ 1922), p. 205 fl. Sertillanges, Sains Thomas tion. Aristotle, in an effort to explain d’Aquin, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1925), p. 70 fi. change or becoming, so evident in acts, notional. See notions, divine. things, came to discover that the being of the world has necessarily “ad extra, ad intra.” See operation, two phases: one of indetermination, divine. of poverty, of capacity, of develop­ ment; the other of determination, of adoptionism. Christological heresy acquisition and enrichment. Example: which represents Christ not as the the seed which becomes a plant. The true natural Son of God, but as the first phase is called potency; the adopted Son. This error is closely second, act. Potency, or potentiality, connected with subordinationism (see means limited reality, which may be subordinationists) and was spread at reduced to the minimum, to the Rome in the second century by boundary of nothingness, like prime Theodotus the Elder, excommuni­ matter; act, on the other hand, means cated by Pope Victor in 190, and the richness of realization and, there­ at Antioch in the third century by fore, of being. Act paces regularly the Paul of Samosata, who also was march of being toward an always condemned. Adoptionism and sub­ greater perfection, and so the more a ordinationism deny substantially the thing is act, the more it is rich in divinity of the Word, and so prepare perfection, i.e., in being. A being can the way for Arianism (q.v.). be conceived and can exist which is In the eighth century in Spain, all act without any potency. Such a two bishops, Felix of Urgel and being would be, therefore, all per­ Elipandus of Toledo, while admit­ fection, i.e., all being, without possi­ ting the divinity of the Word, natural bility of development, and so without Son of the Father, thought that possibility of change. This Being is Christ, in His holy humanity, could God, called Pure Act, because He is be called adopted Son of God. This subsisting being (see essence, divine), is mitigated adoptionism, also pro­ fullness of being, and, therefore, scribed (cf. Council of Frankfurt and immutable. Friuli, DB, 311 and 3007; and the St. Thomas, following Aristotle and letter of Hadrian I to the Spanish understanding movement as a passage Bishops, DB, 290). Really Christ is from potentiality to act, proves (in only natural Son of God and not the first argument or via) the exist­ adopted Son, even according to His ence of God as Prime Mover Im­ humanity, because the terms to which mobile, who moves all without being filiation is referred is the person, and moved, i.e., as Pure Act, Source of in Christ the person is only one, that all perfection, Possessor of all being, of the Word, true Son of God (q.v.). in whose fullness the world partici­ BIBLIOGRAPHY pates through creation, and to whom St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 23. it tends, in its becoming, as to its Amann, “L’Adoptianisme espagnol du VIII proper end. siècle," Revue de sciences religieuses, 1936. 3 Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, IV Christology (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 196-206. Sollier, "Adoptionism,” CE. Sec under subordinationists. adoption, supernatural. Mentioned explicitly several times by St. Paul with the proper legal term of the language of the Temple: vlodeoia. Thus in his letter to the Romans 8:15: “For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear: but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father)” (cf. Eph. 1:5; Gal. 4:5). The term evokes the current concept of juridical adoption usually defined as: a gratuitous assumption of an outside person as son with the right of inheritance. This human adoption is a moral substitute of natural filiation, which creates a right in the adopted person without chang­ ing his physical nature or personality. The adoption spoken of in Holy Scripture transcends the natural order and therefore also the natural con­ cept of common adoption, with which it agrees only analogously. In fact, man, who by faith answers Christ’s call, according to the documents of revelation, is enriched by sanctifying grace, which establishes between the creature and God a relationship of paternity and sonship by virtue of a spiritual regeneration which re­ solves itself into an ineffable partici­ pation of the very nature of God. Cf. John (Prologue of the Gospel): “He gave them the power to be made the sons of God, to them who are born of God”; 2 Peter 1:4: “He hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature.” Supernatural adoption therefore means an intrinsic transformation of the soul, a vital divine communica­ tion, which makes man domesticus Dei, i.e., a member of the divine family (Eph. 2:19), like to God in Adventists being and action. In the ancient liturgy and in the writings of the Fathers divine adoption is a domi­ nant motif: the Greeks especially (St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Cyril of Alexandria) illustrate the relationship between our adoptive filiation and the natural filiation of Jesus Christ with respect to the Father, and prove that the one is the effect of the other. The Scholastics go deeper into this truth (cf. St. Thomas), and after the Council of Trent the theologians fix the expression of this truth in these terms: adoption is a formal effect of sanctifying grace by which the faith­ ful become sons of God, and so brothers of Jesus Christ, their Coheir of eternal life. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., ΙΠ, q. 23. Bellamy, “Adoption,” DTC. Frocet, The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit, trans. S. A. Raemers (New York, 1921). Galtier, L'habi­ tation en nous des trois Personnes (Paris, 1928). SoLLiER, "Adoption," CE. Terrien, La grâce et la gloire (Paris, 1897). Adventists. A Protestant sect found­ ed by W. Miller, an American, at the beginning of the nineteenth century. They were called Adventists because of their belief in a proximate advent or return of Christ on earth. Miller, interpreting Daniel and the Apocalypse in his own way, believed he could determine the date of the advent of Jesus, first as March 22, then as October 22, 1844. The prophecy unfulfilled, Miller’s numerous followers split into dif­ ferent groups, among which the Seventh Day Adventists became the most numerous and prominent. (They are so called because they are defenders of the Sabbath, i.e., rest from work on Saturday instead of Sunday.) Their first leader was R. Creston. Afterward they were headed at Washington by J. White and his wife, Ellen, who claimed to be a prophetess. From America this aeons sect was propagated to England and Germany. The Adventists’ doctrine is a hybrid mixture of Catholicism, Judaism, and Protestantism: they hold the Bible as the one rule of faith with preference for the eschatological books; they at­ tribute a body to God, and venerate Christ as Son of God, all love for man, for whom He has given His blood. Faith is not sufficient for sal­ vation, but man’s co-operation with divine grace is necessary. There is no hell, but at the end of the world the reprobate will be annihilated; after the final judgment, the millenary reign of Christ, flanked by 144,000 Seventh Day Adventists, will take place. They are vegetarians and teetotalers. BIBLIOGRAPHY Havey, “Adventists,” CE. Tanquerey, "Ad­ ventistes," DTC. aeons. See Gnosticism. Affairs, Extraordinary Ecclesi­ astical (Congregation of). See Holy See. Agnoetism (from the Gr. άγνοια— ignorance). Christological error of Themistius, Alexandrian deacon of the sixth century. According to the more probable opinion, Themistius was a Severian Monophysite (see Monophysitism). While the Aphthardocetes (see Docetism), disciples of Julian of Halicarnassus, maintained the incorruptibility of the human na­ ture of Christ, the Severians at­ tributed to it common infirmities and passibility (i.e., subjectivity to suffer­ ing). Themistius goes farther and attributes ignorance to Christ-Man. The question had come up, from the first centuries, about the text of Mark 13:32, in which Christ says that He is ignorant of the day of judgment. During the Arian controversy the fol­ 4 lowers of Arius used that text to deny the divinity of Christ: the Fathers responded that ignorance, if indeed there were any, was in the humanity, not in the divinity of the Word. The Latins, however, are in agreement in denying any ignorance in Christ. St. Cyril of Alexandria defends the perfect knowledge of Christ-God against the Nestorians, who attributed all our defects to Christ-Man, includ­ ing ignorance. However, he concedes that in His humanity there was a merely apparent ignorance. Better and more definitively, St. Augustine: Christ-Man knew the day of judg­ ment but His mission of Master did not demand His revealing it to us. The error of Themistius was con­ demned by the Patriarch of Alexan­ dria, Timotheus. St. Gregory the Great expounds clearly the Catholic doctrine in a “Letter to Eulogius,” another patriarch of Alexandria, eliminating every true and proper ignorance from the humanity of Christ. The Scholastics express this doc­ trine with the formula: Christ was ignorant of the day of judgment in the sense that He did not know it with knowledge communicable to men. Some Protestants do not hesitate to attribute a certain ignorance to Christ (see Cenosis'); the rationalists and modernists go even further (see science of Christ). bibliography Hucon, Le mystère de l’incarnation (Paris, 1931), Ρ· 243· Lebreton, Histoire du dogme de la Trinité, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1927), p. 581. Maric, De Agnoëtarum doctrina (Zagreb, 1914). agnosticism (from the Gr. à [priva­ tive] γιγνώσκω — I do not know). The word was coined and used by Huxley in the Spectator in 1869, in England. Agnosticism is a system based on skepticism, which denies our capacity of knowing any truth. 5 In theology, agnosticism is applied to the existence of God or to His nature. A classical example of ag­ nosticism is the doctrine of Moses Maimonides, a Jewish philosopher (•f 1204), who held that the at­ tributes which we refer to God have no objective value and maintained that reason can know nothing about the divine essence. St. Thomas con­ futes him, demonstrating the value of our knowledge of God which, al­ though inadequate, is however true analogically (see analogy). At an age closer to ours, agnosticism has been systematically affirmed in two broad philosophical currents: positivism and Kantianism (q.v.). a) Positivistic agnosticism (Comte, Littré, Spencer): Starting from em­ piricism and sensism, it restricts the limits of human knowledge to the phenomenon and the experimental fact. It is not, therefore, so much concerned with the essence as with the existence of natural things. This is the only knowledge which has the character of evidence. On the con­ trary, the intimate nature of things and their first cause, namely God, is mysterious. Here is the zone of the Unknowable, object of religion. God and His marvels do not concern us and, therefore, it is better not to bother about these things (Littré) or we may admit them temporarily for a practical, moral, social motive (Spencer), pending scientific progress, which will be able to eliminate re­ ligion altogether. b) Kantian agnosticism: The one objective reality for us is the phenom­ enon which makes an impression on our senses; the thing in itself (the noumenon) escapes us and reason re­ places it by its forms or a priori categories, which are subjective. Much less can we arrive at God with reason, • who transcends all Nature. I have the idea of God, but I cannot demon­ strate His reality outside of myself Albigenses (Critique of Pure Reason). But God can and should be affirmed by the will, as a necessary postulate (Cri­ tique of Practical Reason). Modernism, adopting Kantian immanentism, adopts also its agnos­ ticism. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 1. 1, cc. 1—36. Chossat, “Agnosticisme,” DA. Flint, Agnosticism (London, 1903). Garrigou-Lagrange, The One God, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1943), PP· 306-381. Ladd, Philosophy of Knowledge (New York, 1897). Lucas, Agnos­ ticism and Religion (Baltimore, 1895). Miche­ let, Dieu et l'Agnosticisme contemporain (Paris, 1920). Shanahan, “Agnosticism,” CE. Ward, Naturalism and Agnosticism (London, 1903). Albert the Great. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 302). Albigenses. Heretics, followers of the ancient Manichaeans (q.v.), who expanded considerably toward the end of the twelfth century (Langue­ doc) with their headquarters in Albi, whence they took their name. Actual­ ly they called themselves Cathars (Gr. καΟαρο'ς — pure) and were known in other countries of Europe also under other names: Catharins, Patharins, Publicans, Bulgars, etc. The Albigen­ sian Cathars succeeded in gaining popularity and in organizing them­ selves in a way that threatened the Church and Catholic civilization. Doctrine: They professed Mani­ chaean dualism in order to explain evil. There are two principles: one good, creator of spirit and light; the other bad, creator of matter and darkness. The bad principle is the God of the Old Testament; the good principle is the God of the New Testament. The good God had created the angels, many of which sinned and were constrained to de­ scend into bodies, becoming men. God (one, not triune), sends Jesus, allegorism 6 one of His angels, to free spirit from matter (redemption of men). Jesus had an apparent body (Docetism), and neither suffered nor died nor rose again, but simply taught. The primitive Church has degenerated, beginning with Constantine; God dwells in the hearts of the faithful rather than in the Church. The spirits pass from one body to the other (metempsychosis) to purify themselves until complete expiation. The Cathars, starting from the principle that matter is evil in itself, abhorred matrimony, riches, food, and sense pleasures. The faithful were placed in one of two categories: either that of the perfect, who obli­ gated themselves, even by vow, to the rigorous practice of Cathar ethics and ascetics; or that of the believers, to whom much liberty was granted. The perfect was constituted in his high grade by means of the consola­ mentum, a kind of baptism consist­ ing in the imposition of hands, and so assumed the mission of going and preaching the new religion. The faithful received the consolamentum in danger of death to insure salva­ tion. There was also a kind of public confession, a blessing and breaking of bread, and a hierarchy of bishops and deacons. The more dangerous element of this heresy was the category of believers, the great mass whose only requirement was faith and the desire of the consolamentum in case of danger of death: for the rest they were granted complete free­ dom, which degenerated easily in un­ bridled license. This heresy was not only a danger for the Church, but also for civil society. Innocent III, greatly worried about it, published the famous crusade against the Albigenses, which is justified fully from a moral and social standpoint, even if in some cases it shows dark spots and exaggerations. St. Dominic, mild and luminous soul, contributed by his preaching and his example to the conversion of the Albigenses to the Catholic faith, not to their destruc­ tion. About that time the Inquisition (q.v.') was inaugurated as a doctrinal proceeding against heretics. The sec­ tarian spirit has falsified in many points the history of these events: but now many calumnies have been exposed by the calm study of the documents. The Albigenses were condemned in their false doctrines by the IV Lateran Council (1215). Cf. DB, 428 ff. BIBLIOGRAPH Y Dondaine, Un traité néo-manichéen du XII siècle (Rome, 1939), an interesting document, recently discovered. Mandonnet, St. Dominic and His Work, trans. Sr. Μ. B. Larkin (St. Louis). Schmidt, Histoire et doctrine de la secte des Cathares ou Albigeois (Paris, 1849). Tocco, L’eresia nel medio evo (Florence, 1884). Twicce, "Albi and the Albigensians,” Dublin Review, 1894. Weber, “Albigenses,” CE. allegorism. A method of exegesis of Holy Scripture championed among the Hebrews by Philo of Alexandria ( j· 42) and introduced into the Christian world by the teachers of the famous theological school of Alexandria in Egypt, founded in the second century. The greatest luminary of this school, Origen (186-254), codified the principles of allegorism. In conformity with the constitution of man, as conceived by the Platonic philosophy (body-soul-spirit), he dis­ tinguished in the texts of the Bible three senses: (1) corporal or literal, for the beginners; (2) psychic or moral, for the proficient; (3) pneu­ matic or spiritual, for the perfect. Not all the sacred texts, however, have all three senses; some lack the first. Allegorism was justified with the following reasons: if the literal sense of the Bible were always held, ab- 7 surdities or immoral actions would have to be admitted; Paul used the allegorical method for some texts of the Old Testament; material things — according to the Platonic theory — are figures of supersense realities. It was the need of apologetics that made Origen adopt allegorism, al­ though he was outstanding in works of textual criticism. The Chiliadists, insisting on the literal sense of the Bible, maintained the reality of a millennial kingdom of all pleasures (see millenarianism)·, the Gnostics interpreted literally the texts which attributed to God a human aspect and quality; the Jews denied that Christ was the Messias, because He had not founded a kingdom of material and political prosperity according to the letter of the ancient prophecies. Exaggeration in the application of Origen’s method led, however, to the pulverization of the Bible, to metaphysical fantasies which serious­ ly endangered the value of the texts. The Antiochian school, founded at the end of the third century, fought against the Alexandrian school — represented by St. Athanasius ("f· 373), Didymus the Blind (+398), and St. Cyril of Alexandria (f 444). It insisted on the intelligently literal interpretation of the holy texts and developed the doctrine of the typical sense (see senses of Scripture) and the theory according to which the literal sense is at the base of a more profound and deeper penetration es­ pecially of the Messianic prophecies. The most celebrated representative of this current, which triumphed over allegorism, was St. John Chrysostom (Ÿ407). Recently some Catholic writers have tried to restore the an­ cient allegorism, but the encyclical Humani generis has pointed out the dangers of such an endeavor. IIII1LI0GRAPHY Cadiou, La jeunesse d’Origbne (Paris, 1936). Cavué, Manual of Patrology, trans. Howitt, Americanism Vol. i (Paris, Tournai, Rome, 1936), pp. 173, 185-188, 201-204. Hôpfl-Gut, Introductio generalis in S. Scripturam (Rome, 1940), PP· 531-536. Institutiones Biblicae, Vol. I (Rome, 1937), pp. 469-476. Americanism. Term popularized at the end of the past century in the movement and controversy arising from the ideas and methods of Father P. Hecker, founder of the American Society of Paulist Mission­ aries. Rather than a system, Ameri­ canism is a tendency based on certain principles of a practical nature which lack coherence. Leo XIII, aware of the danger, sent the apostolic letter “Testem Benevolentiae” to Cardinal Gibbons (1889) and through him to the episcopacy of the United States. In this pontifical document the principal errors of Americanism are brought out: necessity of the adapta­ tion of the Church to the exigencies of modern civilization, through abro­ gation of some old canons, mitigation of ancient severity, orientation toward a more democratic method; more latitude for individual freedom of thought and action, since the Holy Spirit acts on the conscience of the individual more directly than the hierarchical organization (influence of Protestantism); abandonment or sub­ duing of the passive virtues (mortifi­ cation, penance, obedience, contem­ plation), and concentration on the active virtues (action, apostolate, organization); favoring the religious congregations of active life. The Pope, after this calm examination, concludes with these grave words: “We cannot approve these opinions which consti­ tute the so-called Americanism.” Prescinding from the intentions of the “Americanists,” certainly their doctrinal and practical position can­ not be made to agree easily with the doctrine and traditional spirit of the Church. Rather, to put it mildly, it opens the way to theoretical and practical errors among which the Anabaptists 8 preference attributed to activism calls for special mention, while Jesus Christ and His saints all gave more importance to prayer and the interior life, on which depends the success of every Christian apostolate. BIBLIOGRAPHY Coppinger, La polémique française sur la vie du Père Hecker (Paris, 1898). Delattre, Un Catholicisme Américain (Namur, 1898). Deshaves, "Américanisme,” DTC. Elliott, Life of Hecker (New York, 1891). Hecker, The Church and the Age (New York, 1887). Holden, “A Mith in L’Américanisme,” Cath­ olic Historical Review, 31 (July, 1945), pp. 154-170. Lambertini, L'Américanisme (Paris, 1899). Leo XIII, Encyclical "Testem Bene­ volentiae,” official English text, The Catholic World, 69 (April, 1899), pp. 133-139. Me Avoy, “Americanism and Frontier Catholi­ cism," Review of Politics, 5 (July, 1945), pp. 275-301; “Americanism, Fact and Fic­ tion," Catholic Historical Review, 31 (July, i945)> PP· 133-153; “The Formation of the Catholic Minority in the United States," Re­ view of Politics, 10 (Jan., 1948), pp. 13-34. Maignen, Etudes sur ['Américanisme, Le Père Hecker est-il un saint? (Rome-Paris, 1898). O’Connell, A New Idea in the Life of Father Hecker (Fribourg, 1897). Pallen, “Testem Benevolentiae," CE. Anabaptists (or Rebaptizers). Followers of a fanatic sect who re­ baptized adults in the belief that baptism conferred on infants was invalid. This was the logical conse­ quence of the Lutheran principle, ac­ cording to which faith alone justifies: infants are not capable of an act of faith, and consequently their baptism is invalid. The movement, begun at Zwikau, in Saxony, in 1521-1522 by Nicholas Storch and Thomas Münzer, spread rapidly in southern Germany, and acquired adherents especially among the lower classes (artisans and peasants). Two currents quickly formed within the movement, the one pacific and the other revolutionary; this last got the upper hand and in­ volved the sect in an iconoclastic struggle which brought destruction and desolation to many provinces (churches destroyed, priests killed, goods confiscated, etc.), and which provoked a fierce repression (the peasants’ war). The inspiring idea of the sect was the establishment of God’s kingdom in individual souls by direct divine influence. The individual joins the Communion of Saints independently of any external form (and so, abro­ gation of ecclesiastical and civil authority, of the priesthood, the sacra­ ments, the Bible, and so forth), by mere collaboration of the individual with the impulses of the Holy Spirit (they admitted, therefore, the efficacy of good works). The Anabaptist system, therefore, has nothing in common with Luther­ anism except the starting point (only faith justifies), which was applied rigidly to the baptism of infants, but was at once softened by admit­ ting the value of good works. After its political reverses, Anabaptism lost its revolutionary character and be­ came organized on purely religious principles (Mennonites of Frisia). Since the most vital part of their doctrine has been absorbed by the Baptists, the Anabaptists today consist of small, scattered groups in Ger­ many, England, and the United States. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bax, Rise and Fall of the Anabaptists (Lon­ don, 1903). Bernard, “Anabaptistes," DHGE. Newman, A History of Anti-Pedobaptism from the Rise of Pedobaptism to A.D. 1609 (Philadelphia, 1897); A History of the Baptist Churches in the United States (New York, 1894) (in Amer. Church Hist., Series II, 1-56). Weber, “Anabaptists," CE. analogy (Gr. ανάλογο?— similar, proportionate, relative to another). A relationship between two things, either because of likeness or causal dependence. Analogy is the basis and soul of all human language: man always reasons and knows by way of comparison, because the natural tendency of the intellect to unity in­ 9 clines it to discover the connections and relations among different things in order to conquer their multiplicity. Aristotle perceived the importance of analogy and fixed its fundamental laws (cf. VII Physic., c. IV; Poster. Anal. 11, cc. XIII and XIV; Ethic, ad Nie., I, c. 6; Metaphysic., b. IV, c. i; b. X, c. x; b. XII, c. 4). St. Thomas devoted much study to analogy in order to defend the value of our knowledge of divine things against the agnostic current of Jewish medieval philosophy (Rabbi Moses Maimonides). According to St. Thomas, the supposition made that God is the cause of the world, there must be a relation of likeness between one and the other, which swings be­ tween a minimum and a maximum of similarity, in such a way, how­ ever, that the creature is not so similar to God as to attain formal identity {univocity) nor so dissimilar as to be altogether extraneous {equivocity). This relationship of likeness between Creator and creature is called analogy of attribution when it consists in the simple relationship of effect to its proper cause (e.g., Matter and God), without any intrinsic reason of like­ ness. If, on the other hand, that relationship, in addition to causal sub­ ordination, includes also a formal likeness between the creature and God, then it is called analogy of proportionality. On the basis of this latter kind of analogy, a created perfection, e.g., goodness, can be attributed to God and to man under the same formal concept, not in the same way, be­ cause man participates in the divine goodness imperfectly, while God is goodness itself. In every case, created perfections must be purged of every imperfection before being attributed to God. In this way we form the many concepts of God according to the perfections of His creatures. These concepts, although not ex­ anathema pressing the divinity adequately, are not false, because just as only one perfect principle responds to the mul­ tiple created perfections which repre­ sent it imperfecdy, so to the diverse concepts, which we get from things, there responds only one supreme idea imperfectly expressed. The analogical process is realized in three phases: (1) affirmation — God is good (because creatures are good); (2) negation — God is not good (in the way creatures are good); (3) eminence — God is good­ ness itself (in a transcendent way). Analogy works even in the field of revelation, where incomprehensible mysteries are expressed in analogical formulas taken from common lan­ guage {natural analogy)·, in addition, there is supernatural analogy or the analogy of faith, consisting in com­ paring the mysteries among them­ selves to understand them better, as the Vatican Council states, Sess. Ill, Ch. 4 {DB, 1796). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 13. Peter Parente, “Quid re valeat humana de Deo cognitio secundum S. Thomam,” Acta Pont. Acad. Romanae S. Thomae Aq. (1935). Penido, Le rôle de l'analogie en théologie dogmatique (Paris, 1931). Anaphora. See Canon of the Mass. anathema (Gr. avafle/ra). In the proper sense it meant something vowed to God, votive offerings (exvoto) hung in the temples, from ανατίθημι — I put on, I hang (cf. Jud. 16:19; 2 Mac. 9:16; Luke 21:5). But in the Septuagint the word anathema generally translates the Hebrew ΟΠΠ, meaning a thing or person destined to destruction by God. In the New Testament it con­ serves the Hebrew meaning with a slightly distinct nuance: thing or person struck by God’s malediction and intended for ruin (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3; 16:22; Rom. 9:3; Gal. 1:8-9). angel 10 In ecclesiastical language, it appears for the first time in the Council of Helvira (305) with a not-well-defined meaning. Later in the canons of Laodicea and of Chalcedon, anathema adds to excommunication the idea of a special curse which aggravates the penalty of separation from the Church. In the Decretales anathema corresponds to major excommunica­ tion, fulminated in the most solemn manner. In current discipline, it is no more than excommunication in­ flicted with those external solemnities contained in the Pontificale Romanum (cf. CIC, can. 2257). Anathema, in actual Church discipline, is the term also used for ipso facto excommunica­ tion incurred by those denying a solemnly defined truth, as is con­ cluded principally from the dogmatic canons of the Council of Trent and the Vatican Council: “If anyone denies [this truth] ... let him be anathema,” i.e., excommunicated. BIBLIOGRAPHY Amanieu, "Anathème,” DDC. Gicnac, "Anathema,” CE. Vacant, “Anathème,” DTC. ViGOUROUX, “Anathème,” DBV. angel (Gr. άγγελος — messenger; Hebr. — mal’âk). In Holy Scripture it signifies messenger or minister of God. St. Gregory the Great notes that nearly every page of written revelation attests to the existence of the angels: suffice it to recall in the Old Testament the Cherubim placed to guard the earthly paradise after the fall of Adam and Eve, the three angels who appeared to Abraham, the Seraphim of which Isaias speaks, the Angel Raphael who helped Tobias, Michael and Gabriel recalled by Daniel, and reappearing in the New Testament, in which testimonies are more numerous (cf. the Apocalypse, the Gospels in the story of the birth of Jesus, and the Resurrection; St. Paul enumerates various classes of angels). The IV Lateran Council speaks explicitly of the creation of the angels (DB, 428), which is therefore a truth of faith. Creation ab aeterno is ex­ cluded (IV Lat. Council and Vatican Council say ab initio temporis')·, it is not known precisely when the angels were created. Scripture and Tradition speak of a boundless num­ ber. The angels are pure spirits; such, in fact, Holy Scripture calls them constantly, although a few Fathers have attributed some kind of corporal nature to them. As spirits the angels do not need a material place to exist, but may be present in a material place by way of action (St. Thomas). From the Scripture it is known that the angels are distributed in nine groups: Thrones, Dominations, Prin­ cipalities, Powers, Virtues, Archangels, Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim (names corresponding to various functions). According to the more probable opinion (St. Thomas), the angels are not individuals of the same species, as man is, but every individual angel constitutes a species (because of the absence of matter which in­ dividualizes and multiplies forms numerically). The angels were all created in the state of sanctifying grace (they are, in fact, called saints, friends of God); but not all per­ severed in grace. Many of them committed, immediately after crea­ tion, a sin of pride, abusing their freedom (Lateran Council, DB, 428). Revelation speaks several times of the sin of the angels: “God spared not the Angels that sinned” (2 Pet. 2:4; cf. I John 3:8). They were punished immediately and cast into hell: Christ attests He saw Satan being hurled down like a lightning bolt (Luke 10:18). St. Thomas comments that the angel, understanding as by intuition, adheres unchangeably, once free 11 choice is made, to good or to evil: therefore, the angels did not have and will not have any way to repent, differently from men, who under­ stand by reasoning progressively. As the good angels assist and help men for their good and salvation, so the demons entice to evil with temptation and can invade the body by obsession, by which the body becomes a sort of instrument of the evil spirit. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, qq. 50-64. Arrjchini, Gli Angeli (Turin, 1937). Bareille, "Le culte des Anges à l’époque des Pères de l’Eglise,” Revue Thomiste (March, 1900). Boyer, De Deo creante et devante (Rome, 1940), p. 457 fi. Pope, “Angel," CE. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 248285. Anglicanism. Predominant form of English Protestantism which, be­ cause of its conservative character, has kept itself closer to Catholicism and more resistant to the dissolving currents of modern thought. The Anglican Church had a painful origin. King Henry VIII (15091547), once greeted by the pope as Dejensor Fidei because of his love for religion and a theological writing against Luther, allowed himself to be carried away by license and the thirst for gold to the consummation of his own apostasy and that of his kingdom. Lawfully married to Cath­ erine of Aragon, he became infatuated with the courtesan Anne Boleyn. With the connivance of Thomas Cranmer (a supporter of Lutheran­ ism), appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry determined to marry Anne at any cost. Pope Clem­ ent VII threatened the sovereign with excommunication. Henry took re­ venge by severing from Rome and having himself proclaimed the reli­ gious head of the Church of England. The life of Henry VIII is sullied with Anglicanism immorality and dark crimes: he put Anne Boleyn to death and married successively four women, executing one and divorcing another. He per­ secuted Catholics in the realm, con­ fiscating churches and monasteries. But, notwithstanding the pleas of Cranmer and others, Henry refused openly to embrace Protestantism; rather, with his famous 6 articles, he maintained the chief tenets of Cath­ olic doctrine and cult, except depend­ ence on the Holy See. Protestantism, however, spread in England in the six years of the reign of Edward VI, still a child (φ 1553). Mary, a Catholic who succeeded Ed­ ward VI, tried to counter this great evil with perhaps too violent a re­ pression. Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn, succeeded Mary and rekindled her father’s persecution against the Catholics, favoring the Protestant current by adopting 39 of the 42 articles of Cranmer and mak­ ing the hierarchy a docile instrument of the royalty. Pius V excommuni­ cated her (1570). Elizabeth may be called the real foundress of the An­ glican Church which, however, soon began to undergo crises and schisms {Puritans, supporters of pure Calvin­ ism; Presbyterians, priests adverse to the episcopacy; Congregationalists, democrats who wanted independence and autonomy for every religious community or congregation; Baptists, etc.). Deism and Illuminism (qq.v.) dried up in great part the super­ natural life of the Anglican Church which, under the action of internal ferment and the external influences of the various Protestant sects, de­ veloped into three different tendencies, which are called the three churches: (1) High Church, conservative with its episcopal hierarchy and sacra­ mental-liturgical organism; (2) Broad Church, liberal, open to the currents of independent lay thought; (3) Low Anglican orders 12 Church, left wing, more anti-Roman, dedicated especially to the evangelical movement. In the High Church there developed during the past century the so-called Tractarianism (Tracts), soul of the Oxford Movement, headed by Pusey, Keble, and Newman. The last became a convert to Catholicism, and a cardinal. This movement con­ tributed to clarify the position of Anglicanism, orientating it progres­ sively more and more toward Cathol­ icism. In 1896, however, Anglicanism was struck in its episcopal hierarchy by Leo XIII, who declared their or­ dinations invalid by reason of the interruption in the succession of its bishops. However, among the Protes­ tant Churches the Anglican seems most suitable to serve as a bridge for a return to Rome (see Protestantism). BIBLIOGRAPHY D'Ai-hs, “Reforme (IX. Anglicanisme mo­ derne),” DA, cols. 702-733. Bishop, Edward VI and the Book, of Common Prayer (London, 1891). Church, The Oxford Movement (Lon­ don-New York, 1891). Coolen, L'Anglican­ isme d’aujourd’hui (Paris, 1932). Johnson, Anglicanism in Transition (London, 1938). Marchal, “Puseyisme,” DTC. Moyes, “An­ glicanism,” CE. Rust, The First of the Puri­ tans and the Book, of Common Prayer (Mil­ waukee, 1949). Trésal, “Réforme (VI. La Réforme en Angleterre)," DA, cols. 647-675; Les origines du schisme Anglican (Paris, 1908). Anglican orders. The title of the ordinations performed in the schismat­ ic Anglican Church according to the Edwardian rite, or the Ordinal pro­ mulgated by Edward VI in 1550, at Cranmer’s instigation. The imposition of hands being retained, the form of ordination is reduced to these words: Receive the Holy Spirit. The sins that you will remit, shall be remitted, those that you will retain, shall be retained. Be a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of His holy sacraments. After mature historical and theo­ logical investigation, Leo XIII in the bull, A postolicae Curae, solemnly de­ clared these ordinations to be invalid (irritae prorsus omninoque nullae, DB, 1866). The reasons on which the Pontiff bases his statement are both the lack of due form and of intention on the part of the minister, and the preceding declaration of Paul IV. In fact, the form studiously omits any word that might indicate power of offering the sacrifice, which is the chief power conferred by the sacra­ ment of orders (see orders, holy; matter and form). From this illegiti­ mate change of the form one may logically conclude the lack of inten­ tion on the part of the minister, since whoever changes voluntarily a rite established by Christ in the conferring of a sacrament, shows that he does not wish to do what Christ instituted and what the Church faithfully re­ peats (see intention). Besides, it is historically certain that the authors of the Edwardian rite wanted to exclude absolutely all refer­ ence to the Mass; therefore, their in­ tention was diametrically opposed to that of Christ who instituted holy orders for the principal purpose of renewing the Eucharistic sacrifice. Already in 1555, Paul IV, in the bull, Praeclara carissimi, and the brief, Regimini universalis, had de­ clared null the orders conferred ac­ cording to Edward’s Ordinal — a dec­ laration which traced the guidelines constantly followed by his successors. Thus, since the entire Anglican hierarchy descends from Matthew Parker, who was consecrated bishop according to the Edwardian rite, it is absolutely devoid of holy orders and of the character annexed thereto. BIBLIOGRAPHY Barnes, The Pope and the Ordinal (1898). Brandi, Le ordinazioni anglicane (Rome, 1908). Gasparri, De la valeur des Ordina­ tions Anglicanes (Paris, 1895). Marchal, "Ordinations Anglicanes," DTC. Smith, An­ glican Orders (London, 1896). Sydney, "Or­ dination," DA. 13 animism. A theory formulated by Ed. B. Tylor in the past century to explain the origin of religion. Like Spencer, Tylor starts from the premise of evolutionism (q.v.) then in vogue and maintains that man evolved from the animals. Through consideration of the phenomena of sleep and dreams, sickness and death, Tylor comes to discover in himself a vital principle distinct from the body, that is the soul, to which he attributed a kind of survival. Hence, the cult of ancestors (man ism), whose spirits are said often to become in­ carnate in other bodies (metempsy­ chosis). Primitive man, once in pos­ session of the concept of soul, by an anthropomorphic tendency projected his own image on Nature, and saw in everything a body animated by the spirit. Thus began animism, which led to the cult of the forces of Nature and consequently to polytheism. By means of animism Tylor explains also the origin of fetishism and idolatry (qq.v.)·, the fetish is any object chosen by a spirit for its habitation; reduced to the figure or representation of a superior spirit, the fetish becomes an idol, by identification of the sym­ bol with the symbolized being. Idol­ atry, thus, is said to derive also from animism. Later on, by selection and by giving prominence to one of the gods (idols), it is claimed that mono­ theism gained acceptance. Tylor’s theory, in the beginning, was hailed enthusiastically but quickly met with failure. Eminent scholars have pointed out the flaws and incon­ sistencies of the animistic structure. Its foundation especially, evolution­ ism, is anything but solid. Moreover, it is not true that religion follows on animism; in many primitive peoples it precedes animism. Nor is it true, as Tylor would have it, that animism was universal and uniform: it is but one of the phenomena found here and there in the history of human Anomoeanîsm culture. But what checkmates the whole theory is the proved fact that monotheism, as cult of the Great Being, is found in primitive peoples before animism and polytheism, which seem rather religious degenerations. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alger, Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life (Philadelphia, 1864). Brinton, Religions of Primitive Peoples (New York, 1897). Buguicourt, "Animisme," DA. Dris­ coll, "Animism,” CE. Heinzelmann, Ani­ mamus und Religion (Giitersloh, 1913). Müller, Lectures on the Origin of Religion (London, 1878). Pascher, Der Seelenbegriff des Animismus E. B. Tylor (Wiirzburg, 1929). Tylor, Primitive Culture (London, 1891). Anomoeanism (Gr. ανόμοιο·: — dis­ similar). A sect founded by Aëtius and Eunomius (Eunomians) in the second half of the fourth century. They adhered to Arianism (q.v.), maintaining that the Word is dis­ similar to the Father, in so far as it is generated, and therefore is not God like the Father, since the true divin­ ity is without beginning and so not generated (άγίννητο·;). Anomoeanism, especially as presented by Eunomius, has interesting aspects also as regards other sectors of theology, beside the Trinitarian. Eunomius, speaking of the attri­ butes of God, denies their value, reducing them all to mere anthropo­ morphic names (nominalism)·, only one attribute has real value, namely the attribute of α-γιννησία (ingenerability), which reveals to our mind the divine essence in an adequate manner, as by intuition (a prelude of ontologism). St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nyssa confuted the errors of the Eunomians both in the theological and in the philosophical fields. BIBLIOGRAPHY Le Bachelet, “Aëtius,” DTC; "Eunomius,” DTC. Peter Parente, De Deo Uno (Rome, >938)· P· 78· Tixeront, History of Dogmas, trans. H.L.B., Vol. 2 (St. Louis, 1910), p. 49 f. Anselm 14 Anselm. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 302); in­ nocence; satisfaction of Christ. anthropomorphism (Gr. άνθρωπος— man and μορφή — form). The tend­ ency of man to consider external things as if they were an imitation of himself. In philosophy anthropomor­ phism leads to extravagant concep­ tions, like the panpsychism of Thomas Campanella with its soul for all cre­ ated things, or the cosmic sensism of Bernardine Telesio with its universal sensation, which recalls the hylozoism (living matter) of the pre-Socratics. In religion, we find an anthropomorphistic expression in animism {q.v.'), kindred to these philosophical aberra­ tions, and which is held by some au­ thors as the origin of religion. Anthro­ pomorphism is even more manifest in the concept of a divinity, formed to man’s likeness with his vices and vir­ tues. The religious mythologies are generally anthropomorphic; suffice it to mention the Greco-Roman mythol­ ogy. In Christian revelation anthro­ pomorphism is found in the language and in certain episodes of the Old Testament, which attribute to God hu­ man members and at times human ways of acting (as when it speaks of God repenting, suffering, etc.). Evi­ dently here it is a matter of metaphor­ ical speech and style, as is proved from the context of the holy books and the sublime concepts they suggest about the nature of God (see essence, divine'). The so-called theophanies (apparitions of God) in the Old Testament have special theological in­ terest, as the one made to Moses from the burning bush. Some Fathers think they were personal manifestations of the Word (q.v.; see Logos')·, more correctly, the theophanies were sen­ sible signs of the divine presence, by which the Word appeared as a man in the midst of men. In the history of Christian thought there is mention of the gross error of the so-called anthropomorphites who, following in the steps of a certain Audius, in the fourth century, spread the opinion in Syria and Egypt that the biblical metaphors about God are to be understood in the literal and proper sense. St. Augustine and other Fathers speak of this error as childish and unworthy of refutation. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bareille, “Anthropomorphites," DTC. Chollet, “Anthropomorphisme," DT C. Flint, Theism (New York, 1903). Fox, “An­ thropomorphism,” CE. ViGouRoux, "Anthro­ pomorphisme," DBV. Antichrist (Gr. αντί— χριστός — adversary of Christ). The term is John’s but the concept is common also to other biblical authors (cf. Ezech.. Chs. 28-29; Dan., Chs. 7-8; Matt. 24:5, 24; Mark 13:6, 22; Luke 21:8; 2 Thess. 2:3-12; i John 2:18-22; 4:3; 2 John 7; Apoc. 11:7 ff.; Chs. 13-14). The Antichrist is, in general, a force hostile to the person and work of Christ. The common interpretation of the Christian writers sees in the Antichrist a person distinct from Satan but sustained by him, who will manifest himself in the last days, be­ fore the end of the world, to attempt a decisive attack on and triumph over Jesus and His Church. Paul describes him as “the man of sin . . . the son of perdition, who opposeth and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing him­ self as if he were God. . . . Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thess. 2:3-4, 9-10)· What thwarts the unleashing of this formidable power is a mysterious obstacle which is at the same time considered in the abstract as a force, 15 or in the concrete as a person. The precise identification is difficult and varies among scholars. Among mod­ ern exegetes the opinion according to which the Antichrist is not a person, but a collectivity, is gaining ground: the Antichrist signifies the agents of anti-Christianity in all times. St. John speaks of “many Antichrists” who recognized neither Jesus nor the Fa­ ther. St. Paul says that the mystery of iniquity is already at work; only now someone is holding him back, until he is removed (2 Thess. 2:7). If the obstacle is always in action and is already fighting the Antichrist, this means the Antichrist too must be in existence continually. But it may be noted that the obstacle impedes the manifestation of the Antichrist, not his personal work. The Antichrist will reveal himself in the last phase of the anti-Christian struggle which rages in all times and is slowly pre­ paring the apparition of the “son of perdition” at the end of time. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allo, L'Apocalypse (Paris, 1933). Buzy, “Antéchrist," DBVS, cols. 297-305. Jowett, Excursus on the Man of Sin, in Epistles of St. Paul (London, 1859). Maas, “Antichrist," CE. Newman, “The Patristic Idea of Anti­ christ,” No. 83 of Tracts for the Times, re­ published in Discussions and Arguments on Various Subjects (London, New York, Bom­ bay, 1897); The Protestant Idea of Antichrist, in Essays Critical and Historical {ibid., 1897). Prat, The Theology of St. Paul, trans. Stod­ dard, Vol. i (Westminster, 1926). Ratton, Antichrist: An Historical Review (London, 1917). Rigaux, L'Antéchrist et l'opposition au royaume messianique dans TA. et le N.T. (Gembloux, 1932). Tondelli, Gcsù Cristo (Turin, 1936), pp. 388-402. Wordsworth, On the Apocalypse (London, 1849). Antidicomarîans (Gr. αντίδικό?— litigator, and Mary). A religious sect sprung up in Arabia in the fourth century, which denied Mary’s virgin­ ity, abusing certain texts of Holy Scripture (sec virginity of Mary). St. Epiphanius wrote them a letter con­ futing their doctrine point by point. Apocrypha Later on all adversaries of the virgin­ ity of Mary came to be called Antidicomarians or simply Antimarians. BIBLIOGRAPHY Quilliet, “Antidicomarianitcs," DTC. See under virginity of Mary. antitype. See senses of Scripture. Aphthartodocetism. See Docetism. Apocrypha (Gr. ίπόκρυφον— hidden thing, from the verb αποκρύπτω — I hide). For the ancients, apocryph was a book containing religious doctrines reserved for the initiated; in Church language, on the contrary, it was a book not admitted to public reading in the community, notwithstanding the similarity it presented with the inspired books of the Bible by reason of the name of its presumed author and of its contents. An apocryph, therefore, is a book to be excluded in so far as it is noncanonical (see Canon of the Bible). Such books were of suspect origin and circulated by sects endeavoring to give an authoritative foundation to their teachings. Certain of them, however, are the results of the pious curiosity of readers who failed to find in the sacred books enough minute details on the persons and episodes of sacred history, wish­ ing to complete them with material which very rarely was from a good source but usually was the product of sheer fantasy. Some of these books written in good faith found credence among the faithful and the ecclesias­ tical writers. In the current official Latin edition of the Bible the 111 and IV Booths of Esdras and the Prayer of King Ma­ nasses, based on canonical texts, are inserted as an appendix. Certain li­ turgical texts, e.g., the Requiem (4 Esd. 2:34 f.) were derived from the afore-mentioned two books. Modern scholars give particular attention to this considerable literary production Apollinarianism 16 which is of interest for the knowledge of the religious and moral ideas cur­ rent in the times of Christ. The vast apocryphal literature, of difficult access to ordinary readers, fol­ lows the major and minor divisions of both Testaments. The Old Testament Apocrypha, nearly always by Jewish authors, have a Messianic theme and have at times undergone Christian interpolations. Some, like Solomon's Odes, seem entirely Christian in origin. They may be distinguished, although inade­ quately, in historical (dedicated to the great Old Testament figures), didactic (of ethical content), and prophetic or apocalyptic (containing presumed revelations about the angels, the mys­ teries of nature, the future sort of Israel, and the person and reign of the Messias). The Boo/^ of Jubilees or Little Genesis is noteworthy among the Apocrypha of the first kind; writ­ ten by a moderate Pharisee toward the end of the second century B.C., it narrates the story of the world from creation to the exodus from Egypt, distributing it in jubilary periods of 49 years. Others are: III Esdras, III Machabees, Ascension of Isaias, and Testament of Solomon. Among the didactic books are to be noted: the Testament of the Patriarchs, in which Jacob’s sons prophesy the coming of the Twelve Tribes descending from them; the Psalms of Solomon and of David; the Odes of Solomon; the IV Booh_ of the Machabees. Among the prophetic books, the Bool^ of Henoch, to which the Apostle Jude probably refers in his Letter (5:14 f.), is well known. It is made up of vari­ ous Jewish writings of the first and second centuries B.C., and is impor­ tant for the knowledge of the first religious ideas of the Jewish contem­ poraries of Jesus. In it the Messias is called “Son of Man.” Other books of this same class arc: the Assumption of Moses, IV Esdras, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Sibylline Oracles (a book of Jewish propaganda among the pagans). The New Testament Apocrypha go back to the second and third centuries A.D., and are divided into Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses. The Protoevangelium of James is the most diffused of the gospels; it relates the life of Mary and Joseph and the child­ hood of Jesus; it influenced Christian art very extensively, and liturgy drew from it the Feast of the Presentation of Mary in the Temple. Other gospels are: According to the Hebrews; of the Ebionites; According to the Egyp­ tians; of Peter; of Thomas; of Nicodemus. Among the Acts of the Apostles we may recall those of Peter; of Paul; of John; of Andrew; of Thomas. The apocryphal epistolary is also very rich, and includes the Letter of Abgarus, King of Edessa to Jesus and the reply of the Redeemer; the Epistle of the Apostles; the Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans; his III Letter to the Corinthians; the letters exchanged between St. Paul and Seneca, the philosopher. Among the apocalypses we may cite the Apoca­ lypse of Paul; of Peter; of Thomas. In general, the apocryphal literature is mediocre and jumbled. It betrays imitation of its inspired models with­ out catching, however, their spontane­ ity and balanced moderation. BIBLIOGRAPHY Amann, “Apocryphes du Nouveau Testa­ ment,” DBVS, cols. 460-533. Cayré, Manual of Patrology, trans. Howitt, Vol. 1 (Paris, Tournai, Rome, 1936), pp. 156-165. Frey, “Apocryphes de I’Ancient Testament," DBVS, cols. 354-460. Reid, “Apocrypha,” CE. Apollinarianism. Christological er­ ror of Apollinaris, Bishop of Laodicea (c. 350), which opens the way to Monophysitism (q.v·)· Apollinaris started out in the struggle against Arianism by maintaining that Christ was really God incarnate (Otot Ινσαρκοι), i.e., the Word, Son of God, 17 united to the human nature. But the better to defend the union between the divine and the human elements, he suggests the concept of a human na­ ture consisting only of flesh and a sensitive soul with the Word perform­ ing in that nature the function of the intellective soul (vois). This is the best-known and most diffused form of Apollinarianism which, however, was expressed in other fashions by various of its followers. Apollinaris spread his error even under the name of St. Athanasius — who had always been very kind to him — by fraudu­ lent writings in one of which he placed the famous expression: μία φΰσι·: τον Λόγου σ(σαρκωμίνη (the incarnate na­ ture of the Word is one). This for­ mula was afterward adopted by St. Cyril as if it were really of Atha­ nasius, and was used as a weapon by the Monophysites, who appealed to St. Cyril’s authority (see Eutychianism). Apollinaris was deposed and his error condemned in 377 and 382 by Pope St. Damasus (cf. DB, 65). BIBLIOGRAPHY D’Alès, Le dogme d'Ephèse (Paris, 1931), pp. 25-62. Rainy, The Ancient Catholic Church (New York, 1902). Sollier, “Apol­ linarianism,” CE. Voisin, L’Apollinarisme (Louvain, 1901). apologetics (Gr. απολογητική — de­ fense). The rational demonstration and defense of the truth of the Christian faith. By reason of its uni­ versality, it is distinct from apologia (apology), which is the defense of a particular truth. More closely, the proper object of apologetics is the rational credibility of the true religion, and hence the demonstration of the fact of divine revelation through Jesus Christ, God’s Legate, who entrusted that revelation to His Church. Apologetics thus has a philosophical part (the existence of a personal God, (he ideas of religion and revelation, the necessity of revelation, and its dis- apologetics cernibility by means of the miracle); and a historical part (Jesus Christ, divine Legate, historical value of the Gospels, foundation of the Church). Apologetics treats all this in the light of reason in order to dispose the mind for the divine gift of faith through the rational demonstration of the mo­ tives of credibility. According to the expression of the Vatican Council (Sess. 3, Ch. 4, DB, 1799), “right reason demonstrates the foundations of faith.” Apologetics, therefore, is distinct from theology (q.v.), which proceeds in the realm and the light of faith. Its method is twofold, one rather extrinsic, or the philosophico-historical approach, and the other rather in­ trinsic, the psychological approach. The former is the traditional method which was developed systematically in Scholasticism from the philosophi­ cal viewpoint, and in modern theology (from the seventeenth century) from the critico-historical viewpoint. In the past century, however, the psychologi­ cal method was developed under the influence of the French Oratorian Fathers (Ollé-Laprune and Fonsegrive). It acquired a new form in the works of Blondel, who introduced the method of immanence (considera­ tion of man in his intimate tendency to act, to accomplish, and to achieve, and in his inability to attain his ideal end; facts that necessarily involve an appeal or call for a superior help, and a real need, which only Christianity is able to satisfy). The two methods are not self-exclusive but, on the contrary, mutually integrative and complementary. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aiken, “Apologetics,” CE. Devivier-Sasia, Christian Apologetics (San José, Calif., 1903). De Tonquedec, “Méthode d'immanence,” DA. Fenton, We Stand With Christ (Milwaukee, 1942), pp. 1-9. Gardeil, La crédibilité et l'apologétique (Paris, 1908). Le Bachelet, “Apologétique,” DA. Monti, Apologetica scientifica (Turin, 1923). 18 apologists apologists. See “Outline of the His­ tory of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 301), subordinationists. apostasy. See infidels. Apostles. See members of the Church. apostolicity (mark of the Church). The fourth and last char­ acterizing mark or property which the Nicene-Constantinople Creed attri­ butes to the true Church of Christ. Like the other three marks of the Church, it issues from the intimate nature of the Church itself. Since the Church is humanity organized socially in Christ, that is, hierarchically in Peter and the “college” of the Twelve, apostolicity is the backbone of its con­ stitution, the guarantee of its con­ tinuity, and the condition of its fruitfulness. Holy Scripture attests that Christ established His Church on the rock of Peter and the foundation of the Apostles (Matt. 16:18-19; Eph. 2:20; Apoc. 21:14), ar*d the history of the nascent Church, narrated in the Acts, shows us the Apostles at work, preach­ ing a doctrine transmitted by the Master, applying the means of salva­ tion instituted by Him, and exercising the authority derived from Him. They then appoint successors for themselves with the same aims and purposes of teaching, sanctifying, and governing. Apostolicity implies, therefore, a legit­ imate continuity of succession to the chair occupied by Peter and the apos­ tolic “college,” with the keeping of the same doctrine, of the same sacra­ ments, and the same authority. We may imagine it as the uninterrupted relay of the popes (successors of Peter) and of the bishops (successors of the Apostles), transmitting each to the next one, throughout the ages, the torch of the same faith, the chalice of the same blood of Christ, the pastoral rod of the same authority. "Like the first branches of a tree do not die, but renew themselves and extend themselves, spreading their vital force into the new part, so it is in the Church through the succession of the pastors (bishops). In it, the episco­ pacy renews itself from time to time, but only by diffusion and prolonga­ tion of the apostolic life. The apos­ tolicity of the Church is not for us, therefore, a remote or a passing fact, but something ever present, because today too the life of the Church comes from Christ into the Apostles, from the Apostles into their legitimate suc­ cessors, and from them into us” (Card. Capecelatro). A distinction is made between formal apostolicity, described above, and material apostolicity. This last means apostolic origin but with a lack of legitimate continuity, in so far as it is separated from Peter living in the Roman pontiff, to whom the bish­ ops are subject just as the Apostles in their time were to Peter. The schismatic Oriental Church, styled the “orthodox” church, has only ma­ terial apostolicity. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, In Symbolum Apostolorum expositio, a. 7-8. Journet, L'Eglise du Verbe Incarné: I. "La hiérachie apostolique” (Paris, 1943). MacLaughlin, The Divine Plan of the Church (London, 1901). Milner, The End of Religious Controversy (London, 1818). Moore, Travels of an Irish Gentleman in Search of a Religion (London, 1833). O'Reilly, “Apostolicity,” CE. Smarius, Points of Controversy (New York, 1865). Vellico, De Ecclesia (Rome, 1940), p. 512 fi. appropriation. The attribution which we make of a thing or action to one or another of the three divine Per­ sons, according to our way of think­ ing, but not without foundation in reality. The foundation is a certain affinity between the thing or action attributed and the Person to whom it is attributed. Absolutely and strictly speaking, however, every action or effect ad extra (see operation, divine) 19 is common to all three Persons. The ad intra actions, indeed, are proper and individual (see notions, divine}, like “generating,” “saying the Word,” etc. In general, all that is connected with beginning is customarily attrib­ uted to the Father, like creation and omnipotence; what is related to in­ tellect, to the Son, like wisdom and light; to the Holy Spirit, all that refers to love, like goodness and holi­ ness (see indwelling of the Holy Trinity). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 39, a. 7-8. De Reckon, Etudes de théologie positive sur la Sainte Trinité (Paris, 1898). Sauvage, "Appropriation,” CE. Scheeben, The Myster­ ies of Christianity, trans. Vollert (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 132-136, 190-197. Vacant, “Ap­ propriation aux Personnes,” DTC. “a priori,” “a posteriori.” These two classical expressions of Scholastic philosophy are generally used to qual­ ify rational knowledge in its syllogistic or demonstrative form. For the Scho­ lastics these expressions have a de­ termined, fundamental meaning: a priori means a deductive process of reasoning, in which one goes from the cause {prius — before) to the effect {posterius — after); a posteri­ ori indicates the contrary procedure, i.e., from the effect to the cause {induction). The argumentative process usually called propter quid (on account of which) and that called a simultanée (from a simultaneous notion) are usually classed as a priori. The first of these proceeds from the proximate adequate cause to the effect, e.g., from the spirituality of the soul to its immortality, from divine infinity to immutability, while the second starts from the analysis of the terms or from the intimate connection between properties of one same subject, e.g., from the idea of God as necessary being to His existence (Leibnitz). The process called quia is classed as a apriorism posteriori. Examples of such reasoning are: from the operations of the soul (knowledge and free will) to its spirituality, or from the created world to God the Creator. In modern philosophy, especially in that of Kant, a priori and a posteriori have taken on the particular meaning, respectively, of element which pre­ cedes experience and element which derives from experience (see aprio­ rism; Kantianism). BIBLIOGRAPHY Boyer, Cursus Philosophiae, Vol. 1 (Paris, >935), P· 240 ff. ViGLiNO, Logica (Rome, 1941). p· 331 f· apriorism (Lat. a priori). A theory which posits in the human mind ideas which precede experience or are in­ dependent of it. Distinction must be made between: {a) a priori knowl­ edge, which is no more than either an intellective intuition or an innate idea which precedes all sense experi­ ence; and {b) a priori demonstration, which is a process of knowledge going from cause to effect and is also called demonstration propter quid (to dis­ tinguish it from a posteriori demon­ stration, called quia). Apriorism applied to our knowl­ edge of God manifests itself: (1) as ontologism (Malebranche, Gioberti) — at the base of all our knowledge there is an immediate intuition of God {primum logicum and primum ontologicum — first in the mind and first in reality); (2) as innatism (Descartes) — the idea of God is in­ nate, i.e., infused by God Himself in our soul; (3) as transcendental sub­ jectivism (Kant)—there is in us an idea of God, which, however, does not imply His objective reality; in­ stead, God is a postulate of practical reason. These three forms of apriorism conflict with the Catholic doctrine, especially as defined by the Vatican Council (see God). The so-called ontological argument of St. Anselm, Aquarians 20 sometimes styled a simultaneo, is close to apriorism. It attempts to demon­ strate the existence o£ God from analysis of the concept that we have of God: God is the Being than whom we can think none greater or more: as such, He must have all perfections, including that of existence: therefore, God exists. Descartes, Leibnitz, and some modern theologians have re­ worked this argument in various forms; but many reject it, as did St. Thomas, because it hides an illegitimate passage from the logical (mental) to the ontological (real) order. BIBLIOGRAPHY Boyer, Cursus Philosophiae, Vol. 2 (Romae, >936), p. 297 ff. Garrigou-I.agrange, God, trans. Rose, Vol. 1 (St. Louis, 1947), Ch. 2. Sertillanges, St. Thomas d'Aquin, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1925). Aquarians. Heretics who, in imita­ tion of the Ebionites, Marcionites, Encratites, abstained from the use of wine not only at meals but also in the Eucharistic celebration, consecrat­ ing in bread and water. Wine for them, as for all the Manichaean sects, was a work of the principle of evil and a dangerous vehicle of impurity. Their presence is noted in Roman Africa in the middle of the third century, as appears from a letter of St. Cyprian to Cecilius (the first De Sacrificio Missae treatise), written to confute the usage of consecrating without wine. In this same letter the holy Bishop of Carthage explains the symbolic significance of the few drops of water infused in the chalice of wine: water (people) is united to the wine (Jesus Christ) in order that one sole sacrifice be made of head and members. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bareille, "Aquaricns,” DTC. Batiffol, “Aquariens,” DACL. at Alexandria about the beginning of the fourth century. Arius, a priest of Alexandria trained, however, at the Antioch school under Lucian, was its author. Chief points of this heresy are: (e) The one true God is not generated (αγέννητος) and is not communicable to creatures. (Z>) In order to create the world God gener­ ated the Word, who, since He had a beginning, is not God, but an intermediary being, between God and the world, (r) The substance of the Word, therefore, is different from the substance of God (the Father). He is called Son of the Father, not in the proper and natural sense, but in the sense of adopted Son. Arius evidendy draws the elements of his heresy a bit from Gnosticism (transcendence of God and the inter­ mediate Being between God and the world: subordinationism), and a bit from the erroneous theory of adoptionism (q.v.), professed by Paul of Samosata at Antioch in the third century. Warned by the Patriarch of Alexandria, Arius did not abandon his false opinions. Instead he left his diocese and took refuge with his friend Eusebius of Nicomedia, in Asia Minor, where he continued to spread his errors among the people chiefly through a literary composi­ tion, a mixture of prose and poetry, called Thalia. In 325 the Council of Nicaea, assembled in Bithynia with the Emperor Constantine and over 300 bishops in attendance, defined the Word to be of the same substance of the Father, όμοοΰσιος (consubstan­ tiel), and hence true God equal to the Father. St. Athanasius, as deacon, later patriarch, of Alexandria, was the soul of the Council and of the whole struggle against the great heresy which, nonetheless, continued to cir­ culate craftily under insidious forms (see Semi-Arians"). BIBLIOGRAPHY Arianism. Trinitarian heresy started D'At.hSi Le dogme de Nicie (Paris, 1926). 21 Barry, "Arianism,” CE. Cayré, Manual of Patrology, trans. Howitt, Vol. I (Paris, Tournai, Rome, 1936), pp. 309-322. De Regnon, Etudes de théologie positive sur la Sainte Trinité (Paris, 1898). Gwatkin, Studies on Arianism (London, 1900). Le Bachelet, “Arianisme," DTC. Newman, “Causes of the Rise and Successes of Arianism,” Tracts Theo­ logical and Ecclesiastical (London, 1902). Aristides. See “Outline of the His­ tory of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 301). articles, fundamental. The sub­ ject of a religious controversy that arose with Lutheranism in the six­ teenth century. From its beginnings, the Lutheran reform saw itself threatened by fragmentarism and by that instinctive and fatal tendency to schism, which is inherent in the doc­ trine of liberty of thought (see free thought) and which was to produce the dizzy whirl of the innumerable sects of which Protestantism today is composed. Having eliminated the infallible magisterium of the Church, the Lutherans were quickly forced to seek another way in order to form at least an embryonic unity in the midst of such a great confusion of ideas. Accordingly, the device of funda­ mental articles was invented which, in the intention of several theologians of the Reformation, were to constitute a minimum creed or doctrine of faith, acceptable to all the sects. Introduced by Calixtus in Germany, by Turretin in Switzerland, and by Cranmer in England, the system of fundamental articles was zealously elaborated in France by Jurieu, who was refuted effectively by Bossuet with arguments which retain their force today. Actually, the system of fundamen­ tal articles, as a substitute for the living magisterium of the Church, does not hold up. Evidently there is a gradation among the mysteries and the other revealed truths so that one is more important than another; but articles of faith both Scripture and Tradition do not permit the faithful to accept certain revealed truths and reject others, even when these are of less importance. The Christian is called to adhere to Christ and His teaching integrally; the unity of faith is the dominant motif of divine revelation on which St. Paul insists energetically, as, e.g.: “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). There is, then, no place for selection in the truths proposed to the faith of the believers, as the Protestants would have it. Even were there the possibility of selection in order to effect the unity desired, it would still have to be proved that there is some­ one or something having the right to establish what the fundamental articles indispensable of belief are; and so, willy-nilly, the Protestants return to the concept of a regula -fidei (rule of faith) imposed by a teaching au­ thority, which is what they denied. BIBLIOGRAPHY Müller, Die Bekenntnischriften der reformierten Kirchen (1903). Niemeyer, Collectio Confessionum in ecclesiis reformatis publica­ tarum (1840). articles of faith. An expression which gained popularity in the Scho­ lastic epoch (eleventh century) to indicate especially the propositions or statements contained in the Apostolic Symbol (see Symbol), i.e., the Apos­ tles’ Creed, which was first called sententiae (sentences). All theologians agree in calling the revealed truths of the Symbol articles of faith, but differ in the specific determination to be given to the concept article. The best and most precise descrip­ tion of article is found in St. Thomas (Summa Theol., II—II, q. 1, a. 6), who says that the term derives from the Gr. Artotyrites 22 άρθρον, an organic part or element of an organism. Therefore, not any truth of revelation is called an ar­ ticle, but only those truths in which the formal reason of faith (to believe on the authority of God) is present and which is bound up organically with the principal body of revealed doctrine. Thus understood, the ar­ ticles of faith in theological science have the function of fundamental principles, which the theologian ac­ cepts without discussion as being cer­ tain and sure by virtue of the authority of God, absolute truth. Analogously in human sciences sub­ ordinated among themselves one takes, without discussion, its basic principles from another, e.g., physics from mathematics, architecture from geometry. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II-II, q. i, a. 6; Opusc. De articulis fidei. MacDonald, The Symbol (New York, 1903). Suarez, De fide theologica, disp. 2, Opera omnia, Vol. 12 (Paris, 1858). Artotyrites (Gr. άρτον — bread and τυρόν — cheese). Heretics of the third century who celebrated the Eucharist with bread and cheese, under the pretext that the patriarchs of old nourished themselves with such food, and that Jesus Christ would not have departed from their eating habits at the Last Supper. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bareille, “Artotyrites," DTC. ascetics, asceticism (Gr. άσκίω— I practice). Ascetics or ascetical theology is the science of Christian perfection. It is based on dogma, from which it draws light and vitality; it presupposes moral theology and goes beyond it, leading man from the observance of the law to that of the evangelical counsels (poverty, chasti­ ty, obedience). It is distinguished from mystics or mystical theology (see mystics), for which it is a preparation. Asceticism consists in the practice of the Christian virtues in order to effect the union of the soul with God, in so far as possible, on this earth. The Greeks had a physical ascesis (athletics) and an intellectual and moral ascesis, as that, e.g., of the Stoics and the Neo-Platonists, in­ tended to free the spirit from the chains of the passions and of material things. Christian asceticism is defined by Christ Himself, who invites to re­ nunciation, abnegation, and the strug­ gle for the conquest of heaven. The Apostles and the saints of all times have understood the lesson and carried it out in full, imitating the example of Jesus Christ. St. Thomas (Summa Theol., II-II, q. 24, a. 9) has outlined, in a schema that has been classical since his time, the whole of Christian asceticism. Asceticism, according to the Angelic Doctor, tends to render man perfect in his relationships with God; this perfection ripens through love in three consecutive phases: (1) beginners' phase, consisting in with­ drawal from sin by repression of the passions, especially concupiscence (the practice of mortification of the body and its senses comes in here); (2) phase of the progressives (positive phase), i.e., of those who progress in good by the practice of all the virtues under the impulse and domin­ ion of charity; (3) phase of the per­ fect, proper to those who, having triumphed over sin, are masters of themselves through subjection of their passions, and, therefore, adhere to God through charity and in Him foretaste the happiness of heaven. These three grades are also called the three ways: purgative, illumina­ tive, unitive. The Spiritual Exercises of St. Igna­ tius of Loyola arc a marvelous treatise on asceticism. It has been lightly said 23 that Christian asceticism deadens and depresses the spirit, debases man, and alienates him from life; the best an­ swer is the simple list of great ascetics who, touching the highest spheres of Christian perfection, have im­ pressed new orientations on the life of peoples: St. Benedict, St. Bernard, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Ignatius, St. Theresa. BIBLIOGRAPHY Divine, Manual of Ascetical Theology (Lon­ don, 1902). Doyle, Principles of Religious Life (London, 1906). Dublanchy, “Ascét­ isme,” DTC; “Ascétique," DTC. Fox, Re­ ligion and Morality (New York, 1899). Hamon, “Ascétisme,” DA. Mutz, “Theology (Ascetical),” CE. Pascal Parente, The Ascet­ ical Life (St. Louis, 1947), pp. 3-17, 181— 188, 231-236. Saudreau, Les degrés de la vie spirituelle (Paris, 1920). Schlacer, “Ascetisin,” CE. aseity. See essence, divine. aspersion. See baptism. Assumption of the Blessed Vir­ gin. The passage of the Blessed Virgin in soul and body from earth to life in heaven. Being immune from original sin (see Immaculate Con­ ception), she was not subject to death, which is a penalty of that sin. For that reason some writers (e.g., Epiphanius in the fourth century) doubted, and others (Palestinian tra­ dition) denied, the death of the Blessed Virgin. But Tradition, in prevalent part, teaches that Mary died in fact, although she did not incur the debt of death. Thus, St. Augus­ tine, St. Modestus of Jerusalem, St. John Damascene, and others were of that opinion; thus also the lit­ urgy (Gregorian Sacramentary, Mass of the Assumption) which intro­ duced the feast under the titles: "Dormitio” (Sleeping), "Depositio” (Depositing or Burial), and "Pausa­ tio" (or Pausation)—all terms relat­ ing to death. It was fitting that Mary should die, when even the Son Assumption of God had died. But Mary’s death, if it took place, was a death without corruption, an ineffable passing. Many legends on the death of the Virgin flourished (Historia Euthymii, recorded by St. John Damascene, Homily II, PG, 86, col. 748 ff.; Liber Transitus Sanctae Mariae, PG, 5, col. 1233). But abundant liturgical docu­ mentation, dating at least from the sixth century, attests the explicit faith of the Church in the corporeal as­ sumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven by God’s power: Emperor Maurice (582-602) fixed the feast (which already existed) on August 15; there are five testimonies in the Mozarabic Missal (sixth century), Gothic-Gallican Missal (seventh cen­ tury), and in the Sacramentarium Gregorianum. As regards the doctrine of the Assumption we have the writ­ ings of St. Gregory of Tours (sixth century), St. Modestus of Jerusalem (seventh century), St. Andrew of Crete, St. Germain of Constantinople, and St. John Damascene (eighth century); nor are traces and in­ dications lacking in the earlier Fathers (Timothy of Jerusalem and Gregory of Nyssa). In the Scholastic epoch, the theologians (e.g., St. Thomas) treat the Assumption as an indisputable truth. After the Vatican Council the definability of this truth, as a dogma of faith, has been increasingly em­ phasized by the theologians and very recently the opportuneness of the defi­ nition has been widely debated. Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950, au­ thoritatively settled the question by defining this dogma ex cathedra, in strikingly similar circumstances to those in which, nearly a century ago (December 8, 1854) his predecessor Pius IX defined the twin dogma of the Immaculate Conception, likewise implicitly contained in the same fundamental truth of the divine maternity. ataraxia 24 BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 27, a. 1; q. 83, a. 5, ad 8; Expositio in Salutationem Angelicam. Campana, Maria nel dogma cattolico (Turin, 1936). Holweck, “Assumption of the B.V.M.," CE. Jugie, La mort et l'As­ somption de la Sainte Vierge (Vatican City, 1944). Mattiussi, L’Assunzione corporea della Virgine Madré di Dio (Milan, 1924). O’Neill, “The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin ac­ cording to the teaching of Pius IX and St. Thomas," Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 44th year, n. 524, pp. 113-136. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, VI Mariology (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 105-119. As regards the question of the definability of the Assumption and the recent develop­ ment of theological literature on this dogma, see various articles published during 19481950 in the principal theological reviews (Gregorianum, Divus Thomas, Marianum, etc.), particularly: Filocrassi, “Theologia ca­ tholica et Assumptio B.M.V.,” Gregorianum, Vol. 31 (1950), η. 3, pp. 323-360. Carol, "The Definability of Mary’s Assumption," The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 118 (1948), pp. 161-177; “Recent literature on Mary’s Assumption,” ibid., Vol. 120 (1949), PP· 376-387· The theological and dogmatic content of the Apostolic Constitution of Nov. I, 1950, defining this dogma, is amply ex­ plained by Filograssi in his recent article “Constitutio Apostolica ‘Munificentissimus, Deus' de Assumptione B.M.V.,” Gregorianum, Vol. 3 (1950), n. 4, pp. 483-525· ataraxia. See suffering. Athanasius. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 301 f.); Arianism. atheism (Gr. à θεός— without God). The attitude of those who ignore or deny God. Atheism is: (a) theoretical, if it is founded on judgments of the mind; (b) practical, if it prescinds from reasoning and shows itself in the manner of living. Theoretical atheism can be either negative or posi­ tive, according as it implies ignorance of God or denial of God with motiva­ tion. The question which apologists and theologians pose is twofold: I. Are there or can there be nega­ tive atheists? Many answer nega­ tively; others admit the fact and, consequendy, the possibility with vari­ ous limitations (for some time; not for one’s whole life; relative and not absolute ignorance; etc.). The more correct answer: absolute and invin­ cible ignorance of the existence of God, in principle, cannot be conceded because it is impossible for human reason not to ascend from experience of the external world and the internal world of man to the cause of them, as well as it is impossible for man not to feel at all the force of the moral law (see Cod'). The Vatican Council speaks to this effect. But it is also true that relative ignorance of God is possible on account of abnormality, or some period of psychological dark­ ness; likewise, it is also possible that a clear idea of the existence of God be lacking. 2. Does positive atheism exist or is it possible? Here also tliere is a divergence of opinion, which, how­ ever, is not substantial. The more probable answer: Since the existence of God is not immediately evident, man can fail to see the force of the arguments advanced to prove it and can, consequently, accept some con­ trary argument, forming thus a false conviction. But a positive atheist is always guilty, at least initially, for lack of prudence, of careful considera­ tion, and of more accurate and dis­ passionate investigation. An atheist really convinced and in perfect good faith is a hypothesis bordering on the absurd. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aveling, “Atheism,” CE. Boedder, Natu­ ral Theology (New York, 1891). Flint, Antitheistic Theories (New York, 1894). Lilly, The Great Enigma (New York, 1892). Sertillanges, Les sources de la croyance en Dieu (Paris, 1928). Shea, “Steps to Atheism," The Amer. Cath. Quart. Rev. (1879). Toussaint, “Athéisme," DTC. Athenagoras. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 301). 25 attention. The application of the mind to what one is doing at the moment. It is an act of the intellect and is formally distinct from inten­ tion, which is an act of the will (see intention'). Attention, in opposition to distraction, is termed internal when it excludes all wandering of the mind on things extraneous to the act being done; it is called external when it excludes all those external actions which are incompatible with internal attention; e.g., one who draws, reads, talks, etc., during prayer, does not have the external attention of prayer. Now, as regards meditation, all are in agreement in requiring internal attention; as regards satisfaction of the obligation of reciting the Breviary, some say that external attention is enough (Durand, Lugo, Tamburini, Noldin), but many say that internal attention is required as well (Cajetan, D. Soto, Suarez, Billuart). This last opinion is considered more probable and more common by St. Alphonsus. In the administration of the sacra­ ments, external attention is enough for validity, but internal attention is re­ quired for liceity. In reception of the sacraments, on the other hand, no at­ tention is necessary in tire subject for validity, while for liceity, not only external but also internal attention is required. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Π-Π, q. 83, «i. 13. Oblet, “Attention,” DTC. Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis, Vol. 2, η. 354“ <59; Vol. 3> η. 6ι, 87. Thamiry, “Attention," DDC. Vernay, “Attention," DS. nttributes of God. The human mind, considering the various perfec­ tions of creatures, forms different con­ cepts and attributes them to God analogically (see analogy), e.g., good, just, omnipotent. Again, revelation gives many names of God (Creator, Holy, Eternal, etc.). The attributes arc properties predicated of God as attributes of God being {static attributes) or as acting {dynamic attributes). At first sight these multiple and diverse attributes would seem to be in conflict with the divine simplicity {q.v.). Hence the dilemma: either the attributes have a real and ontological value, and then God is no longer simple; or they do not have a real value, and then nearly all revelation and theology are a vain play on words. The problem consists in determin­ ing the distinction between the es­ sence and the attributes, as well as the mutual distinction among the attributes themselves. Distinction is opposed to identity and can be real or logical, according as two or more things are distinct in themselves, on­ tologically (e.g., the soul and body, the body and one of its parts, the person and the qualities of the per­ son), or are distinct only in our mind as concepts (e.g., the same person con­ sidered as a doctor, an artist, a citizen, is really only one subject, which is distinct logically in three). Logical or conceptual distinction {distinctio ra­ tionis) may be purely such, as when I designate the same person by two names: Tullius, Cicero; and then it is called distinctio rationis ratiocinantis (rational of the “rationalizer”). But, while it remains a logical or con­ ceptual distinction, it can have a foundation in ontological reality; it is then termed distinctio rationis ra­ tiocinatae (rational of the thing ra­ tionalized on), e.g., between the liv­ ing body and its life. In God, while every kind of real distinction is excluded (see simplic­ ity), a logical distinction with real foundation is commonly admitted. The real attributes are logically dis­ tinct among themselves and from the essence because they involve formally different concepts, like justice and mercy; but they are not pure concepts, because there corresponds to them a true reality, i.e., the infinite essence of 26 attrition God, which in its simple actuality transcends our finite intellect and con­ tains in an eminent manner all the perfections signified by those attri­ butes. On account of the purest sim­ plicity of God, every attribute includes the others. The properties of the divine Persons are something else; they necessitate a real distinction, which is, however, only relative, not absolute (see Trinity; relation, divine; notions, divine). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1, q. 13. Flint, Theism (Edinburgh, 1879). Fox, "Attributes (Divine),” CE. Garrigoü-Lagrange, God, trans. Rose, 2 vols. (St. Louis, 1947-1948); The One God, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1943), p. 163 fl. Peter Parente, De Deo Uno (Rome, 1938), p. 183 ff. Pohle-Preuss, Dog­ matic Theology, I God: Knotvability, Es­ sence, Attributes (St. Louis, 1946), p. 177 ff. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 79-110. attrition. See contrition. audients chumen. (auditors). See cate­ Augustine. See “Outline of the His­ tory of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 302); Augustinianism; grace; Pelagianism; predestination; Semi-Pelagianism; sin, original. Augustinianism. Term of broad historical and doctrinal signification, used in philosophy and theology to indicate the tendency, the spirit, and the doctrine of St. Augustine, accord­ ing to the development obtained in the interpretations of the various schools. Philosophically, Augustinian­ ism, which in various points is con­ nected with Neoplatonism, dominates the Middle Ages up to the advent of Aristotelianism, introduced in the schools by St. Thomas and his teacher, St. Albert the Great. The principal philosophical theories of Augustinian­ ism were: fusion of theology with philosophy and so of the natural with the supernatural, the primacy of Good over Truth and of the will over the intellect, divine illumination of the intelligence, sharp division of the soul from the body, plurality of sub­ stantial forms in one composed being and, therefore, also in man, rationes seminales in matter (see cosmogony), hylomorphic composition (matter and form) applied also to spiritual crea­ tures. This current prevailed in the school of St. Victor and in the Fran­ ciscan Order (St. Bonaventure, Scotus), and developed a sharp hostility against St. Thomas and his doctrine based on Aristotle. Theologically, Augustinianism tri­ umphs as a vigorous affirmation of the supernatural against Pelagianism (q.v.) at the Councils of Ephesus and of Orange (2nd), but degener­ ates in the erroneous interpretations of predestinarianism (q.v.), and later, through the medium of nominalism, passes after being deformed into the heresy of Luther, Calvin, Baius, and Jansenius (see Lutheranism; Calvin­ ism; Baianism; Jansenism), all of whom appeal to St. Augustine in their aberrations. In the sixteenth cen­ tury, the Bannesians claim for them­ selves St. Augustine’s concept on grace and predestination, having recourse to the sound interpretation given by St. Thomas; however, the Molinists, es­ pecially the congruists, believe they too can adopt the principles of St. Augustine to their system. Finally in the seventeenth and eighteenth cen­ turies the Augustinians, Noris, Berti, and Belelli, returning rigidly to the doctrine of St. Augustine, at­ tempted to demonstrate its difference, notwithstanding apparent similarity, from Jansenism. Benedict XIV ap­ proved the work of Cardinal Norisio. A new, very mitigated interpretation of Augustinianism reappears in the system of the Sorbonnians, as it is called, to which adhere Thomassinus and St. Alphonsus; these theologians 27 distinguish an ordinary and an ex­ traordinary or special grace, of which only the second morally determines the will to the salutary act (moral predetermination ). BIBLIOGRAPHY Ehrle, "L’Agostinismo et 1’Aristotelismo nella Scolastica del sec. XIII,” Xenia Thomistica (1925), Vol. 3, pp. 517-588. Gaillard, Etudes sur l'histoire de la doctrine de la grâce depuis saint Augustin (Lyon, Paris, 1897). Portalie, "Augustinianisme,” DTC; “Augus­ tinisme,” DTC. authenticity (Gr. αυθεντία, in the later meaning of authority or author of a book). It means, in die juridical sense, that a book is authoritative, has an indisputable and definitive value. Tertullian {De prascr. haer., 16) seems to have been the first to apply this word to the sacred books. In opposition to the apocrypha (see Canon of the Bible), written on hu­ man initiative, the sacred Scriptures are authentic in the juridical sense in so far as they enjoy infallible author­ ity, being inspired by God, essential Truth. They are, therefore, authentic documents of divine revelation. The originals or autographs of the inspired writings are authentic in the full sense of the word; in absence of the originals, the copies are authentic inasmuch as they reproduce the orig­ inals faithfully. The Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek text of the New Testament are, there­ fore, authentic. A translation can be called authentic when it is declared such by the competent authority, i.e., by the Church. The Council of Trent {EB, 41) declared authentic the Latin version called Vulgata (Vulgate) be­ cause it was used for many centuries by the Church. Inasmuch as it is authoritative, it has probative value in matters of faith and morals (see Vulgate). Intensification of the scien­ tific method in biblical studies popu­ larized the term authenticity in a sense that may be called critical; babies namely, a book is said to be authentic when it is really of the author or of the time to which it is attributed, or when its origin is legitimate, not vitiated by fraud. It is a question, therefore, of the human origin of Holy Scripture and of research on the human authors of the sacred books, a research which — except for cases where there exists explicit affir­ mation of the Scripture itself or of the magisterium of the Church — is conducted with rational methods of investigation. BIBLIOGRAPHY Hoepfl, “Authenticité,” DBVS, cols. 666676. Mainaoe, “Canonicitc et authenticité,” Rev. Sc. Phil, et Thiol., 2 (1908), pp. 96-98. Mangenot, “Authenticité,” DTC, cols. 25842593. B babies deceased without baptism. On the fate of these little ones, some doctors expressed themselves too rigorously, others with too great indulgence. St. Augustine (followed by St. Gregory the Great, St. Anselm, Greg­ ory of Rimini, the torturer of infants, Bossuet, Berti) taught that they are damned, although punished with very light suffering. Many theologians, on the contrary, considered the most benign hypotheses. Cajetan taught that they could be saved by an act of faith made by their parents in their name. Klee thought that in the first instant of separation of the soul from the body they might be illumined in such a way as to be able to choose between good and evil. Schell believed to discern in their death a kind of martyrdom, since they die on account of Adam’s sin. These opinions, despite the laudable intentions of their pro­ ponents, are not in agreement with the sound principles of Catholic theology. Baianism 28 The more common teaching con­ stantly favored by the Church is that these babies are not only exempt from any suffering, but enjoy a nat­ ural happiness not very different from what man would have possessed had he not been elevated to the supernatural order. They are, how­ ever, subject to the pain of loss {poena damni), which consists in the priva­ tion of the possession of God (see penalty; sin, original). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Comment, in II Sent., dist. 33, q. 2, a. 2; Quaest. Disp. De Malo, q. 5, a. 2. D'Ales, De Baptismo et Confirmatione (Paris, 1927), pp. 152-158. Piolanti, De Sacramentis, Vol. 1 (Rome, 1945), pp. 190192. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, HI God: Author of Nature and the Supernatural (St. Louis, 1945), pp. 300-307. Baianism. An erroneous system of Michel de Bay {Baius in Latin), professor at Louvain in the second half of the sixteenth century. The root of this error lies in the confusion (begun by Luther) between the nat­ ural and the supernatural order (see supernatural). It may be said that Bay is a Pelagian (see Pelagianism), in the earthly paradise, and in prin­ ciple is a Lutheran after original sin. He had a heretical mentality, but fortunately sincere faith saved him by inducing him to submit to the judg­ ment of the ecclesiastical authority. The chief points of Baianism are: (a) original justice (grace, supernat­ ural and preternatural gifts; see jus­ tice) was in reality a property of man as an integral part of his nature and so was due to that nature and not gratuitous; (/>) original sin cor­ rupted human nature intrinsically, weakening its freedom which has be­ come a slave to concupiscence, mak­ ing it a sin in itself; (c) fallen man, therefore, is incapable of any good, unless grace, integrant force of his nature, is restored to him and confers on him the capacity of doing acts naturally good, which through the will of God are meritorious of eternal life; {d) grace is not a habit (see Lutheranism), but is the good activity itself, under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, corresponding to a need of na­ ture itself; (e) man is either under the dominion of grace and of right love, excited by the Holy Spirit, which make his actions good and worthy of heaven; or under the power of con­ cupiscence and earthly love, which make all his actions sins (the works of the pagans, deprived of grace, are “vices in the garb of virtues”); (/) efficacious and irresistible grace is nec­ essary for every good work; it deter­ mines the will intrinsically without destroying or hampering freedom, since only extrinsic coaction is contrary to freedom, not intrinsic necessity. Bay, proceeding thus in the direc­ tion of pessimism, prepared the way for Jansenism {q.v.). In 1567 Pius V condemned 79 propositions extracted from the writings of Bay, who sub­ mitted. However, he remained at­ tached to his principles and discussed pontifical infallibility in an unfavor­ able tone (cf. DB, 1001-1080). The currents of modern religious immanentism {q.v.) are connected with Baianism in many respects. BIBLIOGRAPHY Jansen, Baius et le Botanisme (Louvain, 1927). Kroll, "The Causes of the Jansenist Heresy," Am. Cath. Quart. (1885). Le Bach­ elet, “Baius," DTC. Sollier, “Baius," CE. Banez. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 303); Bannesianism. Bannesianism. The development of the teaching of St. Thomas on the di­ vine concourse, on grace, and on pre­ destination {qq.v.), elaborated by the Dominican, Dominic Banez (15281604), professor at the University of Salamanca and author of acute com­ 29 mentaries on the Summa Theologica of Aquinas. Bannesianism is the antithesis of Molinism (q.v.). Toward the end of the sixteenth century, in order to combat Lutheranism and Calvinism (qq.v.) more effectively, the Jesuit theologians, in the delicate questions on the relationship of free will with grace and predestination, took as a starting point human freedom, pro­ ceeding from that to the influx of God. On the other hand, the Augus­ tinian and Thomistic tradition pro­ ceeded in the opposite direction. Louis Molina in 1588 published his famous work Concordia, in which he de­ fended the simultaneous divine con­ course, i.e., divine action parallel to human action, and the middle knowl­ edge (scientia media) of God (see science, divine). He hoped thereby to eliminate the difficulties of recon­ ciling human freedom with the divine influence in every human action. Banez, having been requested to pass judgment on the matter, pointed out certain erroneous propositions in the Concordia. Thus a sharp controversy was kindled between the Jesuits and the Dominicans which, referred to the pope at Rome, was hotly discussed in many sessions (Congregatio de Auxiliis), without arriving at a con­ ciliation of the two tendencies. Dis­ cussion continues even today on these matters in theological schools. Banez interprets St. Thomas so as to solve the problem with the follow­ ing principles: (a) God moves the human will in the natural order: the divine motion moves the will previ­ ously (prevenit) and determines it to choose this or that thing (premotion or rather physical predetermination); (b) in the supernatural order, effica­ cious grace is a predetermination to the salutary act; (c) notwithstanding this predetermination in the two orders, the will remains free because it does not lose the capacity of resisting the baptism divine influence, although in fact it does not resist (freedom in the divided sense, not in the composite sense)·, (d) God foresees the free future acts in the decrees of His will, by which He decides to give the predetermina­ tion to the will of those persons whom He wishes to induce infallibly to good; (e) predestination, bound with efficacious grace freely distributed, does not depend on the prevision of our merits (ante praevisa merita). Banez goes further than St. Thomas, although he remains substantially faithful to the Angelic Doctor’s principles. BIBLIOGRAPHY Del Prado, De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio (Freiburg, 1907). De Regnon, Bannésianisme et Molinisme (Paris, 1890); Bagnez et Molina (Paris, 1883). Gayraud, 'Thomisme et Molin­ isme (Toulouse, 1889). Mandonnet, ‘‘Banez," DTC. Volz, "Banez," CE. baptism (Gr. βα.πτισμ.ό<:— washing). The sacrament of spiritual purifica­ tion and regeneration. Variously prefigured in the crea­ tion, the flood, the passage of the Red Sea, the rock struck by Moses, predicted on several occasions by the prophets (Isa. 44:3-4; Ezech. 36:25-26; Zach. 13:1), and immedi­ ately prepared by the baptism of the Precursor, this sacrament was directly instituted by Jesus Christ with a pro­ gressive determination of the elements which constitute it. He indicated vaguely the exterior rite in His bap­ tism in the Jordan, where on the water (matter) there appeared mys­ teriously the Holy Trinity (“The Father in the voice, the Son in the flesh, the Holy Spirit in the dove”), in whose name it must be conferred (form); He inculcated its necessity in His colloquy with Nicodemus (John 3:5); He established particular use of baptism before His passion (John 9:1-6, collate John 4:1-2); He im­ posed it as a universal law on the baptism 30 day of His Ascension: “Going there­ fore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 28:19). The ministers, from the last cited text, are the Apostles and their suc­ cessors, the bishops, who soon were to be helped in their ministry by the priests and in particular cases by the deacons (Acts 8:12-16). From the earliest times baptism conferred (in case of necessity) by the simple faith­ ful was recognized as valid. In the third century baptism conferred by heretics, and later baptism conferred by infidels, was also recognized as valid; the IV Lateran Council (1215) defined that this sacrament is always valid, by whoever it may be admin­ istered {DB, 696). In the exact words of Matt. 28:19, water is indicated implicitly (however it had been explicitly designated in John 3:5) and the Trinitarian for­ mula clearly as constitutive elements of the external rite of baptism. The water, moreover, can be applied in three ways: by immersion (ancient usage, cf. Rom. 6:3-11), or infusion (common use in the Latin Church), or aspersion (in case of necessity). The effects of baptism are the char­ acter and the grace of regeneration. The character (see character, sacra­ mental) of baptism is a true participa­ tion, although only initial, of the Priesthood of Christ, in so far as it confers the three prerogatives of all priesthood: (1) sacerdotal being, be­ cause the character is an ontological consecration; (2) sacerdotal power, because, although it is principally a receptive faculty, it is also secondarily an active faculty both in the line of ascending mediation, in so far as it renders all the faithful capable of offering mediately (through a priest) the Eucharistic sacrifice, and in the line of descending mediation, as it renders simple Christians suitable to administer the sacrament of matri­ mony; (3) the congruous exercise of the priestly power, because it de­ mands, amplifies, and defends grace. With respect to the Church, the char­ acter is the first and fundamental distinctive sign, which differentiates the faithful from the infidels, and the insertive sign of incorporation into the mystical body of Christ (cf. CIC, can. 87). The grace of baptism is regenera­ tion (John 3:5), which implies (Rom. 6:3-11), on the one hand, death to sin (original and actual, mortal and venial, with all its penal conse­ quences), i.e., total separation from the old Adam; and, on the other, resurrection to a new life accom­ plished through insertion in Christ, the new Adam, by means of sanctify­ ing grace. Inasmuch as Christ exerts His action by the infusion of grace, He functions as Head, constituting the faithful His own members. Inas­ much as the effect of Christ’s influ­ ence is grace, He configures them to His nature, making them His brothers through likeness to Him (Rom. 8:29). Now, since Christ is our Head and our older Brother, natural Son of God, in and through Him we become adoptive sons of the Father, who sends into us His Spirit (“in whom we call: Abba, Father.” Rom. 8:15). Sons of God, we have a right to the helps (actual grace), to the food (Eucharist), to the inheritance of the Father (beatific vision) (cf. Rom. 8:17). Finally, being brothers of the First-born of the Father, sons of the same Father, we all form one family, the Church, vivified by the circula­ tion of the same spiritual goods, the “Communion of Saints.” This second effect (the grace of regeneration) may be obtained by way of exception, so to speak {quasi per baptismi supplementa, i.e., through quasi-substitutes for baptism), cither by an act of charity {baptismus flam- 31 inis, of flame) or by martyrdom {baptismus sanguinis, of blood). But all, babies (see babies deceased with­ out baptism) and adults, must in one way or another participate in the Church to be able to enter God’s kingdom (John 3:5; Mark 16:15). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II, qq. 66-71. D’Alès, Baptême et Confirmation (Paris, 1928). Bellamy, Bareille, Bour, Ermoni, Ruch, Mangenot, ‘‘Baptême,” DTC. Con­ nell, De Sacramentis (Brugis, 1933), pp. 105-144. Cuttaz, Les effets du Baptême (Paris, 1934). Doronzo, De Baptismo et Con­ firmatione (Milwaukee, 1947). Duchesne, Christian Worship, Its Origin and Evolution, trans. McClure (London, 1903). Fanning, "Baptism," CE. Gasquet, “The Early His­ tory of Baptism and Confirmation," Dublin Review (1895), p. 116 ff. Jacono, Il battesimo nel pensiero di S. Paolo (Rome, 1935). Lemonnyer, Notre Baptême d'après Saint Paul (Paris, 1930). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, VIII The Sacraments, Vol. I, The Sacraments in General, Baptism, Confirma­ tion (St. Louis, 1945), p. 204 IT. The Teach­ ing of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 767-802. Vacant, "Baptême,” DTC. Barnabas. See “Outline of the His­ tory of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 301). Basil. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 301 f.). beatification. The recognition and declaration of the sanctity of a servant of God, made by the competent au­ thority (in the current discipline, by the Holy See). Such declaration is formal when the Roman pontiff — after juridical proof that public cult has not been given to the servant of God, demonstration of the heroic quality of his virtues or the fact of his martyrdom, authentic recognition of miracles worked through his inter­ cession— permits public cult of the servant of God under determined con­ ditions and limitations. The declara­ tion is equivalent, on the other hand, when the Holy See confirms the public cult paid to a servant of God beatitude ab immemorabili, after juridical dis­ cussion on the fame of sanctity or on his martyrdom. In the first centuries the authority of the bishop was sufficient to approve the cult of martyrs. Likewise, in the early Middle Ages the bishops con­ firmed or at least permitted the cult spontaneously offered by the faithful. Only in the twelfth century did Alexander III reserve to the Holy See the causes of beatification — a reserva­ tion that was not entirely effective until the constitution, Coelestis Jeru­ salem, of Urban VIII (1634), forbade severely the paying of public cult to any servant of God who was not regularly beatified. This consti­ tution permitted, however, that those “blessed” should continue to be so honored to whom public cult had been paid ab immemorabili or at least for 100 years, even though they had not been beatified officially. In the eighteenth century Benedict XIV, with that juridical acumen with which he was distinguished, codified into a system the procedure for beatification, now substantially incor­ porated in the Code of Canon Law. None, even the uninitiated in jurid­ ical studies, can fail to recognize the supreme prudence, evident in every procedural step of the beatification process. The Church really proceeds, as the saying goes, “with feet of lead.” BIBLIOGRAPHY Beccari, “Beatification and Canonization," CE. Benedict XIV, De Servorum Dei beatificatione et Beatorum canonizatione. Indelicato, I fondamenti giuridici del processo di beatificazione (Rome, 1494). Ortolan, “Beati­ fication,” DTC. beatific vision. See vision, beatific. beatitude. The ultimate perfection of the intellectual being. Boethius defines it: “A state perfect by the cumulation of all goods” (De Consolat. Philos., BI, 2). Beghards 32 Beatitude may be considered ob­ jectively and subjectively (formally'): in the first sense it is the supreme good, capable of rendering the in­ tellectual being perfectly happy; in the second sense it is the perfect happiness of the intellectual subject who enjoys that good. Scotus and, in part, St. Bonaventure, place beatitude prefer­ entially in an act of the will (love)·, St. Thomas makes it consist prin­ cipally in the intellect (knowledge), on which the will follows. For man, in the actual state of things, beatitude is the beatific vision (see vision, beatific), i.e., God seen intuitively (immediately, directly, “face to face”) in His essence (su­ preme, supernatural end). But beati­ tude in the highest grade belongs to God alone: objectively, He is the summum bonum (supreme good), and subjectively, He knows Himself and loves Himself in an infinite way, and so is infinitely blessed or happy. This divine happiness may neither be diminished or increased by creatures: when revelation speaks of God’s sor­ row or increase in joy it speaks in figures so as to be intelligible to men. By the Incarnation God put Himself in a condition to taste our joys and sorrows with a human heart. The word beatitude is also used to signify the eight rules promulgated by Jesus in the Gospel (Matt. 5:3-11): “Blessed are the poor . . . Blessed are the meek ...” etc. They go under the name of Sermon on the Mount, and are the synthesis of the gospel message. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 26. Gardeil, "Béatitude," DTC. Sertili.anges, Saint Thomas d’Aquin, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1925), p. 273. Beghards (old German beggam — to beg; to pray). One of the numerous religious sects which seethed, as it were, between the twelfth and thir­ teenth centuries in Europe. Actually the Beghards are a derivation of the Beguines, women consecrated to a life of chastity and, often, of poverty. Both societies were orthodox in the beginning, but soon began to deviate, especially the Beghards, who tried to imitate the extravagances of other sects, as that of the Fraticelli (Litde Friars). It is interesting from a theological viewpoint to know the doctrine they professed and spread. We have an authentic summary of it in the propo­ sitions condemned by the Council of Vienne (1311-1312). Man may attain in this life so great spiritual perfection as to become impeccable. Arrived at this height, man can do without fasts, prayers, obedience to authority, and, besides, should no longer worry about his body, to which he may give any­ thing it wishes without sinning. Moreover, the perfect spiritual man can, even in this life, rise to the vision of God without the light of glory ("lumen gloriae”). What we are naturally inclined to is not sinful; the contemplative mystic should not lower himself to the cult of the Eucharist and of the humanity of Christ (DB, 471, 478). Aversion to the Roman Church is another characteristic of Beghardism. The features of the later quietism (q.v.; see Molinosism) are easily dis­ cernible in this heresy. BIBLIOGRAPHY Gilliat, Smith, “Beguines”; “Beghards," CE. Mosheim, De beghardis el beguinabus commentarius (Leipzig, 1790). Vernet, “Béghardes, Béguines hétérodoxes,” DTC. Bellarmine. See “Outline of the His­ tory of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 303). Berengarian heresy. Berengarius of Tours, archdeacon of Angers (1000-1088), was educated in the School of Chartres under the direc­ tion of Fulbert, but quickly departed 33 from the example and teaching of his pious master. Indulging in his ration­ alistic proclivities, he denied the truth of transubstantiation giving the following reasons: (r) the acci­ dents are inseparable from their sub­ stance, and, therefore, since they remain unchanged after consecration, we must conclude that their substance also remains without any change; (2) it is impossible for a substance to be transformed into another pre­ existing substance. Having rejected transubstantiation, it was logical he should deny the Real Presence. He did, advancing these arguments: (a) were Christ present in the Eucharist, He would have to be multiplied and to be distant from heaven; (£) the Eucharist, moreover, is a sacrament, i.e., a signum rei sacrae (sign of a sacred thing), according to the defini­ tion of St. Augustine; therefore, the eucharistie bread and wine do not contain, but merely signify the body and blood of Christ. Such dialectic shows not only heretical daring, but also philosophical poverty and lack of theological judgment. The audacious statements of the archdeacon provoked a heated polemic in which the best minds of the age united (Lanfranc of Bee, Guitmund of Aversa, Adelmann of Brescia, Durandus of Troarn, etc.). Several condemnations of the Church fol­ lowed: seven councils assembled in order to bend the crafty scholastic, who finally in the Roman Synod (1079) accepted a Eucharistic for­ mula, worked out by Alberic of Monte Cassino, in which transubstan­ tiation and the Real Presence were clearly enunciated. But his was a feigned submission, for as soon as he returned home he began to de­ fend his error again; overcome finally by grace, he performed ten years of penance, and died reconciled with the Church. Although a contemporary writer reports that even common Bible people took an interest in the Berengarian heresy, the polemic was con­ fined within the walls of the theological schools, with the effect rather of occasioning more profound study of the doctrine (the word transubstantiation was then coined), and with it an increase in Eucharistic piety. BIBLIOGRAPHY Cappuyns, "Bérenger de Tours,” DHGE. Doronzo, De Eucharistia, Vol. 1 (Milwaukee, 1948), Index Analyticus, “Berengarius.” Mac­ donald, Berengarius and the Reform Sacra­ mental Doctrine (London, 1930). Matronola, Un testo inedito di Berengario di Tours e il Concilio Romano del 107g (Milan, 1936). Sauvage, “Berengarius of Tours,” CE. Vernet, "Bérenger de Tours,” DTC. Berengarius. See Berengarian heresy. Bernard. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 302). Bible. The noun bible reproduces the Greek neuter plural τα βιβλία (the books), which passed into medieval Latin and into the modern languages in the singular form with the meaning of the collection of all the books inspired by God, commonly called Holy Scripture. While the Greek word brings out the composite character of the divine book, i.e., the multiplicity of books contained there­ in, the derived word (Biblia, Bible) stresses its one author and one spirit. The 72 books of the Bible are divided into two large sections: the Old and the New Testaments (qq.v."). The word Testament, according to the meaning of the original Hebrew noun (berith) and of the Greek term which translated it from the begin­ ning (διαθήκη), can mean either that those books contain the dispositions with which God promised (Old Testament) and granted (New Testa­ ment) to His faithful, the goods culminating in the possession of Billot 34 eternal happiness, or that they con­ tain the series of pacts and alliances by which, in the course of the cen­ turies, God bound man to Himself in view of His Redemption. The Old Testament, initially the sacred patrimony of the Hebrew people elected by God as depositary of His promises of Redemption, passed subsequently, completed by the New, by legitimate inheritance to the Church, which is the real Israel, the authentic chosen people, in favor of whom the divine promises of old were fulfilled. Actual Church legislation (CIC, cans. 1391, 1399, 1400) forbids the faithful to read vernacular transla­ tions of the Bible which do not have the approbation of the Holy See and are not published under the vigilance of the bishops, furnished with annota­ tions extracted from the Fathers and Catholic interpreters. The editions of the original texts and of the ancient versions, as well as translations by Catholic authors, are permitted to scholars. BIBLIOGRAPHY Darlow, Moule, Hist. Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture (London, 1903-1904). Graham, Where We Got the Bible (St. Louis). Hopfl, Gut, Introductio generalis in S. Scripturam (Rome, 1940). Institutiones Biblicae, ed. Pontifical Biblical Institute, Vol. 2 (Rome, 1937). Maas, "Scrip­ ture,” CE. Messmer, Outlines of Bible Knowl­ edge (London-St. Louis, 1910). Pickar, A Commentary on the New Testament (Wash­ ington, D. C., 1942). Pope, Catholic Student's Aids to the Bible, 3 vols. (London, 1913); The Laymen's New Testament (New York, 1938). Rooney, Preface to the Bible (Mil­ waukee, 1949). Schumaker, A Handbook, of Scripture Study, 3 vols. (St. Louis, 1923). Seisenberger, Practical Handbook, for the Study of the Bible (New York, 1933). Steinmueller, A Companion to Scripture Studies, 3 vols. (New York, 1941-1943). Vaughan, Concerning the Holy Bible, Its Use and Abuse (London, 1904). Billot. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 303). bishops (Gr. επίσκοπος— inspector, superintendent). The successors of the Apostles, from whom they have inherited by divine right the triple power of instructing, sanctifying, and governing a portion of the flock of Christ (cf. Matt. 28:19). The Apostles, having had the man­ date of constituting by conquest the kingdom of God in the world, had no territorial limitations. But the function of conquest, being directed to the organization of the ecclesi­ astical society, was of its nature transient (personal prerogative). In fact, from the beginning the Apostles, put in charge of the individual com­ munities, founded in the various regions of their apostolate persons that might represent them during their lifetime and be their replace­ ments after death (cf. 1 Tim. 6:1-2; 2 Tim. 2:25; 4:2; Titus 1:13; 2:1). It is true that in the inspired docu­ ments bishops and priests (presbyters) are named promiscuously, but at the end of the first century and at the beginning of the second we learn from the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch (f 107) that every Church was ruled by its bishop {monarchical episcopate). The bishops, through consecration, which is the most suggestive cere­ mony of Catholic liturgy, are elevated to the apex of the Christian priesthood, the episcopal character being im­ pressed on their souls by virtue of which they are vested with the power of orders, which implies the power of confirming and ordaining (cf. Coun­ cil of Trent, sess. 23, cans. 6 and 7; DB, 966, 967). The power of juris­ diction, on the other hand, which in­ cludes the twofold faculty of teaching and governing, is transmitted to them by the missio canonica, which is a juridical act directly or indirectly emanating from the pope, the head of the bishops as Peter was the prince of the Apostles. The power of 35 jurisdiction of the bishops is ordinary and immediate in their own dioceses, notwithstanding the primacy of the Roman pontiff (Vatican Council, DB, 1828). The priests are subalternately united to the bishop like “chords to the zither” (Ignatius Martyr, Ephes. 3-4), as are the deacons and the inferior ministers who help him in the performance of his divers func­ tions and ecclesiastical offices. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Π-ΙΙ, q. 108, a. 4, ad 2; q. 184, a. 6, ad 1; Summa Contra Gentiles, 1. 4, c. 76. Ermoni, Les origines de I'Episcopat (Paris, 1905). Michiels, "Evêques,” DA. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, XI The Sacraments, Vol. 4, Ex­ treme Unction, Holy Orders, Matrimony (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 80-93. Pkat, Valton, "Évêques," DTC. Ruffini, La gerarchia della C.hiesa negli Atti degli Apostoli e nelle lettere di S. Paolo (Rome, 1921). Taunton, The Law of the Church (London, 1906). Van Hove, “Bishops," CE. See under orders, holy. body, human. The material con­ stitutive element of man. Holy Scrip­ ture maintains that the body of the first man was formed by God Himself, by special action, from the earth (Gen. 2:7; cf. Tob. 8:8; Ecclus. 33:10; Wisd. 7:1, etc.). The integral evolutionists extend evolution of the lower species up to man (soul and body); according to them, the human body is the result of the development of the animals nearest to man (the apes). Reasons: (e) the discovery of skeletons which are halfway between man and ape (e.g., the Pithecanthropus erectus of fava); (£) the great anatomic affinity of the human body and those of lower animals. The Biblical Commis­ sion (Response of 1909; see cos­ mogony) forbids the calling in doubt of the historicity of the biblical ac­ count of the special creation of man. The reasons adopted by the evolu­ Bogomile tionists are uncertain and equivocal; anatomic affinity proves only the harmonic unity of nature. While natural reason has no opposition to make to the biblical account, it recognizes, on the other hand, the absurdity of a body generated by animals and then informed by a soul (see soul)·, a substantial form cannot inform a matter which is organized and which belongs to a level below its perfection. Moreover, evolutionism has yet to prove why apes do not continue to produce human bodies or, what is more, men. The body of Eve, according to the sacred text, was formed from a rib taken from Adam by God. The divine action has a deep meaning, both proper and figurative, according to the Fathers: (1) the profound unity of the two sexes and the sub­ ordination of woman to man; (2) Eve symbolizes the Church, issued from the wounded side of Christ. Catholic doctrine energetically de­ fends also the unity of the human race derived from one couple, AdamEve (monogenesis). Paleontology, ethnology, racialism cannot advance against this truth any difficulties worthy of consideration (see evolu­ tionism). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, qq. 91-92. Boyer, De Deo creante et devante (Rome, 1940), pp. 178 β. De Sinéty, “Transform­ isme,” DA. Marcozzi, Le origini dell-uomo (Rome, 1942). Sertillanges, Dieu ou rien, Vol. i (Paris, 1933). Body, Mystical. See Mystical Body. Bogomile (Bulgar, bog-mile, equiv­ alent of the Gr. Οίο'φιλος — friend of God). A sect with a basic dualistic cast (see Manichaeism), which spread from the tenth to the fourteenth cen­ turies particularly in Bulgaria, with some ramifications in Bosnia-Herze­ govina, Greece, and Hungary. It was Bonaventure 36 attacked and condemned by Popes Honorius III, Gregory IX, Boni­ face VIII, and Benedict XII. A Bogomilian strain still subsists in Bulgaria. Like every sect infected by Mani­ chaeism, it rejects: («) all specifically Christian truths; (Z>) the hierarchical form of the Church; (c) sacramental organism and external cult. It retains only the recital of the Pater Noster and is characterized by its claim of establishing direct relations with God through a purely interior cult, includ­ ing attainment of the beatific vision on earth with bodily eyes. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bardy, “Bogomiles," DNGE. Gacov, Theo­ logia antibogomilistica Cosmae Presbyteri Bulgari saec. X (Rome, 1942). De Guibert, Documenta ecclesiastica christianae perfectionis studium spectantia (Rome, 1931), nn. 126138. Jugie, “Bogomiles,” DS. Weber, “Bogomili,” CE. Bonaventure. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 302). seal {bulla) attached to it, on one side of which is impressed the name of the holy pontiff, and, on the other, the names of SS. Peter and Paul. If the bull is one of grace, the cords from which the seal hangs are of red or yellow silk; if it is one of justice, the cords are of hemp. Bulls may be dogmatic or disci­ plinary. Famous dogmatic bulls are: Unam Sanctam (1302) of Boniface VIII, defining subjection to the Roman pontiff as a necessity for sal­ vation for every human being (DB, 469); Auctorem Fidei (1794) of Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia; Ineffabilis Deus (1854) of Pius IX, defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception; Munificentissimus Deus (1950) of Pius XII, defining the As­ sumption of the Blessed Virgin. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ortolan, “Bulle," DTC. Pitra, "Etudes sur les lettres des papes, in Analecta Novissima (Frascati, 1885). Thurston, “Bulls and Briefs,” CE. Breviary. See liturgy. Buddhism. See suffering. bull (Lat. bulla — imprint of a seal made to authenticate public docu­ ments). One of the most solemn documents emanating from the Roman pontiff, having a determined external form and varying in content according to the intention of the pope. Its external form distinguishes it from all other documents of the Roman Curia: it bears, not on the front but on the first line, the name of the reigning pontiff, e.g., "Pius Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei." In the date, the years are computed from the coronation of the pontiff, but, in case the bull antedates corona­ tion, the phrase "A die suscepti Apostolatus" is used. It has a lead Cajetan. See “Outline of the His­ tory of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 303). Calvinism. The heretical system of Calvin (John Chauvin), who was born at Noyon, France (1509) but who lived most of his life at Geneva, Switzerland, where he exercised the most powerful influence on the populace. Switzerland was already disturbed by the religious ideas of Zwingli, a contemporary of Luther, with whom Calvin agreed on various fundamental points of the Reforma­ tion although he was generally more moderate. Calvin borrowed from one and the other, adding his own per­ sonal principles. He adopted the Lutheran concepts on liberty of thought (individual 37 interpretation of the Holy Scripture), on original sin and its consequences, on extrinsic justification, and on the sufficiency of faith without works (see Lutheranism). Proper to Calvin himself are the following: (e) the “inadmissibility” of grace (grace or justification being conceived as an imputation made to us of the holiness and merits of Christ): whoever by faith is justified can no longer lose such a favor and is certain to be saved (Luther spoke only of the certainty of justification, not of eter­ nal salvation); (Z>) absolute predesti­ nation decreed by God for some people independently of any merit or de­ merit. God destines, according to His choice, to hell or to paradise; hence the works of those predestined to beatitude, even if evil, are considered as good by God, while the works of the future damned are evil without qualification. Moreover, he departs from Luther in that he wants a strongly organized Church: one that dictates even to the State. Calvin’s Church is that of those predestined to eternal life, i.e., of the faithful adhering to Christ by faith; it is in­ visible in itself, but visible in the ministry of the pastors. Calvin admitted only two sacra­ ments: baptism and the Supper, and as regards the nature of these he sided rather with Zwingli than with Luther. The sacraments for Calvin were external signs which attested I he grace of God in us and the honor with which we compensate God. His eucharistie doctrine was rather ob­ scure; it has been interpreted later by the Calvinists in the sense that the faithful receiving consecrated bread and wine receive from Jesus, who is in heaven, a divine force (denial of transubstantiation, of the Real Pres­ ence, and even of the symbolism which is characteristic of the sacramentary teaching of Zwingli). The principal work of Calvin is canonization Institutiones religionis Christianae (4 vols.). He followed the principles of Luther, systemized them logically, but did not name his comrade. Calvinism was condemned together with Luther­ anism by the Council of Trent. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aubin, Histoire de la vie, des ouvrages et des doctrines de Calvin (Paris, 1841). Barry, “Calvinism,” CE. Baudrillat, “Calvin et Calvinisme,” DTC. Freschi, Giovanni Calvino (Milan, 1934). Maimbourg, Histoire du Calvinisme (Paris, 1682). Cano, Melchior. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (P· 3°3)· canonization. The solemn pro­ nouncement by which the pope de­ clares that a blessed actually enjoys the beatific vision and imposes wor­ ship of the saint on the whole Church. The Roman pontiff is in­ fallible in this judgment, according to the more common doctrine. Whereas beatification {q.v.) is a preliminary judgment, not infallible but only permissive of worship, canonization is a definitive and in­ fallible judgment which orders wor­ ship. In virtue of this pontifical act: (1) worship of veneration {cultus duliae) is due to the saints; (2) their image must be surrounded with a halo; (3) their relics may be exposed and venerated; (4) the Mass and Holy Office may be celebrated in their honor; (5) feast days may be ded­ icated to their memory, and so on. Although the Church intervened from the beginning to regulate the cult of the martyrs and confessors and laid down rules, which were later slowly developed and codified (see beatification), it was only under Urban VIII, however, that a cleancut distinction was made between beatification and canonization, and both were absolutely reserved to the Holy See. Canon of the Bible 38 BIBLIOGRAPHY Beccari, "Beatification and Canonization," CE. Benedict XIV, De Servorum Dei beatificatione et Beatorum canonizatione. Cacna, De processu Canonizationis a primis Ecclesiae saeculis usque ad Codicem J. C. (Rome, 1940). Ortolan, "Canonisation," DTC. Von Hertling, “Canonisation,” DS. Canon of the Bible (GΓ. κανών — rule). Designates the collection or catalogue of those books which, since they are inspired by God, are the rule of truth and light. A book is, therefore, canonical which is found in the Canon, inasmuch as it is in­ spired by God and as such has been recognized by the Church. From the sixteenth century it has been the custom to call protocanonical the books on whose divine origin there has been unanimous consent of the whole Church from the begin­ ning, and deuterocanonical those books whose inspiration was chal­ lenged prior to about the fifth cen­ tury. The term deuterocanonical does not have an absolute value in so far as it does not indicate a book which at a second (Scvrepo·;), i.e., later time, was introduced into the Canon; even the books of a doubtful authen­ ticity had been received into the Canon of the Church from the beginning. The Hebrews, followed by the Protestants who have also influenced schismatic Churches, repudiate the following deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Machabees, passages of Esther and Daniel — books and passages all written and preserved in Greek. The deuterocanonical books of the New Testament are: the Epistles to the Hebrews, of James, 2 of Peter, 2 and 3 of John, of Jude, and the Apocalypse. Books with titles and content similar to those of the Old or New Testament, but not rccogniz.cd by the Church as inspired, and excluded from the Canon, are called Apoc­ rypha (tf.it.). The Protestants call the deutero­ canonical books apocryphal, reserving the term pseudepigrapha (with false tide) for the books which we call apocryphal. BIBLIOGRAPHY Mangenot, “Canon des livres saints,” DTC. Reid, “Canon of the Holy Scripture,” CE. Seisenberger, Practical Handbook for the Study of the Bible (New York, 1933), pp. 195-207. Steinmueller, A Companion to Scripture Studies, Vol. 1 (New York, 1941), pp. 44-103. Zarb, De historia canonis utriusque Testamenti (Rome, 1934). Canon of the Mass (Gr. κανών — rule). That body of prayers of the Mass which begins after the Sanctus and ends with the Amen before the Pater Noster. The Canon has been designated by different names. In ancient times it was called the prayer (ευχή) par excellence, because the supreme Gift, namely, Jesus Christ, was asked in it; it was called also Action, from the Latin expression agere causam (to defend a case at law): in fact, the priest, in the person of Christ, defends the cause of the whole Church before God the Father. The Greeks call it anaphora (αναφορά), i.e., offering. In the Middle Ages it was called canon consecrationis, because in those prayers the bread and wine are con­ secrated, to distinguish it from the communion (canon communionis) which follows. The Latins preferred the term canon, as expressing the fixed and regular part of the Mass. The present-day Canon in the Roman Missal is that of St. Gregory the Great and goes back, therefore, to the end of the sixth century. There are elements in it which warrant the assertion that at the end of the fourth century it was substantially the same as today. The central nucleus of the Canon takes its inspiration from the 39 words and actions of Jesus at the Last Supper. If, in fact, the passages which were added later are left out of con­ sideration (memento of the living and dead, in connection with the reading of the diptychs or tables with the names of the living and the dead to be prayed for), the fundamental theme of the Canon is thanksgiving to God for the work of Redemption (Christ "gratias egit"), which is re­ newed in the sacrificial consecration (Christ consecrated bread and wine) and again offered to the Father in union with the Son and the Holy Spirit. The priest, faithful to the command of Christ “Do this for a commemoration of Me,” commem­ orates His passion, death, resurrec­ tion, and ascension and, together with all the Church, renews the offering which He made of Himself. At first the Canon was recited aloud, but later it became the custom to pro­ nounce it in a low voice and with the most profound recollection, per­ haps to surround such sacred words with a halo of mystery. This does not mean that the people should not know the rich content of this prayer. Rather it is the desire of the Church that the faithful be impregnated in its spirit and follow the priest, re­ peating the same formula “which is penetrated with faith and perfumed with piety, full of power and action. Its simple language has a vital char­ acter and an imprint of antiquity, which moves the pronouncer with the same impression produced by the mysterious shadows of the basilicas of the Eternal City” (Gihr). It is noteworthy that the Council of Trent has declared the Canon of the Mass to be immune from all error (DB, 74»)· BIBLIOGRAPHY Botte, Le canon de la Messe Romaine, Alltion critique, introduction et notes (Louv.iin, 1935). Cauin, L'Anaphore apostolique (I'aris, 1919). Doronzo, De Eucharistia, Vol. catechesis 2 (Milwaukee, 1948), p. 1194 if. Fortescue, "Canon of the Mass," CE. Molien, La prière de I’Eglise, Vol. 1, Messe et Heures de Jour (Paris, 1923). Moureau, “Canon de la Messe," DTC. De Puniet, La Liturgie de la Messe (Avignon, 1928). Vicourel, Le canon romain de la Messe (Paris, 1915). Capreolus. See “Outline of the His­ tory of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 303). Carlostadius (Carlstadt). See Presence, Real, Eucharistic (fact). catechesis (Gr. κατηχησις from ηχη — sound, noise; therefore κατηχίω — I resound, echo, make heard, teach). At the dawn of Christianity it meant the oral teaching of the evangelical doctrine. The term is found in St. Paul and in St. Luke, especially as a verb (cf. 1 Cor. 14:19; Acts 18:25). It is customary to distinguish be­ tween an apostolic catechesis — the preaching of the gospel heralds, sober and plain exposition, but lively and replete with the teaching of Jesus Christ — and a catechesis of the Fathers of the Church, which is the first development of the teaching as adapted to the common intelligence of the neophytes, especially under the simple form of the homily. But in a stricter sense, catechesis is the careful instruction which, from the first centuries, accompanies and is a part of the catechumenate (see cate­ chumen) in its various steps. There was an introductory catechesis, which was given to the candidates before admission to the real catechumenate; we have an interesting example of this in St. Augustine’s De catechizandis rudibus, which treats not only about the subject matter, but also of the method of teaching re­ ligious truths. After this initial preparation the aspirant was admitted to the cate­ chumenate, at first as an audient (auditor), then as a competent; and catechumen 40 the catechesis became progressively more extensive and more profound, up to the teaching of the great mys­ teries and the sacraments. In this connection, the most complete and precious document is the 24 cate­ cheses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in which are distinguished: an introduc­ tion {protocatechesis)-, 18 catecheses for those to be baptized (φωτιζόμενοι — to be illumined), which treat of sin, penance, baptism, and faith, and develop the articles of the Creed in a popular style; and, finally, the 5 mystagogical or sacramental catecheses for the newly baptized ( νεοφώτιστοι — neo-illumined). The old catechesis gave birth to the Catechism, a compendium of Chris­ tian doctrine adapted to children and adults. BIBLIOGRAPHY Hégar, Histoire du catéchisme depuis la naissance de l’Eglise jusqu'à nos jours (Paris, 1900). Duchesne, Christian Worship, Its Origin and Evolution, trans. McClure (Lon­ don, 1903). catechumen (κατ-ηχονμινος from κατηχίω — I re-echo, inform, teach). The official name of the aspirant to baptism who was being carefully pre­ pared for the Christian initiation. The catechumenate, embryonic in the apostolic age, was gradually and progressively organized to accom­ modate the influx of converts to the new faith (from the end of the second century, under Emperor Commodus). It consisted in the instruction of the mind (catechesis, q.v.), which gave rise to existent schools (cf. the Alexandrian Didascaleion), and in the formation of the heart by means of rites, prayers, and ascetic practices (fasting, penances). Its organization varied according to the different churches, but generally included ttvo classes of candidates: audient and competent catechumens, correspond­ ing to the two periods of preparation: remote, which lasted up to three years, and proximate, which coincided wholly or partially with Lent and closed with the conferring of baptism on the night before Easter Sunday, when the competents became faithful or neophytes (regenerated). Admission to the catechumenate, especially after defections occurred in time of persecutions {lapsi — fallen from the faith into the sin of denial), was strictly controlled. A well-known Christian introduced the novice, who underwent certain ritual ceremonies (insufflation, imposition of hands, etc.). After a more or less extended period of prayers, instruction, and probation, the catechumen, properly examined, was promoted to the class of the competents, who were the object of a more intense intellectual and moral formation. They prepared for the coming baptism with fasts, penances, a kind of secret confession, which, however, was not sacramental; they attended a part of the Mass, learned the Credo and the Pater Noster (which was consigned to them and carefully explained: tra­ ditio), and finally they were ad­ mitted to the secret knowledge of the sacraments. Having received baptism, they remained in their white garbs until the first Sunday after Easter (hence the name of week in Albis, and Sunday in Albis). The catechu­ menate gradually disappeared with the introduction of the practice ol baptizing babies. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bareille, “Catechumenae," chesne, Christian Worship, Its DTC. Du­ Origin and Evolution, trans. McClure (London, 1903). Scannell, "Catechumen,’’ CE. catholicity (mark of the Church). Catholicity (Gr. καθολική— general, universal) is the third note or prop­ erty which the Nicene-Constantinoplc Creed attributes to the Church. Like unity and sanctity, this prerogative 41 descends as a natural corollary from the essence of the Church itself. If, in fact, the Church is humanity so­ cially and supernaturally organized in Christ, of its very nature it em­ braces all individuals of the human race; it is, in other words, universal. The whole of the gospel teaching, as well as the sympathy manifested by Christ for the Gentiles, were a prelude to the universal message which He entrusted to His Apostles on the moment of leaving the earth: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations” (Matt. 28:19). He had said, during His ministry, that the kingdom of God is comparable to a mustard grain, grown into a full and leafy tree and stretching its branches over all the earth. He had compared it to a handful of leven which made the whole mass of flour rise, and to a net cast into the sea and gathering all kinds of fishes in its mesh. The Church is catholic de jure, because it is like a seed destined to ferment the whole human mass, permeating its various intellectual and moral, civil and religious aspects. It is catholic de facto because, with the special assistance of God, from the beginning it waxed strong among all peoples, breaking all barriers, over­ coming all persecutions, and making its enemies bow in defeat. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, In Symbolum Apostolorum I ienees Philosophiques et Théologiques (October, 1928). Moureau, “Catholicité,” PTC. RicciOTTi, Il cattolicesimo (Florence, • Ή9). Thurston, “Catholic,” CE. causality of the sacraments (fact). Revelation states, on the one hand, that the sacraments produce grace, and determines, on the other nanti, the limits and conditions of this causality. The sacraments both causality in Scripture and in Tradition are represented: I. As instruments in the hands of God, ordained to infuse grace, just like the brush in the hands of Leonardo da Vinci was the means of painting the Last Supper. God the Father, according to the words of St. Paul, has saved us through means of the laver of regeneration (Tit. 3:5); the Holy Spirit, according to the teaching of St. Ephrem (’f'sys), penetrates the waters of the sacred font to elevate and purify souls {Adv. scrutatores, sermo 40). 2. As instruments which produce their effects immediately, i.e., by the simple performance of the rite, in­ dependently of the merits of minister or subject. St. Luke attests that the faithful received the Holy Spirit by the simple imposition of hands by the Apostles (Acts 8:17; 19:6), while St. Paul exhorts Timothy (2 Tim. 1:6) to revive the grace which had been communicated to him by the same rite. The Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries compare baptism to a mother’s breast: “That saving wave [water] has become for you both a sepulchre and a mother” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. Mystag. 2, 4); from which we rightly conclude that in their doctrine the sacraments are endowed with a real and im­ mediate efficacy, as the causality of the mother in the generation of her offspring is real and immediate. Parallel to these testimonies, which enunciate the objective effectiveness of the external rite, are many others excluding dependency of such efficacy on the merits of the minister or the recipient; suffice it to cite the classic words of St. Augustine which, pro­ nounced on the occasion of the Donatist controversy (see Donatism), represent the synthesis of Tradition: “Baptism does not have its value from the merits of the one who ad­ ministers it or even of the one who causality 42 receives it, but by reason of its own holiness and efficacy, communicated to it by Him who instituted it” (Contra Cresconium, 4, 19). In ad­ dition, we have the constant practice of recognizing as valid even baptism administered by heretics, and the custom of apostolic origin of bap­ tizing children prior to their use of reason. 3. As instruments demanding moral dispositions in the subject, as pre­ requisites absolutely necessary for the production of their effect in the soul. Similar to the craftsman who cannot form iron into an artistic form with his instrument unless the iron is first made malleable by heat, so the heavenly Artist cannot introduce grace in man through the sacraments, unless the soul has first been made flexible to the intention of the divine art by the fire of penitence and love. The sources of revelation inculcate the necessity of faith and penance (cf. the exhortations addressed in Acts 2:38-41, to the first converts: “Do penance, and be baptized ... for the remission of your sins” and the fervent solicitations to virtue ad­ dressed to the catechumens and peni­ tents by the Fathers) and point out the dispositive or preparatory func­ tion of faith and penance with respect to the justification produced by the sacramental rites. Basing herself on these sure testi­ monies, the Church defined (against the Protestants') that the sacraments are real instruments in the hands of God, and that through the objective application of the rite (ex opere operato, q.v.) they produce the effect of grace in every subject who does not put an obstacle to it (non ponen­ tibus obicem; see obex) (DB, 799, 849, 951)· ius de sacramentorum causalitate (Paris, 1884). Diekamp, Hoffmann, Theologiae Dogmaticae Manuale, Vol. 4 (Rome, 1934), pp. 34-41. Doronzo, De sacramentis in genere (Mil­ waukee, 1946), pp. 137-159. Hugon, La causalité instrumentale dans l’ordre surnaturel (Paris, 1924). Mattiussi, De Sacramentis (Rome. 1925). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic The­ ology, VIII The Sacraments, Vol. I, The Sacraments in General, Baptism, Confirma­ tion (St. Louis, 1945), pp. 122-152. causality of the sacraments (mode). If faith teaches us that the sacraments are true instrumental causes that produce grace ex opere operato, it nevertheless leaves us free to discuss the intimate nature of this causality. In the course of seven centuries theologians have proposed many opinions which run the gamut, with an indefinite variety of nuances, from nominalistic minimism to the realism of St. Thomas. William of Auxerre, followed by Ockham and his disciples, maintained that the sacraments are causes of grace, in as much as by a kind of pre-established harmony the intimate action of God, which infuses grace, always corresponds to the sacramental rite externally performed by the minister. This is a sort of sacramental occasionalism, which robs the sacra­ ments of the dignity of true efficient causes; for this reason it was totally abandoned after the Council of Trent. Cardinal Lugo, with many Jesuits and Scotists, maintained that the sacraments, dignified by the blood of Christ, morally move God to com­ municate grace. This is the famous moral causality, so brilliantly de­ fended in the past century by Cardinal Franzelin, which leaves the majority of theologians indifferent today be­ cause, even prescinding from the diffi­ culty of conceiving dignification of a rite by Christ without an objective and real influence, it seems to displace BIBLIOGRAPHY the sacraments from the order of St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 62 efficient causality into that of final (with the commentaries of Cajetan, Gonet, causality. It also seems not to preserve Billuart, Gotti, etc.). Buccekoni, Commentar­ 43 perfectly the nature and definition of instrumental causality. Billot with some of his disciples (Van Noort, Manzoni) believes that the sacraments are intentional efficient causes. But according to the principles of that philosophy, which the eminent theologian held so dear, intentional causality, which is the causality proper to the sign, is of the formal kind; how, then, can it be asserted that the sacraments are efficient and formal causes of grace? Capreolus, together with some old interpreters of St. Thomas, believed the sacraments to be real efficient in­ struments, which, under the influx of God, produce in the soul not grace itself (which he held to be created and as such producible by God only) but a kind of ornatus, i.e., adornment or disposition calling for the infusion of grace. Apart from its many in­ congruences, this system seems to clash with the data of revelation which affirm that the sacraments are productive of grace itself, not only of a disposition for grace. St. Thomas, finally, teaches that the sacraments are instrumental causes which, under the motion of God, the Principal Cause, by a real and mysterious influence are able to produce sanctifying grace itself (physico-perfective causality). This teaching, which merely puts into philosophical language the vivid ex­ pressions of Holy Scripture and the Fathers, harmonizes perfectly with many other parts of the theological system constructed by the Angelic Doctor, and has always obtained an extensive following among the most famous theologians. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 62. Bn t or, De sacramentis, Vol. 1 (Rome, 1931), pp 102-141. Doronzo, De sacramentis in i. acre (Milwaukee, 1946), pp. 159-197. I'itANZBUN, De sacramentis (Rome, 1911), PP 106-125. Malta, "De causalitate intenHonali sacr. animadversiones quaedam," An­ cause, causality gelicum (1938), pp. 337-366. Marquart, “De la causalité du signe,” Revue Thomiste (1937), p. 40 ft. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, VIII The Sacraments, Vol. i,The Sacraments in General, Baptism, Confirmation (St. Louis, t945)> PP- 152-160. Van Hove, “Doctrina G. Altissiodorensis de caus. sacr.," Divus Thomas (Piacenza, 1930), pp. 305-324. cause, causality. In AristotelianThomistic philosophy, cause is de­ fined: “Principle which properly and directly has an influence into the being of another.” It is, therefore, a realizing (reality making) force. We distinguish: (1) efficient cause, in which the above definition is fully verified; (2) final cause (id propter quod, or that on account of which), which is the motive of the efficient cause; (3) formal cause (id per quod, or that by which), which unites with matter in order to determine it specifically, either in the substantial order (e.g., the soul, substantial form of the body), or in the accidental order (e.g., the figure, form of a statue); (4) material cause (id ex quo, or that of which), which, to­ gether with the form, concurs in­ trinsically in the constitution of a determined being. The exemplary cause (id secundum quod) is reductively a formal extrinsic cause. The interplay of causality is evident in the world: but the English phenomenalist, David Plume, denied caus­ ality, and Kant reduced its value to that of a subjective category of man’s mind. For Christian philosophy, the principle of causality (“every effect has its cause”): (1) has ontological (real, objective) value, i.e., really is in things; (2) is so evident as to resolve itself proximately in the first prin­ ciples of the human mind (principles of identity and contradiction). In fact, given a being which has the characteristics of “effect” (i.e., which is participated and contingent), the intellect sees in it, as implicit, the exigency of a cause. All our theodicy celibacy of the clergy 44 or natural theology is based on the principle of causality. Other divisions are: (a) principal cause, which produces or otherwise actuates the effect, of and by itself; (Z>) instrumental cause, which acts in dependence on the principal cause; (c) univocal cause, which produces an effect equal to itself (horse begets horse); ( Holy God (Deut. 10:16; 30:6). Circumci­ sion was practiced on the infant after That of the Greeks is: birth — eight days after, according to Father —> Son —» Holy Spirit. the custom — and the infant received The two concepts do not differ its name on that occasion (Luke substantially. 2:21). BIBLIOGRAPHY Circumcision with its relative moral St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 42, a. 5. obligations was necessary to be able hollet, “Circumincession,” DTC. Hucon, to share in the blessing and promises C Le mystère de la très sainte Trinité (Paris, made to Abraham. Carnal descent 1930), P· 354· Jucie, “De Processione Spiritus from the patriarch was not sufficient. Sancti,” Lateranum (1936). Klein, The Doc­ BIBLIOGRAPHY Asher, The Jewish Rite of Circumcision (London, 1873). Doronzo, De sacramentis in genere (Milwaukee, 1946), Index Analyticus: "Circumcisio"; De Baptismo et Confirmatione (Milwaukee, 1947), pp. 248-254. Ermoni, "Circoncision," DTC. Lv.sf.TXE, “Circoncision," DBV. Rf.mondino, History of Circumcision trine of the Trinity, trans. Sullivan (New York, 1940), pp. 242-249. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, II The Divine Trinity (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 281-289. Clement Alex. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology" (p. 301). 51 Glement Rom. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 301). clergy (Gr. κλήρο·;—lot, part; ac­ cording to the dictum: quasi in sortem Domini vocati — “called to the lot of the Lord, so to speak”). The body of all the persons dedicated to the divine cult, from the lowest cleric to the Holy Father. Entrance into the clergy is effected through a sacred ceremony called tonsure (q.v.). The members of the clergy (divided into major clerics, if they have been marked with the orders of subdiaconate or higher, and minor clerics, if they have received only tonsure or minor orders) have the right of exercising the power of order and jurisdiction inherent in the grade occupied in the twofold hierarchy (q.v.), the right of receiving benefices, offices, and ecclesiastical pensions, and the right to reverence from the laity. In addition, the clergy enjoy four privileges: of canon, of jorum, of personal immunity, and of compe­ tence (see tonsure). The clergy, on the other hand, are bound by grave obligations. These obligations are: (a) positive: greater sanctity than that of the laity, many practices of piety, and, above all, the recitation of the canonical hours (the Breviary or divine office), cult of the sacred sciences, canonical obedience to their respective bishops, chastity (see celibacy), the wearing of ecclesiastical dress, and visible tonsure; (b) negative: abstention from everything unbecoming to their dig­ nity and to their character, such as military service of a combatant kind, clamorous lawsuits, the medical pro­ fession, the legal profession, frequent­ ing markets or exchanges, etc. Such are the rules sanctioned by the Church in the Code of Canon Law (Can. 108-144), drawn from her two thou­ sand years’ experience. 'communicatio idiomatum” If it is true, alas, that certain mem­ bers of the clergy, by violating their sacred bonds imposed on them by the Church, have not done honor to the class to which they belong, it is also admitted by all serious historians that the priestly class, as a whole, has been the spiritual ferment which has raised in all epochs the mass of the Christian people. Moreover, the clergy have given very real and il­ lustrious contributions to every branch of human knowledge and activity. BIBLIOGRAPHY Fanning, ‘‘Cleric,” CE. Goyeneche, luris Canonici Summa Principia, Vol. j (Rome, 1935), PP· i47-t7o· Kurtscheid, Historia luris Canonici, Vol. i (Rome, 1941). Romani, Institutiones Juris Canonici (Rome, 1941). cleric. See clergy; hierarchy. “communicatio i d i o m a t u m” (communication of idioms) (Gr. ιδίωμα— property). The mutual at­ tribution of the properties of the divine and of the human nature in Christ. It is legitimate on account of the hypostatic union, through which Christ is but one Person and so only one subject of attribution, which possesses both natures with their respective properties. The Nestorians (see Nestorianism), who placed in Christ two distinct subjects (persons), the Man and the Word, denied such mutual exchange of attributions between the two natures. The Monophysites, on the contrary, who fused into one the two natures, exaggerated the exchange of attributes to the point of eliminating the line of distinction between the divine and the human in Christ. The Church has condemned one and the other error, and declared such communication legitimate on the basis of the personal unity of Jesus Christ (Council of Ephesus), while at the same time it maintained firmly the distinction of the two natures with Communion, eucharistie 52 their respective properties (Council of Chalcedon). In the light of these two definitions, the correct sense of the “communication of idioms” amounts to this: the mutual attribu­ tion of the properties of the two natures is not made directly to the natures themselves, taken as natures and in abstracto, but through the Person and in force of the unity of Person, the incarnate Word, real God and real Man. And so we may say of Christ: God is Man, the Christ-Man is God, the Immortal is mortal (be­ cause it is always the Person of the Word to whom we attribute that which is proper to one or to the other nature). But we may not say that the divinity is the humanity (because here attribution would be made be­ tween the two natures direcdy, with­ out any reference to the Person). On account of this communication, the Church sings in the Creed that the Only-Begotten of the Father has become man, suffered, died for us, and was buried. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 16. Maas, "Communicatio idiomatum,” CE. Mi­ chel, “Idiomes (Communication des),” DTC. Peter Parente, De Verbo Incarnato (Rome, 1939), p. 129. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic The­ ology, IV Christology (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 184-196. Communion, eucharistie (Lat. cum — with, and unio— union: i.e., union with another). The participa­ tion in the sacrificial banquet in which the faithful feed on the body and blood of Christ. The effects of this participation are the individual and social union of the faithful with Christ, ordained to the glorification of the soul and the body. The individual union {incorpora­ tio) is taught in a sublime way by Jesus Christ in the discourse of the eucharistie promise: the two mysteries of the trinitary life, mutual imma­ nence of the Father in the Son and the procession of the Son from the Father, are repeated, in a way, in the relationship of Christ with the faithful: “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me” (John 6:57-58)· . The social union {concorporatio) revealed in a classical Pauline text: “For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17), is re-echoed by St. Augustine: "0 Sacramentum pietatis, o signum unitatis, o vinculum caritatis" {In Johannem, tr. XXVI, B)· The glorious resurrection {ius ad gloriam — right to glory) is promised by the Lord in the sermon at Capharnaum: “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day” (John 6:55), whence St. Ignatius Martyr (·)· 107) exalts the Eucharist as the “drug of immortality and the antidote for death” (Eph. 20:2). The intimate nature of these effects cannot be understood except in con­ sideration of the general economy of the sacraments, of which they are the crown. Tradition represents the Eu­ charist as the perfection and summit {consummatio) of the whole super­ natural order. As such it should com­ plete the whole spiritual organism in its being (habitual grace), in its faculties (the virtues), in its activity (actual grace), and in its fruits (good works). In fact, as is drawn from a number of theological documents, the Eucharist produces more abundant habitual grace, increases charity, queen of all the virtues, to the highest grade, excites, with frequent stimuli of actual grace, that fervor from which shoot up luxuriantly, as a natural consequence, in greater num- 53 ber and perfection the good works that merit life eternal. Now, as is easily understood, effects of this kind constitute full incorporation in Christ, the most perfect union among the faithful, the highest right to glorifica­ tion of soul and body, through which the individual faithful as well as the whole Church reach the acme of spiritual perfection, i.e., maturity for the beatific vision. After the Eucha­ rist only one thing remains to be attained, i.e., glory. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 79. CutTAZ, Pain vivant (Paris, 1937). Dalcairns, Holy Communion (Dublin, 1892) Doronzo, De Eucharistia, Vols. 1 and 2 (Milwaukee, 1948), Index Analydcu»: “Communio.” Gas­ quet. L'Eucharistie et le Corps Mystique (1925). Hedley, The Holy Eucharist (Lon­ don. 1907). Petroccia, Universae fraternitatis causa (Montiscasini. 1926). Piolanti, // corpo mistico e le sue relazioni con I'Eucaristia in S'. Alberto Magno (Rome, 1939). PohlePreuss, Dogmatic Theology, IX The Sacra­ ments, Vol. 2, The Holy Eucharist (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 236-254. Smith, Communion Under One Kind (London, 1911). De la Taille, Mysterium Fidei (Parisiis, 1941), Iducidationes 36-49. Vonier, A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist (Westminster, 1946), pp. 250-257. Communion of Saints. A truth of faith, which constitutes one of the articles of the Creed. It consists in an intimate union and in a mutual influence among the members of the Church Militant, Church Suffering, and Church Tri­ umphant (the Church on earth, in purgatory, and in heaven). This union and participation of the proper goods of the Church is founded chiefly on the truth of the Mystical Body (q.v.), through which all men in the large sense belong to Christ in virtue of the incarnation and the Redemption; in the strict sense they arc but one thing in Christ, as mem­ bers of one sole organism, by force of baptism and, therefore, of faith and charity. In this mystical organism, comprehensors which is the Church, Christ the Head injects the supernatural life of grace by means of the Holy Spirit, who is like the soul. United to Christ, the faithful are united among themselves; and this union is reinforced by the sacraments, channels of that grace which is the participation of the divine nature and the cause of the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in each sanctified soul. The gospel image of the vine (Christ) and the tendrils (Christians), the doctrine developed by St. Paul (1 Cor., Col., Eph., Rom.) about the Mystical Body and the Church, are a living expression of the dogma of the Communion of Saints, i.e., of all Christian souls for whom Christ prayed at the Last Supper: “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee” (John 17:21). The Eastern Fathers of the Church illustrate this dogma in the light of the Holy Spirit, who diffuses super­ natural life in all Christians. The Western Fathers prefer to explain it from the focal point of the Church, Mystical Body of Christ, temporal and eternal society of the redeemed. Both considerations lead to the concept of a common life, of a vital and mystical communion, in reason of which Chris­ tians fighting for good on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the blessed in heaven, communicate mutually one to the other the fruits of the Redemp­ tion, kept in the treasury of the Church, by prayer and by charity. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 8. Bernard, “Communion des Saints,” DTC. Mura, Le corps mystique du Christ, Vol. i (Paris, 1936). Sollier, “Communion of Saints,” CE. Tyrrell, “The Mystical Body,” Hard Sayings (New York, 1902). companation. See transubstantiation. competents. See catechumen. comprehensors. The blessed who enjoy the beatific vision (<7.y.), i.e., conclave 54 the immediate intuition of the divine essence. The term comprehensor is used to indicate one who has arrived in the celestial country and who has reached God, the Supreme End, in opposition to one who is still a pilgrim on earth (viator). But we are not to understand comprehensor in the sense that the blessed comprehend God, exhausting God’s intelligibility. Only God comprehends Himself; the blessed see Him through the light of glory, more or less intensively, but not with exhaustive knowledge — totum but not totaliter, as the the­ ologians say. However, each blessed, subjectively considered, is fully happy, since he sees as much as he is able to see. BIBLIOGRAPHY See under virion, beatific. conclave (Lat. conclave — locked room; from cum — with, and clavis — key). A closed place (ordinarily in the Vatican) where the cardinals as­ semble to elect the pope, or the as­ sembly itself. According to current discipline, as last amended by Pius XI, a conclave must assemble between 15 to 18 days after the death of the pope. The pur­ pose is to give even the most distant cardinals a chance of attending the assembly. On the day set, toward evening, the cardinals, each accompanied by a secretary and an attendant (cameriere) enter the conclave. All the doors are closed, and the only means of communication are the ruote, sort of revolving dumb-waiters, which are constantly guarded. Outside are posted the “maggiordomo” of the Sacred Palaces, representing the clergy, and the marshal of the holy Roman Church, representing the laity. The next morning, in the Sistine Chapel, the election procedure begins. Election may be in one of three ways: per quasi inspirationem (by quasi inspiration), when all acclaim as pope a member of the sacred college of cardinals or an outsider; per com­ promissum (by compromise), when all agree to refer to certain of the electors the assignment of choosing the new pope; per scrutinium, or direct voting. When a candidate re­ ceives a majority vote of two thirds plus one he is regularly elected, and upon acceptance becomes ipso facto Roman pontiff, successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ. Immediately all the baldachini (canopylike structures) are lowered in the Sistine Chapel, except that of the newly elected pope. The Cardinal Profodeacon announces thereupon the result of the election from the balcony of St. Peter’s, and the new pontiff imparts from there his apostolic blessing urbi et orbi, i.e., to the Eternal City and the world. The history of the election of the pope and of the changes undergone by the conclave may be read in any manual of Church history. BIBLIOGRAPHY Chelodi, Jus de personis, ed. Ciprotti (Vicenza, 1942). Dowling. “Conclave,” CE. Heston, The Holy See at Work, (Milwaukee, 1950). Lector (Mgr. Guthlin), 2> Conclave (Paris, 1894). Negro, L’Ordinamento della Chiesa Cattolica (Milan, 1940). concourse, divine. The influence of the first Cause on creature activity. The finite being, dependent on God in its being (see creation; conserva­ tion), must, consequently, depend on Him also in its operations, according to the Scholastic adage: Operatio sequitur esse. Very few theologians, among whom Durand, reduced this operational dependence only to the creative and conservative action of God, who would concur remotely (concursus mediatus) in the operation of creatures, inasmuch as He has given being and the power of action 55 to them. On the other extreme, others stressed divine intervention in such a way as to eliminate creature action (e.g., the occasionalism of Malebranche). Sound theology is unanimous in admitting the necessity of a positive action of God on the creature in order to explain creature activity {concursus immediatus). This truth, although not one of defined faith, has its foundation in revela­ tion: “Lord . . . thou hast wrought all our works for us” (Isa. 26:12); “In him wc live, and move, and are” (Acts 17:28). Reasons: {a) Only God is His Being, and so is essentially His opera­ tion (see operation, divine)·, the crea­ ture, on the contrary, receives its being and, therefore, must receive the impulse to operation, since a potency cannot pass to act of and by itself (see Act, Pure), {b) God, as first efficient and final Cause of the universe, has absolute dominion over all things, and so it is absurd to exempt the activity of creatures from divine influence, (c) All creature activity is realizing, i.e., it produces in some way and touches the being or reality of things; but being, the most universal effect, must go back, in last analysis, to God as its proper and principal Cause, to whom the creature is subordinate as an instru­ mental or secondary cause. St. Thomas, in his De Potentia, q. 3, a. 7, fixes the divine concourse in four points. God is cause of the action of every creature (including man): (1) inasmuch as He creates it; (2) inasmuch as He conserves it; (3) in­ asmuch as He moves it to act; (4) and uses it as an instrument {con­ cursus immediatus). On these points is based the theory of physical premotion, developed by the rigid Thomist Banez (sixteenth i entury), to the point of affirming a predeterminatio ad unum (prede­ termination to one thing), by which concupiscence God would not only start man to act, but push him to do this rather than that (taking from man active indifference). Such interpretation (see Bannesianism) was attacked by the Jesuit Molina, who proposed im­ mediate divine concourse, not ex­ ercised on the creature but with the creature in relation to the same effect: a kind of parallelism between God and the creature co-operating together {concursus simultaneus). This opin­ ion, while safeguarding human freedom, is certainly foreign to the thought of St. Thomas (see Molinism ). A divine motion is admissible which makes the creature pass to the exercise of the act, providing the creature itself contributes to the speci­ fication of the act (see Thomism). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 105; Quaest. Disp. De Potentia, q. 1, a. 7. On the interpretation of the doctrine of St. Thomas see the controversy between Garricou-Lacrange, Dieu, Appendix (Paris. 1928) and D’At.Ès. Providence et libre arbitre (Paris, 1927). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, HI God: Author oj Nature and the Super­ natural (St. Louis, 1945), pp. 61-78. concupiscence (Lat. concupere — to long for). Psychologically, it is generally understood as a function of the sense appetite which is divided into irascible (with respect to good or bad, difficult to attain) and concupiscible (with respect to good or bad, easy to attain). In this sense, like all passions, concupiscence is a natural property good in itself, but which may be used for good or for bad. Morally, the word concupiscence is a disordered inclination to sense pleasures, against the direction of reason; accepted still more strictly, it is sensuality. Concupiscence, under­ stood in a moral sense, is also called fomes peccati (that which foments, incites to sin). Luther (see Lutheran­ confession, sacramental 56 ism) held this concupiscence (of which St. Paul speaks, Rom. 7:18), as sinful in itself and invincible. The Church, however, teaches that con­ cupiscence, though a consequence of original sin (see integrity), is not a sin in itself. Concupiscence only in­ clines to sin, and that not irresistibly, since with good will and God’s grace man can conquer it and in so doing can acquire merit for the struggle (cf. Council of Trent, DB, 792). A small number of theologians, under the influence of certain misin­ terpreted expressions of St. Augustine, believed that original sin consists in concupiscence. St. Thomas put it clearly for all: concupiscence enters into the constitution of original sin, not indeed as a formal element, but only as a material element. It remains even after baptism ad agonem (to make us fight for heaven; Council of Trent). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas. Summa Theol., I—II, q. 82, a. 2. Beraza, De Deo devante (Bilbao, 1924), p. 133 fl. Mino, “Concupiscence," CE. Mur­ ray, Tractatus De Gratia (Dublin, 1877). confession, sacramental (Lat. con­ fiteor— I manifest). The integral, sincere, and clear avowal of the sins committed after baptism, made to a priest who has jurisdiction in order to obtain absolution. Its necessity stems from the judicial nature of the sacramental power given by Christ to His Church (John 20:21-23). Unless the judge knows the inner condition of the soul he cannot give a sure judgment on its dispositions, and so does not have the necessary elements to use his power favorably or unfavorably. To reinforce this easy deduction it would not be difficult to adduce a great number of testimonies proving that from the first centuries the Church has maintained: Quod index non novit non iudicat, sicut medicus quod ignorat non curat (“What the judge does not know, he does not judge, just as the doctor does not cure what he does not know”). But confession does not appear less necessary if it is considered from the side of sin, which is a profanation of the whole human being. To raise oneself, therefore, from sin, it is not sufficient for the soul to purify itself in the crucible of repentance, but it is also required that the lips open themselves to confession. By mani­ festing what is going on in the hu­ man conscience, external confession harmonizes the heart and the tongue, re-establishing order in the whole human person. Such order and harmony is a good which can only come from an act of virtue, of the most difficult virtue, humility. This external humiliation of declaring one­ self a sinner before one’s fellow man strengthens and renders more effica­ cious the internal disposition which fortifies the penitent in waging un­ limited warfare on sin and its con­ sequences; therefore, the Catechism of the Council of Trent exalts auric­ ular confession as the rock of Chris­ tian virtue. The reformers of the sixteenth century haughtily rejected confession, designating it as “the slaughterhouse of consciences,” but today there is a faint re-echoing which bears a tinge of homesickness for the practices of the old paternal home and of regret for the work of Protestantism which has broken the bond that attached the people to the ear of their spir­ itual director (see penance). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, Suppl., qq. 6-10. Doronzo, De Poenitentia, Vol. 2 (Milwaukee. 1951). Gautier, “Confession,” DA and DTC. Geddes, Thurston. The Catho­ lic Church and Confession (New York, 1928). Hanna, “Penance (Confession)," CE. Jenkins. The Doctrine and Practice of Auricular Con­ fession (London, 1783). Kurtscheid, A His- 57 tory of the Seal of Confession, trans. Marks (St. Louis, 1927). Melia, A Treatise on Auricular Confession (Dublin). Petazzi, La Confessione (Gorizia, 1934). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, X The Sacraments, Vol. 3, Penance (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 181-216. Wiseman, Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic Church (London, 1844). The sacrament of penance and con­ fession was particularly attacked by H. Ch. Lea, A History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences in the Latin Church, 3 vols. (Philadelphia, 1896). confessions of faith. See Symbol. confirmation (Lat. confirmo — I con­ firm, make stable, etc.). The sacra­ ment of the Christian youth and of the soldiers of Christ. The frequent predictions of the prophets concern­ ing an abundant effusion of the Spirit of God in the Messianic times (Isa. 58:11; Ezech. 47:1; Joel 2:28; etc.), and the reiterated announcement of Christ about the descent of the Holy Spirit with the mission of completing the supernatural education of the Apostles (John 14:16; 15:26; 17:1; etc.), pointed to an institution com­ plementary to baptism. In harmony with these precedents, the Saviour must have established that sacred rite during the forty days between Easter and the Ascension, for immediately after Pentecost we see it used by the Apostles, i.e., by those Twelve who introduced themselves to the world as executors of the Master’s will, and never as the inventors of new reli­ gious rites (cf. 1 Cor. 4:1). “When the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were come, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. For he was not yet come upon any of them: but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them, unci they received the Holy Ghost” (Acts 8:14-17; cf. 19:1-6). confirmation The bishop, from the very begin­ ning, has been the minister of this sacrament. It was the Apostles, and not the deacon Philip, who admin­ istered tire first confirmation. It is fitting that a sacramental act, which implies completion and perfection, come within the ordinary powers of one who enjoys the fullness of priest­ hood. But this episcopal prerogative is not absolutely reserved to the bishops, because priests of the Oriental rite, by a sort of general delegation of the Church — while still remain­ ing extraordinary ministers of con­ firmation — commonly confer this sacrament. Priests of the Latin rite can be authorized by the Roman pontiff to confer confirmation in cases provided for in the Code of Canon Law. The matter is twofold: the imposi­ tion of hands (Acts 8:14-17) and the anointing (resulting from Tradition). The form is constituted by the words: “I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” Effects. The Fathers, liturgy, and the theologians are unanimous in exalting the effects of confirmation as a “complement,” “perfection,” “crown” of baptism. The character of confirmation per­ fects that of baptism, especially be­ cause: (a) It enlarges the sphere of baptismal activity, especially in de­ scendant mediation. In fact, while baptism confers the limited power of administering the sacrament of matri­ mony, confirmation renders the faith­ ful a participant in a certain way of the ecclesiastical teaching authority {magisterium), by deputizing to pro­ fess, diffuse, and safeguard ex officio the patrimony of the faith, under the direction of the legitimate pastors. (Z>) It augments the exigencies of grace because, being a more precious congregations, Roman 58 gem than the baptismal character, it requires a more brilliant setting (sanctifying grace) in which to be mounted. Moreover, since it is a more active power, intended for more difficult actions, such as the intrepid defense of religion, it requires greater abundance of divine aids, (c) It as­ signs a special place in the Mystical Body, introducing the Christian officially into the public life of the Church with the honor of bearing all the sacrifices that are inherent in the defense of the Christian name. The grace of confirmation perfects that of baptism: (i) because this sacrament of fullness makes the faith­ ful “similar to Christ inasmuch as from the first instant of His con­ ception He was full of grace” (St. Thomas, III, q. 72, a. 1. ad 4); (2) be­ cause it brings to virile maturity the supernatural organism “which from imperfect becomes immediately per­ fect” {ibid., Ill, q. 72, a. 8. ad 4); (3) because by extending the circula­ tion of the supernatural life, it de­ velops the whole Mystical Body. On the one hand, abundant meritori­ ous works are produced by the spir­ itual organism directed toward new conquests, works that enrich ad intra the treasury of the Church; on the other hand, in virtue of the simultane­ ous and compact advance of the soldiers of Christ, the breast of the Church is extended ad extra to receive and regenerate new souls for Christ. The Protestants of the sixteenth century saw in confirmation nothing more than a superfluous ceremony, whose origin must be traced back to some ancient catechesis in which the adolescents gave an account of their faith to the Church. They were condemned by the Council of Trent, Sess. VII {DB, 871-873). les rites connexes dans le N.T. et dans l'église ancienne (Paris, 1925). Cuttaz, Notre Pente­ côte, la grâce du Chrétien militant (Paris, 1925). Doronzo, De Baptismo et Confirma­ tione (Milwaukee, 1947). Gasquet, “The Early History of Baptism and Confirmation,” Dublin Review (1895), p. 116 ff. O’Dwyer, Confirmation (Dublin, 1915). Piolanti, De Sacramentis, Vol. I (Rome, 1944), pp. 97-212. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, VIII The Sacraments, Vol. 1, The Sacraments in Gen­ eral, Baptism, Confirmation (St. Louis, 1945), p. 276 ff. Ruch, Bareille, Bernard, Ermoni, Marchal, Mancenot, Ortolan, “Confirma­ tion,” DTC. Scannbll, “Confirmation,” CE. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, cd. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 803838. WiRCMAN, The Doctrine of Confirmation (London, 1902). congregations, Roman. See Holy See. congruism. A system derived from Molinism {q.v.) of which it keeps the fundamental principles. Congru­ ism is connected especially with the name of Suarez, but is linked also to others, particularly to Bellarmine. The doctrinal point on which this system pivots is the nature of the efficacy of grace with respect to human freedom. The Thomists see generally a sharp difference between Molinism and congruism; the Molinists, on the con­ trary, maintain that the two systems coincide in thought, their mutual difference being only verbal. Briefly: Molina terms efficacious that grace which attains its effect not by itself, but through the free con­ sent of the man who receives it; God foresees that effect through the means of the so-called middle knowledge {scientia media). There is no entitative difference between sufficient grace and efficacious grace: the same grace can turn out inefficacious through lack of consent of the free will in a given subject, but can be efficacious in another subject who con­ BIBLIOGRAPHY sents. Suarez develops and integrates St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 72. this teaching of the Master, saying Connell, De sacramentis (Brugis, 1933), pp. that the efficacy of grace depends on 147-170. Coppens, L'imposition des mains el 59 its adaptation to the psychological conditions of the individual, to the circumstances of time and place: this adaptation renders the grace congruous, proportioned to the sub­ ject in such a way that the effect follows infallibly, without violating the freedom of choice of the subject himself. Bellarmine even grants that congruous grace has an intrinsic efficacy of its own, which is not phys­ ical (St. Thomas) but moral (St. Augustine), in so far as it attracts and persuades to action. All the congruists agree with Molina in maintaining that grace, in order to be efficacious, is conditioned by the free consent of man. Suarez, however, departs from Molina and ap­ proaches Thomism when he speaks of an absolute predestination, in the intentional order, independently of any human merit foreseen by God {ante previsa merita'). For the pre­ destined, God is said to prepare the most congruous graces. In 1613 the General of the Jesuits, Claude Aquaviva, ordered that the theologians of the company should follow congruism. BIBLIOGRAPHY De Regnon, Bâtiez el Molina (Paris, 1883). I.ANc, De Gratia (Freiburg i.-Br., 1929), p. 499. McDonald, “Congruism," CE. Pesch. De Gratia (Freiburg i.-Br., 1926), prop. 22, p. 176 ff. Quilliet, “Congruisme,” DTC. conscience (Lat. cum — with, and scire — to know). In the proper sense, conscience is not a faculty, but an act of reflex knowledge, directed on what one has done or ought to do (St. Thomas). When the cognitive act has, as its object, actions already done, it is called psychological conscience (real reflexion of the acting subject on his own activity); and it is sensitive if it regards only the senses and their sensations (the Scholastics call it sensus intimus, inner sense, i.e., the point of confluence and of control of conscience all sense life). But psychological con­ science, more properly so called, is an act of the intelligence, with which the subject reflects on his inner activity and knows himself as acting person or acting ego {conscientia sui). Modern philosophy attaches great importance to this psychological con­ science to the point of making it a constitutive element of the person {q.v.). If the cognitive act considers the action to be done with regard to its end, it is called moral conscience, which is distinguished into habitual and actual. The former is a disposi­ tion of the intellect to know promptly the supreme principles of human activity with reference to the end {moral principles), e.g., that one must do good and avoid evil. This disposi­ tion of the intellect is called also synteresis. Actual conscience consists in a practical judgment of the reason on the morality of an action to be done; it is, therefore, an application of the universal principles of syntere­ sis to particular practical cases. This conscience may be certain, if there is no fear of erring, or doubtful, if there militate motives in favor of, or against, the action; moreover, moral conscience may be true or erroneous, according as it discerns right or is mis­ taken. The error is invincible or with­ out guilt if it cannot be avoided, or vincible and therefore guilty if it can be overcome. It is not licit to act in doubt, but the doubt must be re­ moved by reflexion, advice, and prayer, and we must arrive at a moral certitude on the honesty of the action. Man is always obliged to follow the dictate of a conscience which is cer­ tain, even if that same conscience happens to be erroneous (invincibly). It can happen that one be unable to remove all doubt; then he may follow a probable opinion founded on serious motives {probabilism), nor is he obliged to follow the safer opinion, as the tutiorists would have it. conservation 60 The question of freedom and re­ sponsibility is closely connected with conscience: conscience which obliges, commands, prohibits, reproves, and causes remorse is an evident sign of free will; and if man is free he is also responsible for his actions before the tribunal of humanity, and still more before that of his conscience, which would be an enigma if it were not subject to a supreme law, to a su­ preme Legislator, and to a supreme Judge. Such is the Christian doctrine which condemns all forms of de­ terminism and the absolute autonomy of moral conscience, as professed by Kant. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 79, a. 13. Humphrey, Conscience and Law (London, 1896). Moisant, "Conscience,” DA. Newman, Grammar of Assent (London, 1903). NoldinSchmitt, Summa Theologiae Moralis, Vol. 1, De principiis (Oeniponte, 1927), p. 205 if. Rickaby, "Conscience,” CE. ently of him, and only afterward it has received its form or figure. But the world was created from nothing, i.e., received from God all its being, which is an actuality derived and participated from God. Now, every creature, as participated and con­ tingent being, for the same reason that it cannot begin to be by itself, cannot continue to be independently of the source of being, which is God, the Creator. If for one instant a creature could exist without the divine action, for that instant at least the contingent creature would exist by itself, that is to say, it would have the reason of its being in itself — an evident absurdity. By withdrawing His conservative action, God could destroy in whole or in part what He has created {absolute power) ; but in His wisdom and goodness He pre­ serves all things {ordered power). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 104; conservation. The continuation of Quaest. Disp. De Potentia, q. 5. Sertili.anges, the creative act, with which God sus­ St. Thomas d’Aquin, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1925), tains the being of creatures either by n. 296. positive influence in it or by removing the causes that tend to destroy it Consistorial Congregation. See Holy See. (negative conservation). This truth is implicit in the defini­ tions with which the magisterium of “consortium,” divine. A com­ the Church affirms divine providence munication or participation of the and government {qq.v.). Expressive divine nature to the human soul by texts are found in Holy Scripture: means of sanctifying grace. The “But if thou turnest away thy face, Apostle (2 Pet. 1:14) speaks of the they shall be troubled: thou shalt take great gifts which the divine power of Christ has made to us according to away their breath, and they shall fall, and shall return to their dust. Thou the promises of old, in order that we shalt send forth thy spirit, and they may become sharers (Gr. κοινωνοί; shall be created: and thou shalt renew Lat. consortes) of the divine nature. This participation is identified by the the face of the earth” (Ps. 103:29-30). best exegetes with that supernatural St. Paul expresses energetically the life, kindled and sustained by the concept of the conservation of things: Holy Spirit in the Christian, which “All things were created by him and in him . . . and by him all things St. Paul calls χάρις (grace) and πνεύμα (spirit, rule of the spirit in opposi­ consist” (Col. 1:16-17). tion to the flesh). Reason: A marble statue lasts even Tradition sees in the expression of after the death of its sculptor, be­ St. Peter sanctifying grace. St. Thomas cause it existed as marble independ­ 61 (In 2 Sent., d. 26, q. 1, a. 3) trans­ lates the teaching of Holy Scripture and Tradition into this philosophical language: operation is proportionate to the nature from which it proceeds and to its faculties; since the meri­ torious acts of eternal life surpass the conditions of human nature, God through means of grace elevates man to a participation of the divine nature in order that he may be capable of a deiform activity, proportionate to his supernatural end, which is the beatific vision. This participation is mysterious, like all divine things; hence the explanations attempted by the theologians vary. Certainly divine consortium is not to be understood as a substantial communication of the divine nature to man (this smacks of pantheism) or as a like­ ness of a purely moral order (this is too little). The divine consortium is of a physical, real order; if sanctified man is capable of obtaining really the same object of the activity of God, which is the divine essence con­ templated and loved, he must also, as subject or principle of operation, have been really elevated to a divine level. A modern theologian very aptly compares grace and divine consortium with the beatific vision and the In­ carnation. In these three mysteries, the uncreated Act (God) actuates terminally a finite potency in different ways: Incarnation — in the line of sub­ sistence Beatific vision — in the intentional line Divine consortium — in the acci­ dental physical line But the mystery still remains (see indwelling of the Holy Trinity; In­ carnation; vision, beatific). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas. Comment, in 2 Sent., «list. 26. Πακιικπ., I.a structure de 1'iime et l'expérience mystique (Paris, 1927), p. 370 ff. De la consubstantial Taille, “Actuation créée par acte incréé,” Revue de sciences religieuses (1928), p. 260 ff. consubstantial (Homoousian) (Gr. όμοονσιο·; — of the same nature). The term, consecrated by the Nicene Council (325) and incorporated in the Symbol (Creed), to express the substantial unity of the Son and the Father. Distinct by way of relation­ ship (Paternity-Filiation), they have the same nature, or essence, or sub­ stance (ουσία), not only specifically but also numerically; the essence of the Father and the Son is one, sole essence. This was the answer given by the solemn magisterium of the Church to the heresy of Arius, who taught that the Word was created by God and, therefore, could not be homogeneous, i.e., of the same nature as God, so much so that God, as First Principle, cannot be called generated as the Holy Scripture calls the Word. God is absolutely ayevn/ros (not gen­ erated). The Arians rejected the Homoousian because they were not able to conceive a spiritual generation, eternal, without a shadow of change, and free of any causal process, as is precisely the generation of the Son of God. The term homoousian was not new, being found in pre-Nicene Tradition, e.g., in Origen; moreover, in 269 it had been prohibited in a Synod at Antioch in the false Sabellian sense which the heretic Paul of Samosata abusively attributed to it, namely, in the sense not only of unity of essence, but of personal unity between Father and Son. The Council of Nicaea evidently reconsecrated the term ac­ cording to genuine Tradition (es­ sential unity). The consubstantiality of Son and Father involves absolute equality of both (see /Irianism). BIBLIOGRAPHY Tixeront, History of Dogmas, trans. Vol. 2 (St. Louis, 1914), pp. 19-36, 259- contemplation 62 271. D'Alès, Le dogme de Nieée (Paris, 1926); De Deo Trino (Paris, 1934), p. 70 ff. contemplation. In a generic sense, it means attentive (visual or intellec­ tual) observation of an attractive thing, which strikes the senses or the intelligence. In a religious sense, contemplation belongs to mystics (q.v.) and can be defined with St. Thomas (Summa Theol., II—II, q. 180): a simple “intuition” of truth, of which love is the motive and the term. Likewise St. Bonaventure de­ fines it as a savory knowledge of truth. The object of contemplation is God, with His mysteries and His works, especially with respect to man. Contemplation admits of grades, in such a way that it can ascend from a fleeting, intuitive glimpse illumining the soul in a moment of grace, up to a foretaste of the beatific vision of the divine essence, as was the happy lot of St. Paul. Certain authors (Lejeune, Poulain) distinguish between an acquired con­ templation (human activity in co­ operation with grace) and an infused or properly so-called mystical con­ templation (exclusively divine gift), which has as its characteristic mark an experimental perception of God, accompanied by extraordinary, psy­ chological phenomena (ecstasies, stig­ mata, etc.). Other more recent authors (Gardeil, Garrigou-Lagrange) prefer to reduce all contemplative life to but one kind of species, broken down into various grades. Thus they identify it with the mystical life, as a progres­ sive development in the supernatural life lived by the Christian, through grace and the supernatural gifts, in Christ and through Christ. This con­ templation does not necessarily involve the extraordinary, psychic phenomena, which are not essential to it, but cer­ tainly does imply an altogether special knowledge of God and divine things, a delightful knowledge which antic­ ipates, in a measure, the beatific vision, to which the entire super­ natural life is ordained. The mystics call it experimental knowledge, by analogy with sensation, which is immediate and alive. In fact, the mystic-contemplative person not only knows God but, in a certain way, feels Him present in himself; rather than a clear vision he has an obscure perception of the divine Friend near him in the mysterious shadows. Ontologically speaking, the sanctified man is the temple of God who dwells in him; psychologically, by way of mystic contemplation, he comes to ex­ perience the divine presence. All Christians can and should aspire through a healthy asceticism to this mystical-spiritual perfection, in which intuition and love of God are the prelude of eternal life. The extraor­ dinary phenomena, which sometimes accompany this elevation of the spirit, may result in dangerous aberrations when man pursues them without cultivating the supernatural life of the spirit, which is a gift of God and, at the same time, a daily conquest. Prayer (q.v.) is the very web of mystical contemplation. St. Gregory the Great, from whom St. Thomas takes his inspiration, is the master of contemplative life in the West; in the East the pseudo­ Dionysius the Areopagite is the out­ standing doctor. In times closer to ours Spain gave two great mysti s: St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa, glories of the Carmelite Order, have left us wonderful descriptions of their supernatural experience. For Italy it suffices to recall St. Francis of Assisi and St. Catherine of Siena with their priceless writings. BIBLIOGRAPHY Devine, A Manual of Mystical Theology (London, 1903). Fonck, "Mystique," DTC. Gardeil, lut structure de l'âme et l'expéri­ ence mystique (Paris, 1927). Garrioou-I.agrange, Christian Perfection and Contempla- 63 tion, trans. Doyle (St. Louis, 1937). Gurdon, "Contemplative Life,” CE. Lejeune, “Con­ templation,” DTC. Pascal Parente, The Mystical Life (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 53-94. Poulain, The Graces of Interior Prayer, trans. Smith (London, 1928); "Contemplation,” CE. contrition (Lat. conterere — reduce to little bits). The Council of Trent defines contrition: “Sorrow of the soul and detestation of sin committed, with the resolve to sin no more” (Sess. 14, Ch. 4; DB, 897). It is, therefore, not a vague sentiment but a decisive act of the will which, in knowledge of all the deformity of sin, flees and detests it, and nourishes the firm resolve not to fall back into it. Contrition can be either perfect or imperfect. Perfect contrition arises in the heart of the sinner, who grieves for his sin in so far as it is an offense against God, in whom he considers the paternal goodness which has been ungratefully scorned. Moved, there­ fore, by a pure love, called benev­ olence or charity, the penitent, as it were, breaks his heart to bits under the blows of sorrow, whence the name of contrition, a quasi crushing into bits of the penitent heart. With such repent­ ance, all permeated with the flames of charity, there always goes hand in hand (given the intention of confes­ sion) justification, or the remission of guilt, because ubi caritas, ibi Deus est. To make the sacrament of pen­ ance efficacious, imperfect contri­ tion (attrition — breaking into larger parts) is sufficient. It rises in the soul of him who seriously renounces sin, for a supernatural motive indeed (like the fear of hell or the ugliness of sin), but inferior to perfect charity. Instead of seeing in God the image of the Father the penitent sees the image of the Judge, who threatens severe punishments to the transgres­ sors of His laws. When attrition (namely internal, supernatural, and universal sorrow Co-Redemptrix for sins committed) is “informed” by absolution, the penitent from at­ trite becomes contrite, that is, he becomes justified, because then there is a valid sacrament which, ex opere operato, infuses grace infallibly connected with charity. So the faith­ ful who approach the tribunal of penance still shaking with a fear which the theologians call servile, in virtue of the Passion of Christ which works through the sacramental rite, go away reinvigorated with a feel­ ing of filial love and serene confi­ dence in the goodness of the heavenly Father (see penance). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, Suppl., qq. 1-5. Benaglio, Dell’Attrizione quasi ma­ teria e parte del Sacramento della Penitenza Secondo la dottrina del Concilio di Trento (Milan, 1846). Bernard, Ortolan, "Contri­ tion," DTC. Beugnet, "Attrition,” DTC. Doronz.o, De Poenitentia, Vol. 1 (Milwaukee, 1949), Index Analyticus: “Contritio”; Vol. 2 (Milwaukee, 1951). Galtier, “Amour de Dieu et attrition," Gregorianum (1928), pp. 373-416. Hanna, “Contrition,” CE. Perinelle, L'attrition d’après le Concile de Trente et d’après St. Thomas (Caen, 1927). PohlePreuss, Dogmatic Theology, X The Sacra­ ments, Vol. 3, Penance (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 132-180. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), PP· 934-954· Co-Redemptrix. A title in recent use to express the co-operation of the Blessed Virgin in the work of Redemption performed by Christ. The idea of Mary’s co-operation in our salvation is as old as Christianity and has its dogmatic foundation in the divine maternity, through which both Christ and His work belong, in a certain sense, to Mary, who con­ ceived, bore, and nourished the Redeemer, and in addition offered Him in the Temple and suffered with Him, shared with Him spiritually His martyrlike death on the cross. Such is the classic, indisputable doc­ trine. Very recently, however, under the special impulse of the theological cosmogony 64 faculty of Louvain, with Bittremieux at its head, a great controversy has flared up as to the value and the extension of that co-operation of Mary, and, therefore, as to the legiti­ macy and the nature of the titles: Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix (see mediation ). Certain doctrinal points: (i) Mary, as Mother of Christ, is a partaker of His life and His works and so, in a broad sense, may be called Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix; (2) in the designs of God, Mary is associated with Christ in the triumph over sin, as Eve joined with Adam in the ruin of the human race; (3) Mary consented to the passion and death of Christ, adding to them her own maternal anguish, thus meriting {de congruo; see merit) the preroga­ tive of treasurer and distributor of the fruits of the Redemption. This doctrine is founded on Holy Scripture and is extensively developed by the Fathers. The magisterium of the Church has always taught it. Controversial points: (1) May Mary be called Mediatrix between God and men, like Jesus Christ and subordinately to Him? (2) May Mary be called truly Co-Redemptrix to­ gether with Christ, in the sense that she has added efficaciously, on her own part, works of her own to the work of the Redeemer? (3) Given that Redemption consists in the con­ dign satisfaction and merit of Christ (see Redemption), can it be said that Mary, together with Christ, has satisfied the divine justice with her sufferings and has merited for us grace and salvation? Some theologians, adhering closely to Tradition, answer negatively, fear­ ing to take from the dignity of the one Mediator and true Redeemer, and out of reverence for the classical thesis of the necessity of the Incarna­ tion (q-v.). Others follow the affirma­ tive position, utilizing also recent pontifical documents (Pius X, Bene­ dict XV, Pius XI), which seem to favor this second opinion. It is still a moot question with no clear and sure solution in sight. But surely the association of the Blessed Virgin Mary with the Redeemer, her Son, involves a participation that is even direct and immediate, although mysterious, in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. And so the title Co-Redemptrix is justified. BIBLIOGRAPHY Merkelbach, Mariologia (Paris, 1939), Bibliography, p. 309. O’Connell, Our Lady Mediatrix of All Graces (Baltimore, 1926), pp. 23-32. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 2 (Milan, 1942), p. 297 ff. cosmogony (Gr. κόσμοι— world, and yovos — generation, origin). Signifies the origin of the world, which in ancient times has been the subject of mythological poems and philosoph­ ical inquiries. What interests us theo­ logically is the Mosaic cosmogony, or biblical account of creation con­ tained in the book of Genesis. This account, called also hexaemeron (the work of six days) arranges the crea­ tion of all things in six days pro­ gressively, from matter to the vegetable world, to the animal world, and to man. The Scholastics reduced creation to three phases: (a) opus creationis: creation of the heaven and the earth in an “inform” stage; (Z>) opus distinctionis: division of light from darkness, of the earth from the waters; (c) opus ornatus: the creation of living beings. But from the beginning of Christianity the Mosaic account has had different interpreta­ tions according to two main currents, the one allegorical and the other literal. I. Allegorism: Introduced in the Alexandrian School, it was adopted soberly by St. Augustine, who main tains that Moses docs not have the intention of narrating the exact his- 65 tory of creation, but of affirming the truth that all has been created by God, and that human work and rest on the Sabbath are an imitation of the work and repose of God; there­ fore, Moses arranges creation accord­ ing to the days of the week. Moreover, St. Augustine holds that all was created in an instant and afterward developed gradually according to the rationes seminales (seminal reasons or causes) put in matter by God. This opinion has nothing to do with the evolutionism of our times (Darwin), which admits the evolution of one species into another, foreign to the Augustinian conception. Allcgorism, contained by St. Augustine within the limits of orthodoxy, has degener­ ated in later times to the point of mythologism. Therefore, it is to be considered with caution. Modern Catholic exegetes steer clear of it. 2. Literalism: The Mosaic account is understood according to the letter (many Fathers and theologians). Some modern Catholics, interpret­ ing the Hebrew word yôm (day) as an indeterminate period {periodism), push the literal sense so far that they attempt to maintain perfect agreement between the Bible and geological discoveries {concordism), notwithstanding grave difficulties. The Church, as far back as the IV Lateran Council {DB, 428), at­ tributed to God not only global creation, but also the distinct crea­ tion of the spiritual and material creatures. As regards the Mosaic ac­ count, we have the answer of the Pontifical Biblical Commission ( 1909), which establishes firmly these points: (a) the account is substan­ tially historical and literal and, there­ fore, exaggerated allegorism and mythologism are false; {b) certain I.icts, with regard to the foundations of Christian doctrine, are certainly historical and literal (e.g., the creation of man and woman, original sin, council etc.); (c) it is unnecessary, however, to interpret literally the individual expressions, and so, for example, the word day can be taken in its literal sense or in the sense of a period of time; (d) Moses did not intend to teach the creation with scientific exactness, but in a popular manner, according to the language of the day; the account is, therefore, a true, popular story without scientific pretensions. On this last point see Pius XII encyclical Divino afflante (1948) and Humani generis (1950). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Snnuna Theol., 1, qq. 66-74. Boyer, De Deo creante et elevante (Rome, 1940), p. 90 ff. Janssens. De Deo Creatore (Freiburg i.-Br.). Mancenot, “Hexaméron,” DTC. council. The assembly of the bishops convoked to define questions of faith, morals, and discipline. The council is general {ecumenical) when it rep­ resents the whole Church, and parti­ cular when it represents a part of the Church — a nation {national council), or several provinces {plenary), or only one province {provincial). An ecumenical council (Gr. οικουμενικόν), representing the whole Church, requires the presence of the head (either the pope or his legate), and representation of the bishops of the majority of the ecclesiastical prov­ inces. Since the Roman pontiff enjoys primacy over the whole Church (see Roman pontiff), there can be no ecumenical council which is not con­ voked through his authority, presided over by him (or his legate), and con­ firmed by his infallible assent (see infallibility of the pope). In the ecumenical council, the episcopate and the pope are the twofold subjects of jurisdiction, really but not ade­ quately distinct, like the head is really but not adequately distinct from the body; hence the ecumenical council is not above the pope, but the pope is superior to the council, creation 66 for which reason there is no appeal from pope to council. This follows naturally from the Vatican Council definitions on the pontifical primacy (cf. DB, 1831). Since dogmatic definitions of an ecumenical council are infallible, they are irreformable, but its disciplinary measures are subject to modification by one superior to the council itself, i.e., by the Roman pontiff. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 36, a. 2, ad 2; I—II, q. 1, a. 10. Bellarmine, De Conciliis et Ecclesia, 1. 1-2. Forget, Les con­ ciles eucuméniques (Paris-Rome). Mazz.ella, De Ecclesia (Rome, 1892), n. 1016 ff. Palmi­ eri, De Romano Pontifice (Rome, 1931), thés. 28. Romani, Institutiones luris Canonici, Vol. i (Rome, 1941), nn. 359-363. Wilhelm, “Councils," CE. creation. According to Catholic doc­ trine, the act by which God made from nothing all things. To create means to realize a being (i.e., to bring it into actual existence) in all its concreteness, to produce a thing which in no wise previously existed, either in itself or in the potentiality of a subject, ex nihilo sui et subjecti, as the Scholastics put it. The sculptor carves a statue: the statue as such did not exist, but it did exist as marble. On the contrary, God by His creative act realized the world, when there existed nothing outside of Him­ self. Pagan philosophy, even that of Plato and Aristotle, never reached a true concept of creation, which, how­ ever, is naturally knowable to human reason. This concept is a datum of Christian revelation. It is a matter of faith that God has created the universe from nothing (cf. Apostles’ Creed, IV Lateran Council, Vatican Council: DB, 428, 1783, 1801 ff.). In Holy Scripture we read: “In the beginning God created heaven, and earth” (Gen. 1:1). The Hebrew verb barah of it­ self does not necessarily include the sense of creating from nothing, but the context demands it, and such is the understanding of the text in Jewish tradition (2 Mac. 7:28). In the New Testament revelation is clearer and peremptory; the Prologue of St. John’s Gospel is sufficient: “All things were made by him: and with­ out him was made nothing that was made” (1:3; cf. Col. 1:15 f.). The Fathers, from the first cen­ turies, develop and defend the concept of universal creation, even of matter, against the Neoplatonists, the Gnos­ tics, and the Manichaeans. Reason proves that, outside of divine creation, there is no other way to explain the existence of the world. The proofs of the existence of God are based on creative divine causality. The world has actually all the characteristics of an effect, that is, of a being ab alio (from another), because it is finite, mutable, contingent, multiple. More­ over, the other systems excogitated to solve the problem are absurd (materialism, pantheism, absolute dualism, with two eternal independ­ ent principles, God and the world, and idealistic monism). The creative act is exclusively of God, formally immanent (identical with His essence) and virtually tran­ sient (see operation, divine). Accord­ ing to St. Thomas it is also in the creature as a relation (transcendental and predicamental), which implies order to and dependency on God. Together with the universe, God created space, and time which is the measure of motion of mutable things (see eternity). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, qq. 44-45. Boyer, De Deo creante et elevante (Rome, 1940). Miller, God the Creator (New York, 1928). Mivart, Lessons from Nature (New York. 1876); Genesis of Species (New York. 1871). Peter Parente, De creatione universali (Rome. 1943). Pinard, "Création,” DTC and DA. Pohlh-Prhuss, Dogmatic Theology, III God: Author of Nature and Supernatural (St. 67 Louis, 1945), pp. 3-60. Sf.rtillanges, Saint Thomas d'Aquin, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1925), p. 279 ff. Siegfried, "Creation," CE. The Teach­ ing of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 180-213. Vaughn, Taith and Folly (London, 1901). creationism. The doctrine of the Church about the origin of the in­ dividual soul. Holy Scripture clearly states the divine origin of the soul (q.v.) by way of creation, as well as its spirituality and immor­ tality. But in the very bosom of the Church, from the first centuries, there arose the question of the origin of the individual souls of men. Origen, under the influence of Platonism, was of the opinion that God had created ab aeterno a great number of spirits (angels and souls) and then had condemned the human souls to “inform” material bodies in expiation of an incurred guilt. This extravagant opinion, flavored by the excessive spiritualism of Plato and of the Gnostics, was rejected by the magisterium of the Church together with other errors of Origen (see Origenism). Opposed to this opinion is that of Tertullian, a realist, lover of the concrete, who, although the author of De anima, the first treatise of Christian psychology that was substantially orthodox, fell into the vulgar error of traducianism (q.v.), according to which the souls of the children would derive from the cor­ poreal seed of the parents. This opinion also was explicitly condemned by the Church (DB, 170: Letter of Anastasius II to the Bishops of Gaul, 498). Tradition, especially in the East, stands for creationism, according to which the individual souls are created by God, one by one, and infused into the embryonic bodies in the maternal womb. But the Pelagian heresy (see I'elagianism), which denied the trans­ mission of original sin to the sons of Adam, threw some confusion on the cross doctrine of creationism in connection with the difficulty of explaining the transmission of that sin into a soul created instantly and directly by God. Even St. Augustine felt the irksome­ ness in confronting this difficulty. He rejected the traducianism of Tertul­ lian, appreciated creationism and would have liked to embrace it, but in order better to expound the trans­ mission of original sin against Pelagius he leaned toward a spiritual traducianism, according to which the soul of the offspring derives from the souls of the parents, like light from light. But the Church continued to teach creationism more or less explicitly (cf. the Letter of Anas­ tasius II, loc. cit.; also a document of Leo IX, DB, 348; and of Alexan­ der VII, DB, 1100). Human reason itself does not see any way, outside of creationism, of explaining the origin of the soul, as St. Thomas demonstrates (Summa Theol., I, q. 90, a. 2). A spiritual substance cannot, in fact, derive from matter, as is evident, nor can it emanate from another spirit, as spir­ itual traducianism asserts, because spiritual substances do not divide or split or change one into the other; they must, therefore, derive from God through creation. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 90. Driscoll, The Soul (New York, 1898). Mercier, Psychologie, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1923), p. 331 ff. Mivart, Origin of Human Reason (London, 1889). Peter Parente, De creatione universali (Rome, 1943), p. 92 ff. PohlePreuss, Dogmatic Theology, III God: Author of Nature and the Supernatural (St. Louis, 1945), PP· 171-178. Siegfried, "Creation­ ism," CE. Zacchi, L'uomo (Rome, 1921). credibility. See apologetics. Greed. See Symbol. cross (Lat. crux — torment, from the verb cruciare). The implement upon cult 68 which was accomplished the igno­ minious and cruel torture of cruci­ fixion. Crucifixion, in Roman law, was the severest of capital punish­ ments. It was particularly applied to slaves, for the expiation even of the slightest faults. It was used first by the Persians and then introduced into Greece by Alexander the Great. The Romans took it from Carthage. Cicero (C. Verrem, II, 5, 62-67) upheld the thesis that no Roman citizen should, for any reason, be cru­ cified. In the time of the Empire, in the provinces — like Judea — the cross was intended for rebels, brigands, and poor wretches. Pilate, under the pressure of the Sanhedrin and of the mob, con­ demned Jesus to crucifixion. None of the Evangelists describes the cruci­ fixion, which was performed accord­ ing to Roman custom. The con­ demned went to the place of execu­ tion, carrying on his shoulders the transverse bar of the cross called pati­ bulum. The vertical bar was perma­ nently set in the place of crucifixion. The cross of Jesus was a crux immissa whose two bars crossed at right angles at a great distance from the base (it is also called the Latin cross). On the small segment above the transverse bar was nailed the tablet with the motivation of the sentence on it. The cross of Jesus measured about 13 feet or more in height, for the soldier needed a cane to extend the sponge, steeped in water and vinegar, to the crucified Christ. Toward the middle of the crossbar there was a support on which the condemned could rest, so as not to have the entire weight of the body bear on the nails with which the hands were fastened. It is probable that the Romans took into considera­ tion the delicate sense of modesty of the Hebrews and consented, against the Roman custom, to let Jesus wear a loin cloth. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alger, History of the Cross (Boston, 1858). Holzm Eister, Crux Domini atque crucifixio quomodo ex archaeologia romana illustrentur (Rome, 1934). Marucchi, “Cross” and “Cru­ cifix,” CE. RicciOTTi, The Life of Christ, trans. Zizzamia (Milwaukee, 1947). cult (Lat. cultus, from colere — to honor). Basically, cult denotes a kind of honor, which in turn is a sign of esteem given to a person for his ex­ cellence. But cult adds to honor or esteem the feeling of one’s own in­ feriority and subjection with respect to the person honored. Thus, in the proper sense, cult is the external manifestation of honor paid to a superior person in recognition of his excellence and our own submission. Since God is the supreme Being and the absolute Lord of the universe, to Him is due worship in its highest grade. This worship coincides with the essential characteristic of religion which, precisely, consists in honoring God for His excellence and in serv­ ing Him as Lord. Worship, in the sense of religion, is due exclusively to God (whence we understand the gravity of the offense of idolatry); an inferior form of religious worship may be licit with respect to creatures only insomuch as these have reference to God and manifest His perfections. Distinctions: Cult of its nature is not only internal but also external: external cult is either private (indi­ vidual) or public (official—author­ ized by the Church). The singular worship reserved to God alone is called latria (Gr. λάτρευαν— to serve) or adoration; that given to the saints is called dulia (Gr. δούλευαν— to serve) or veneration. The worship of the Blessed Virgin is called hyperdulia. A relative cult is given to images and to relics; it is called rela­ tive because it is referred to the person which the image represents and to which the relic belonged by reason of contact. 69 The humanity of Christ is the ob­ ject of latreutic worship with this dif­ ference, that God is adored in Himself and on account of Himself, while the humanity of Christ is adored in itself, not on account of itself, but on account of the Word, to which it is hypostatically united. Errors: iconoclasts, Protestants {qq.v.; see Heart of Jesus'). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II—II, q. 81. Cabrol, "Worship," CE. Chollet, “Culte.” DTC. Duchesne, Christian Worship, Its Origin and Evolution, trans. McClure (Lon­ don, 1903). Peter Parente, De Verbo In­ carnato (Rome, 1939), pp. 143, 382 fl. PohlePreuss, Dogmatic Theology, VI Mariology (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 139-180. Cyril Alex. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 301). D Damascene. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 302). damned. The creatures (angels or humans) who are in hell {q.v.) and, therefore, are condemned to eternal punishment, i.e., subjected to the separation from God {poena damni) and to the various positive sufferings which afflict the soul and, after the resurrection of the flesh, the body as well {poena sensus). The determining cause of damnation for human beings is the state of personal mortal sin at the moment of death, which has not been eliminated by an act of contrition, or of attrition united with a sacrament (penance or, if impos­ sible, extreme unction). The doctrine of the Church, drawn from divine revelation, is explicitly stated in the damned Constitution of Benedict XII {DB, 530): “We define that according to the common order of God, the souls of those dying in actual mortal sin, immediately after their death descend into hell, where they are tormented with the pains of hell.” Babies who die without baptism are not numbered among the damned, because they are subject only to the penalty of loss {poena damni), and will not suffer any pain of sense (see babies deceased without baptism; limbo; penalty). Adults who die with­ out baptism would go to limbo if they had no other sin except original sin. The theologians, however {Sum­ ma Theol., I—II, q. 89, a. 1, ad 6), find it morally, or at least psycho­ logically impossible, that a man reach the use of reason and adult age with­ out choosing between good and evil, i.e., without determining himself to good or to evil (in the choice of the ultimate end), and, therefore, without justifying himself, with the help of grace, or without committing a grave sin, by rejecting grace and acting against right reason. Since it is the certain teaching of the Church that hell is not only a state or condition but also a place, it follows that the damned are con­ fined to the infernal place and are there in the manner spiritual sub­ stances are locally present (according to the better opinion, by way of action). It is evident that, after the resurrection of the flesh, the bodies of damned men will be locally pres­ ent in hell. We have it from Holy Scripture that the demons {q.v.) can be outside hell, among men, bringing with them their infernal suffering; but it is held that ordinarily damned men cannot wander outside of the place of their torment. It is not im­ possible, however, to conceive that God permit a damned soul to appear in some form to the living for a worthy and adequate motive, as we death read in certain serious documents of Tradition. So, likewise, God can sus­ pend the application of the decree of damnation immediately after the death of a person, in view of the prayers of a saint, and grant the return to life of that person in order that he may be converted and die in the state of grace (cf. the miracle of St. Philip Neri on the son of Prince Massimo). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., HI, Suppl., qq. 97-99. Billot, De Novissimis (Rome, 1921), p. 52 ff. See under hell. 70 dinary magisterium of the Church (DB, 530 ££., and 693; cf. also 203 ff. where Origen’s opinion on the possi­ bility of a final redemption after death is condemned). Physiologically, the moment of real death does not coincide with but follows that of apparent death. A recent theory, called "Illumination 0/ the Agonizing," holds that the soul between these two moments can un­ dergo a beneficial crisis of conversion under a special divine influence. This theory would indeed broaden the salvation path, but it has not found wide acceptance. BIBLIOGRAPHY death. The separation of the soul, St. Thomas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 1. 4, which continues to live, from the c. 95. Michel, "Mort," DTC. The Teaching body, which is dissolved into its of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. elements. Of its very nature the soul (New York, 1949), pp. 1101-1114. See under eschatology. is immortal, being pure spirit, and, therefore, simple and not subject to decomposition. The body, like all Decalogue (Gr. δίκάλογος — ten material things, is subject to cor­ words, i.e., commandments). The ruption, according to nature’s law. name is taken from the Bible itself But God had provided by a special (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:14) privilege for the integrity and im­ and designates the commands of a mortality of the human body: Deus religious and moral nature that con­ creavit hominem inexterminabilem stituted the foundation of the pact, (“God created man incorruptible,” concluded by God on Sinai with Wisd. 2:23). Corporeal death is the Israel, which made them chosen consequence of sin, according to the people. With the exception of the divine threat: “In what day soever precept of the Sabbath (i.e., the day thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die of rest from work), the Decalogue the death” (Gen. 2:17). “By one man contains natural laws which have sin entered into this world, and by a universal value, and, therefore, re­ sin death” (Rom. 5:12). Death is main in force, with the improvements the universal law to which even added to them by Christ in the Jesus Christ wished to subject Him­ Christian Church (Matt. 5:17-47). self. Death is not only the terminus The pact contained also a contingent of earthly life, but also the deadline series of dispositions of civil charac­ for meriting. Christ calls death “the ter (Exod. 21:1-23) for the regulation night . . . when no man can work” of the life of the Israelitic nation. (John 9:4), and St. Paul: “It is ap­ Since the Decalogue was consigned pointed unto men once to die, and by God Himself to Moses, written after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27). on two tablets of stone which were Now the judgment decides inexorably afterward preserved in the Ark man’s destiny. This truth is amply (Exod. 40:20) in testimony of the developed by Tradition, and, while covenant concluded, it is probable not defined, it is taught by the or­ that its original form was in brief 71 sentences, as is the case in the major­ ity of the present precepts. In later literary editing, a few explanations were added here and there (Exod. 20:1-17; Deut. 5:6-21). The order of certain commandments is not con­ stant in the text tradition. The extension of the form of the first commandment, Exodus 20:2-6, has been the subject of discussion: “2. I am the Lord thy God. . . . 3. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. 4. Thou shalt not take to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. 5. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them. I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me: 6. And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments.” Verses 4-6 are, obviously, an ex­ planation of the commandment true and proper, as contained in Verses 2-3. Therefore, Catholics (together with the ancient Jews of Palestine and the Lutherans) do not consider them a commandment distinct from the preceding. They simply prohibit any figuration of the divinity, because the cult of images among the peoples that came into contact with Israel was, without exception, a cult in the ■aTvice of polytheism and of idolatry. I4ic Hellenist Jews, the Fathers of the Greek Church, the Calvinists, and < crtain modern Catholics consider Verses 4-6 as a new (i.e., the second) commandment, and so they join in one the last two commandments ( coveting both the possessions of one’s neighbor as well as his wife) which .ne more logically considered as « parate by the other exegetes just mentioned, who see in Verses 2-6 only one commandment with its at­ definition, dogmatic tached explanation. Indeed, the pas­ sion which inclines man to desire his neighbor’s property is different from that which prompts him to covet his neighbor’s wife. Certain Protestants wrongly blame the Catholic Church for having sup­ pressed in the Decalogue the precept relative to images. The real extension of the text of the commandment is not a theological question, but a problem of exegetics, which is of free discussion among students of various faiths and different Christian professions. BIBLIOGRAPHY Eberharter, "Décalogue,” DBVS, cols. 341-351. Stapleton, "Commandments of God,” CE. Vaccari, "De praeceptorum Deca­ logi distinctione et ordine,” Verbum Domini, 17 (1937), pp· 317-320. 329-334· “de condigno.” See merit. “de congruo.” See merit. definition, dogmatic. The solemn declaration of the Church on a truth contained in the sources of divine revelation (Holy Scripture and Tra­ dition) and proposed to the faithful, who, therefore, are obliged to believe it on the authority of God, who has revealed it. Written and oral revela­ tion contain a complexus of truths more or less clearly enunciated. First of all, a distinction must be made between what is formally, i.e., essen­ tially revealed, and what is deducible, by way of reasoning, from a revealed principle or premise {virtual revela­ tion). The formally revealed truth is obviously divine and bears with it the whole weight of the authority of God, supreme and infallible Truth. The virtually revealed truth, on the con­ trary, is the result of a divine element and a human element, and cannot impose itself on the conscience of the believer in the name of God. The deism 72 Church is the custodian of the de­ bibliography posit of divine revelation and, there­ De Grandmaison, Le dogme chrétien, sa fore, has the duty not of creating nature, ses formules, son développement (Paris, divine truth, but of seeking it in the 1928). Garrigou-Lagrange, De Revelatione sources of revelation, bringing it into per Ecclesiam catholicam proposita (Paris, light, should it not be explicit, and 1925). Harty, “Definition (Theological),” CE. of proposing it as such for belief. The declaration of the Church can deism. Etymologically it should mean a system in which God is affirmed; a be made by way of the ordinary meaning coincident with that of magisterium (unanimous consent of theism. Usage, however, not only the Fathers and tire theologians, distinguishes but even opposes the one unanimous preaching of the bishops, to the other. Theism is an orthodox consent of the faithful, liturgical system, which Christian theodicy usage), or by way of the extraordi­ (natural theology) admits integrally nary magisterium (solemn declaration (in opposition to atheism and pan­ of the pope, through a bull or other theism). Deism, on the other hand, document; declaration of an ecu­ is a rationalistic conception of the menical council [see council] or of Divinity, based on human reason with a particular council approved by the the systematic exclusion of divine pope; symbols and professions of revelation. The deistic affirmation faith emanating from or approved by presents a God mutilated in His the Church). A dogmatic definition nature and attributes; according to is a truth proposed in the second the scope of this mutilation, deism way; it constitutes in the strictest has various gradations. In the begin­ sense a formal dogma (see dogma), ning (sixteenth century) the word which is also called a truth of divinedeists was applied to identify the Catholic faith, to which the faithful Socinians (see Unitarianism)·, in the cannot refuse their assent without fall­ seventeenth century deism gained ing into heresy (q.v.). It should be ground in England as Rational Chris­ noted, however, that, generally, to tianity (Cherbury, Collins, Bolingconstitute a dogma or a truth of broke, and others); in the eighteenth divine-Catholic faith, the function of century it became the insignia of the the ordinary magisterium is in itself Encyclopedists (Voltaire and Rous­ sufficient, as the Vatican Council de­ seau especially). By minimizing the clares, Sess. Ill, Ch. 3 (DB, 1792): divinity, deism approaches closer and Fide divina et Catholica ea omnia closer to atheism or pantheism. credenda sunt, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continentur et ab BIBLIOGRAPHY Ecclesia sive solemni judicio sive or­ Aveling, “Deism," CE. Forget, "Déisme,” dinario et universali magisterio tam­ DTC. Leland, A View of the Principal quam divinitus revelata credenda Deistical Writers (London, 1754). Savons, Les proponuntur (“All those tilings are déistes anglais et le christianisme (Paris, 1882). to be believed on the basis of divine and Catholic faith which are con­ demon, devil. Two words of Greek tained in God’s word, either written origin: δαίμων, of uncertain root, ami or handed down by Tradition and διάβολον (from διαβάλλω — I accuse, are proposed for belief as being calumniate) — accuser, both used to divinely revealed by the Church, indicate the angels rebellious to God whether by solemn judgment or and for that reason cast into hell. by the ordinary and universal In the Greek classics (Homer, magisterium”). Hesiod, Herodotus, Plato, Plutarch) 73 the use of δαίμων is frequent (much more than that of διάβολος), but with a varying meaning: numen (deity), doing good or evil to man, genius or protecting spirit (cf. the demon of Socrates), intermediary between the divinity and man, and at times also fate, destiny. The concept of good or bad spirits, intermediary between God and the world, is met also in other religions and systems of mythological phi­ losophy (Gnosticism); but Christian revelation presents so characteristic a teaching on the subject of the demons that derivation from outside sources cannot be sustained. In the Old Testament the figure of Satan (from — ensnare, persecute) flashes sin­ ister, as the adversary of man who, under the figure of a serpent, de­ termines the fall of Eve and Adam, requests and obtains God’s consent to torment Job, excites Saul and incites David to evil. Mention is made of the devil in the book of Tobias, and in the book of Wisdom, which attributes to him the introduction of death in the world (Wisd. 2:24). The name of Satan, demon, devil, occurs more frequently in the New Testament. Satan tempts Jesus in the desert (Matt. 4:1); the Pharisees attribute the miracles of Jesus to Satan, but the Saviour proves their accusation to be stupid by showing His power in chasing out the devils and their head from the obsessed (cf. especially Mark’s Gospel); Jesus says He saw Satan hurled down from heaven like a lightning bolt (Luke 10:18); He forewarns the Apostles against His assaults (Luke 22:31); on the vigil of His passion and death, He declares that Satan is already judged and over­ come (John 16:11). The Fathers develop these data and furnish the material to the Scholastics for a definitive doctrinal «ystemization, to which the magis­ terium of the Church has contributed deposit of faith certain details (cf. IV Lateran Coun­ cil, DB, 428). The chief points of the Catholic doctrine on the devil are: (e) God created the angels {q.v.) who are good by nature, but some sinned and deliberately became bad; {b) it is not the devil who created matter and bodies; (-359! v?>·,2 (1949), pp. I—15. Sestili, De naturali intelligentis animae capacitate atque appetitu intuendi divi­ nam essentiam (Naples, Rome, 1896). Vallaro, various articles in Angelicum (1934-1935). destiny. In popular language it signifies an obscure and inescapable law which determines an event, a series of events, or the whole course of the life of a man, of a people, of an institution. In this sense destiny has fate as a synonym. It is quite common today, especially in those professing no faith, to find an uncon­ trolled consciousness of this obscure law, which slips into a banal superstition. The concept of destiny is pre­ dominant in pagan religions and is not extraneous to philosophical sys­ tems. The Greeks personified destiny, making it a capricious ruler not only of poor mortals, but even of the gods themselves. Destiny is the omnipotent and inexorable Moira {Μοίρα), which predetermines everything in its im­ mutable decrees; it is the Fatum deuterocanonical 76 (spoken, decreed) of the Latins. The Parcae, Fortune, are plastic represen­ tations of the same concept, par­ ticularly with respect to human life. Stoicism is the most fatalistic of the philosophical systems. It has a whole theory on destiny as an (in­ escapable law of the universe, which is conceived as a Whole destined to run its ascendant and descendant parabola, whirling in its rigid fatality all its parts, man not excluded. Marcus Aurelius gathers in his Memories the sad echo of this Stoic determinism which compromises hu­ man freedom. Cicero had already re­ acted against this inhuman conception in his work De fato, and, given the alternative between divine fate and human freedom, he decisively takes his stand for freedom up to the point of denying the influence of divine providence on man. Christianity eliminates the myth­ ology of destiny and corrects the pagan philosophical deviations at­ tached thereto. St. Augustine (cf. De Civitate Dei) reduces destiny simply to divine providence, in which shine the wisdom and love of God and to which all creatures are sub­ ordinate in being and in action. St. Thomas develops the traditional thought of the Fathers when, speak­ ing of the influence of God on crea­ tures, on man especially, he demon­ strates that such influence does not perturb but perfects creature activity and is harmoniously compatible with human freedom (see concourse, divine). There is a causal connection between the knowledge, will, and omnipotence of God, on the one hand, and creature activity, on the other: but this connection, however mysterious, does not do violence to, but helps both the necessary and the free causes in unfolding their activity according to their proper nature, necessarily or freely (see prescience). St. Thomas treats explicitly of Fatum and defines it: Ordinatio secundarum causarum ad effectus divinitus provisos (“the ordering of second causes to effects divinely pro­ vided for”). So fate is nothing more than the law impressed in second causes by the thought and will of God. The Christian, therefore, will say providence instead of destiny or fate. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 116. (Refer to this question St. Augustine, De civitate Dei, V, and Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae, IV.) Chollet, “Destin," DTC. deuterocanonical. the Bible. See Canon of devotion (Lat. devovere — to vow, to offer, to consecrate, especially to the Divinity). In the strict sense it is an internal act of religion, which St. Thomas defines {Summa Theol., II—II, q. 82, a. 1): Voluntas prompte faciendi quod ad Dei servitutem pertinet (“The will of doing promptly what pertains to the service of God”). Devotion consists, therefore, es­ sentially in the promptness of the will to serve God, namely, to subordinate our whole life to His glory and de­ sires. In this sense devotion is a part of cult or worship; in fact, it is its very soul. Worship actually is a manifestation of honor rendered to a superior person in recognition of his excellence and of our own submission. Worship, therefore, includes an in­ ternal action (of the intellect and the will) and an external action (the manifestation of esteem and subjec­ tion). If by devotion we understand, in addition to the intimate disposition of the will, also an external manifesta­ tion, then it coincides with worship, as often happens in common language. Devotion in this second sense can, like worship, be private or public; the distinction between one and the other depends on a single clement: the intervention or approbation of 77 ecclesiastical authority (bishop or Holy See). A devotion can be ex­ ternal, even spread among the faithful in some place, without being public, through lack of explicit ecclesiastical approbation (C1C, Cans. 1257, 1261, 1259). The Church proceeds slowly in approving new devotions or forms of cult because of the danger of super­ stition and of theological errors, which can be mingled in them. With respect to devotion in the strict sense, which is of special in­ terest to us here, it is noteworthy that: (1) it has, as essential elements, an illuminated faith and an ardent charity. Faith always yields a more congruous knowledge of God, charity always makes the soul adhere more strongly to Him, detaching it from creatures and from itself by the elimination of self-love. The devout soul, therefore, seeks nothing but God. (2) It has, as extrinsic cause, God, from whom it must be sought by prayer; as intrinsic cause, medita­ tion of the eternal truths (Summa Theol., II-II, q. 82, a. 3). (3) It has, as immediate effect, progress in per­ fection and spiritual joy. Opposed to devotion, which is prompt eagerness, alacrity, and lively adherence to God, is sloth of spirit and its consequent tepidity. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II-II, q. 82; Opusculum De perfectione vitae spiritualis. Dublanchy, “Dévotion," DTC. Faber, Growth hi Holiness (London, 1855), p. 396 fl. Mi.vnard, Traité de la vie intérieure, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1899), pp. 85 f., 207!., 403 f., 530 f. diaconate (Gr. διάκονοί — servant). The second in the ascendant line of major orders (see orders, holy). Il is of divine institution, as appears from Holy Scripture (Acts 6:1 ff.; Phil. 1:1; i Tim. 3:8, 13), and still more explicitly from Tradition. Many functions, even of an ad­ ministrative and jurisdictional order, Diaspora being reserved to the deacons in antiquity, their position was very highly honored and in some instances gave occasion to pride and to ir­ reverent behavior toward the bishop. At Rome, the dying pope would entrust the goods of the Church to the archdeacon (first deacon) for transmission to his successor in the papacy. Gradually, the power of the archdeacons became so exorbitant that it seriously interfered with ecclesiasti­ cal life. After ample and full praise of their good services rendered in the past, the Council of Trent reduced the archdeacons to mere capitular dignitaries. Of the numerous offices of the deacon, the Roman Pontifical has conserved three: to serve the priest or the bishop at the altar, to bap­ tize, and to preach. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, Suppl., q. 37, a. 2. Forget, “Diaconesses," DTC; “Diacres,” DTC. Kurtscheid, Historia luris Canonici, Vol. i (Rome, 1931). LamotheTenet, Le Diaconat (Paris, 1900). Leclercq, "Diacre," DACL. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, XI The Sacraments, Vol. 4, Ex­ treme Unction, Holy Orders, Matrimony (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 99-105. Ruffini, La gerarchia della Chiesa negli Atti degli Apostoli e nelle lettere di S. Paolo (Rome, 1921). Thurston, “Deacons," CE. Tixeront, Holy Orders and Ordinations, trans. Raemers (St. Louis). See under hierarchy; orders, holy. Diaspora (Gr. διασπορά— disper­ sion). Refers to the community of Hebrews living outside the boundaries of Palestine. The earliest dispersions or “dis­ placements” of the Hebrews date from the fall of the Kingdom of Israel in 722 b.c. and from the fall of the Kingdom of Juda in 598 b.c., when the Assyrians and Babylonians, in order to cut off any idea of revolt, transferred the majority of that people to distant regions. Later the Hebrews spread throughout the world for com­ 78 diocese mercial reasons, their nomad instinct being favored by the marvelous high­ way network of antiquity. Points of departure of the Diaspora were Jerusalem, Babylonia, and Alex­ andria of Egypt for the Mediter­ ranean countries, and Antioch of Syria for Asia Minor. From the first century B.C., Rome was the principal center from which the Jews moved into the West. The communities of the Diaspora were solidly organized and afforded excellent bases for the penetration of Christianity into the Greco-Roman world. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ricciorn, 1934). PP· "Diaspora,” DBVS, cols. Storia d’lsraele, Vol. 2 (Turin, 203-230. Van den Biesen, CE. Vandervorst, “Dispersion," 432-445. diocese (διοίκψης — administration). The territory over which a bishop or other prelate extends his jurisdiction. It is an established fact that the division of ecclesiastical dioceses and provinces was originally modeled on the division and territorial extension of the provinces of the Roman Em­ pire. Later, however, changes in his­ torical, political, and social conditions brought about a radical modification of the primitive boundaries. The Pontifical Yearbook gives the exact listing of all dioceses of the Catholic world, with the names of their bishops. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ciaeys Bouuaert, “Diocèse," DDC. Kurt­ scheid, Historia luris Canonici, Vol. 1 (Rome, 1941). Romani, Institutiones luris Canonici, Vol. i (Rome, 1941), nn. 344-349. Van Hove, “Diocese,” CE. diptych. See Canon of the Mass. “discens Ecclesia.” See "Ecclesia discens." divination. See superstition. divinity of Jesus Christ. A fun­ damental dogma of Christianity. The divinity of Christ is fore­ shadowed in the Old Testament: 1. Messianic texts (Gen. 3:14 ff.; 12:1-3; 49:l4> Num. 24:17; Ps. 2, 44, 71, 88, 109; Isa. 7:14; 9:6; Mich. 5:2; Jer. 23:6; Dan. 7:13; Mai. 3:1). These texts have their full strength when considered in the light of the New Testament; taken in themselves they are not all indisputable, but at least suggest a vague idea of the transcendent nature of the future Messias. A particular value must be attributed to Isa. 9:6, where the Messias is prophesied as *1133.— 'el gibbôr (strong God), a title given elsewhere to Jahweh. Not less valid is the prophecy of Malachias 3, which announces the Precursor and the Messias who will enter the temple as Dominator (Hebr. ha’ adôn — name of Jahweh). 2. Sapiential texts, which represent the divine Wisdom as personified in such a way as to suggest a distinction of terms or subjects in the Divinity (Prov. 8:12 ff.; Ecclus. 24:5 ff.; Wisd. 7:21 ff.; 18:4). In the New Testament the divinity of Christ is evident: 1. The predicted Messias is Christ (in the whole Gospel). 2. In the Synoptics (Matt., Mark, Luke) Christ is the unique Son of God (Gr. άγατη/τό·» — most beloved, unique): Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; He is confessed as such by St. Peter (Matt. 16:16 ff.), whom Jesus approves and praises. More­ over, Jesus distinguishes His rela­ tionship to the Father in the expres­ sions “My Father,” “Your Father,” never associating Himself with mere men by saying “Our Father.” Before the Sanhedrin He declares Himself to be the Son of God and is con­ demned for it. He affirms Himself superior to Solomon (Matt. 12:41); He completes the divine law (Matt. 79 5:21), remits the sins of Mary Magdalen, of the paralytic, and prom­ ises eternal life to those who love Him above all things and follow Him. He rises from the dead and ascends into heaven. 3. St. John's Gospel. Christ is the eternal Word, truly God; He is the One-Born of the Father, who exists before Abraham, who is but one sole thing with the Father, and who sends the Holy Spirit. 4. St. Paul declares energetically the divinity of Christ, especially in Rom. 9:5; Col. 1:15; 2:9; Phil. 2:6 ff.; Heb. 1:11; Tit. 2:13. Tradition is a unanimous chorus, a testimony in words, in art, in life, in blood, sealed by the Council of Nicaea (325). BIBLIOGRAPHY Houcaud, The Divinity of Christ (Balti­ more, 1926). Fabri, Il Cristianesimo rivelanone divina (Assisi, 1942), p. 273 ff. Lbpin, le Christ Jésus (Paris, 1929). Pohlb-Preuss, I >ogmatie Theology, IV Christology (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 9-38. Various treatises De Verbo Incarnato. Sec under Jesus Christ. divorce. In a strict sense, the solulion of the marriage bond, by which the husband and wife can contract new nuptials; in a broader sense it is separation (as regards home, living, etc.) of the parties, the matrimonial bond remaining firm. Divorce, in the strict sense, was permitted to the Jews by God ob duritiam cordis eorum i "on account of their hardheartedI nrss”). It so permeated Roman and barbarian custom as to make it par, tii ularly difficult for the Church to t the faithful and the legislators to L tn i cpt the principle of the indissolu­ bility of the conjugal bond, which the , · Lurch had taken from the natural I law, and especially from revelation. Although divorce is not directly contrary to the primary end of marI tinge, i.e., procreation and education I ui the offspring (and that is why divorce God could dispense temporarily from the primitive law of the indissolubility of marriage), it is, however, dia­ metrically opposed to the secondary end of matrimony, which is the mutual help and the reciprocal har­ mony of the husband and wife, as is quite evident to whoever reflects on the many disorders following in the wake of and occasioned by divorce (hatred, rancor, vengeance, abandon­ ment of the offspring, discord among families, degradation of the woman). These and similar reasons moved the divine Restorer of the family and of human society to revoke the con­ cession made in the Old Testament and restore the institution of mar­ riage to its original indissolubility. In an incisive sentence Jesus declared: “Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that mar­ rieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery” (Luke 16:18; cf. i Cor. 7:10-11; Rom. 7:2-3). The thought of the Master was illustrated by the Fathers and applied constantly by the Roman Church, which had to undergo gigantic strug­ gles with libertine emperors and princes, as in the case of Henry VIII who, on the occasion of Rome’s pro­ hibition of his divorce, caused a whole people to be separated from the true faith. The divine truth was permanently and precisely defined in the Council of Trent (DB, 975, 977). The Oriental Schismatics and the Protestants, great champions of divorce, bring up in objection a phrase of the Lord: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, com­ mitteth adultery” (Matt. 5:32; cf. 19:9). We reply immediately that the incidental phrase, even if separated from the rest of the text of the “docens Ecclesia” 80 gospel teaching and from Tradition, does not necessarily imply that Christ permits divorce in the case of adultery of one of the parties. In fact, if we stick close to the force of the words used, and to the content, we see that Christ, expounding the law of in­ dissolubility, wants to prescind from the very thorny question (for His audience) of adultery; and so, what He intends to say is: whoever sends away his wife (prescinding, for the purpose at hand now, from the case of adultery), makes her commit sin. Recently, Allgeier, a lucid German exegete, endeavored to reconstruct the Aramaic sentence employed by Jesus Christ, and has come to the conclusion that the incidental phrase is merely an exclamation interposed by the divine Master to give greater strength to His words: “Whoever will have sent away his wife — and you must not do that — makes her commit adultery.” If this is so, the whole difficulty disappears. In con­ clusion: even if, exegetically, there may remain a bit of obscurity, it is fully dissipated by Tradition. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, Suppl., q. 67, a. I, ad 4; Summa Contra Gentiles, 1. 3, c. 123. Leo XIII, Encyclical Arcanum (1880). Perrone, De matrimonio, Vol. 3, pp. 243-389. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic The­ ology, XI The Sacraments, Vol. 4, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, Matrimony (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 183-216. Romani, Institutiones luris Canonici, Vol. 2, p. 55. Smith, "Di­ vorce," CE. ViLLiEN, “Divorce,” DTC. “docens Ecclesia.” discens." See "Ecclesia Docetism (Gr. δοκέω— I seem; δόκησιν— appearance). An obscure heresy of the first centuries, which reduced Christ’s humanity to an ap­ pearance, compromising the veracity of the Gospel in its account of the human life, passion, and death of the Saviour, and with it the value of the whole work of Redemption. Traces of confutation of this error are found in St. Paul and St. John (cf. Col. 1:20; i Tim. 2:5; I John 4:2). A little later, St. Ignatius Martyr de­ fends the reality of the flesh assumed by the Son of God against the Docetae; St. Irenaeus {Adv. haereses, 1. 3) does likewise. Tertullian {De carne Christi) and St. Augustine {Contra Faustum) attack various forms of Docetism current among the Gnostics (Simon, Saturninus, Marcion) and the Manichaeans. In the fifth century, Docetism was wel­ comed by the Monophysites (see Eutychianism), who admitted an absorption of the human nature in the divine, reducing the humanity of Christ, of which the Gospel speaks, to a mere phantasm (whence the name Phantasiasts), impassible, incor­ ruptible (whence the name Aphthartodocetism of Julian of Halicarnassus; from the Gr. a [privative] and φθΐίρω — I corrupt). Other Monophysitist leaders, like Severus of Antioch, ad­ mitted the passibility of Christ’s hu­ manity and, therefore, were called Phthartolatrae. As the Docetae compromised the reality of Christ’s passion, and thereby the value of the Redemption, so they were constrained to deny or pervert the truth of the Eucharistic mystery. BIBLIOGRAPHY Arendzen, “Docetae,” CE. Bareille, "Docètes et Docétisme,” DTC. Cayré, Manual 0/ Patrology, trans. Howitt, Vol. 1 (Paris, Tournai, Rome, 1936), pp. 34, 70, 104, 162, 190, 237, 263. Tixeront, La théologie a ri­ tenicéenne (Paris, 1905). Doctors of the Church. Those ecclesiastical writers who, not only by reason of the holiness of their lives and the orthodoxy of their doctrine but especially by the eminence of their knowledge, have been honored by the Church with this title. The Doctors differ from the Fathei » dogma 81 of the Church (q.v.) for three rea­ sons: (i) it is not necessary for them to have lived in ancient times; (2) it is required that their learning be really extraordinary so as to merit the liturgical praise of Doctor Optime, Ecclesiae sanctae lumen (“Excellent Doctor, light of the holy Church”); (3) it is required that this title be conferred on them in a sufficiently explicit way (actually a solemn act of the pope is needed). Following is the list arranged in chronological order of the Doctors of the Church: SS. Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chry­ sostom (the four great doctors of the East), Ambrose, Jerome, Augus­ tine, Gregory the Great (the four great doctors of the West), Ephraem, Hilary of Poitiers, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alex­ andria, Peter Chrysologus, Leo the Great, John Damascene, Isidore of Seville, Bede the Venerable, Peter Damian, Anselm, Bernard, Bonaven­ ture, Thomas Aquinas, Albert the Great, John of the Cross, Peter Canisius, Robert Bellarmine, Fran­ cis de Sales, Alphonsus Liguori, Anthony. BIBLIOGRAPHY Franzelin, De Traditione (Rome, 1882), pp. 172-215. Pace, “Doctor,” CE. VAlton, "Docteur de 1’Eglise," DTC. Van Laak, De ratrum et theologorum magisterio (Rome, «933)· dogma (Gr. δοκΰν — seem, opine, maintain opinion). Originally, it meant opinion. The classics use it with the meaning of criterion, rule, law; in this last sense, it is found in the New Testament (Luke 2:1; Acts 16:4). The earliest Fathers use it to indicate a principle of moral doctrine (rather than a principle of faith in general). From the fourth century, I he meaning of dogma as truth of faith begins to prevail (Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa). The Scholastics preferred article or sen­ tence in the last sense. From the seventeenth century to the present time, the theoretical doctrine of faith is separated from the moral doctrine, and called dogmatic theology. A dogma, in the technical use of the word, is a truth revealed by God, and proposed as such by the magis­ terium of the Church to the faithful, with the obligation of believing it. Thus understood, a dogma is a divine truth and, therefore, im­ mutable (Vatican Council, DB, 1800). The modernists, having reduced dogma to a symbolic expression of religious sentiment in continual de­ velopment (see symbolism) or to a practical rule or norm of religious consciousness (see pragmatism), have admitted an intrinsic evolution of dogma which must correspond to the indefinite phases of that sentiment and of that consciousness. These errors were condemned by Pius X (encyc­ lical Pascendi and decree Lamentabili, DB, 2026 and 2079 ff.) and by Pius XII (encyclical Humani generis). According to Catholic doctrine, a dogma cannot undergo intrinsic and substantial changes; there is an evolu­ tion, however, on the part of the faithful as to understanding and ex­ pressing a dogma (extrinsic and sub­ jective evolution). This legitimate progress appears in the history of the dogmatic formulas defined by the Church, as gradually the meaning of the truths, contained in the sources of divine revelation, came to be more profoundly and clearly understood. BIBLIOGRAPHY Cochlan, “Dogma,” CE. De Grandmaison, Le dogme chrétien (Paris, 1928). Dublanchy, “Dogme,” DTC. Gardeil, Le donné révélé et la théologie (Juvisy, 1932). Garrigou-Lagrange, Le sens commun — La philosophie de l'être et les formules dogmatiques (Paris, 1922). Lépicier, De stabilitate et progressu dogmatis (Rome, 1910). Newman, Idea of a University (London, 1899). Pinard, “Dogme,” DA. Donatism 82 Donatism. Draws its name from Donatus the Great, its chief pro­ ponent. Ideologically it is linked up with the error of the rebaptizers, due to these facts: Tertullian, having first denied the validity of baptism by heretics (based on the false reason that heretics, being deprived of grace, are incapable of transmitting it to others), found in St. Cyprian (f 258) an ardent and intelligent champion of his thesis. St. Cyprian requested Pope Stephen I to confirm it, but the Pope, founded in the Roman Tradi­ tion, replied with the famous rescript: Nihil innovetur, nisi quod traditum est" (“No innovation in traditional practices”). The Donatists, following the trajectory of the ideas of these two African scholars, pushed their posi­ tion to its extreme but logical conse­ quences: If the heretics cannot baptize validly, being devoid of the Holy Spirit and His grace, neither can sinners do so, for the same reason; sinners, therefore, cannot communi­ cate grace through administration of the sacraments. The historical occasion for such de­ velopment of the erroneous principle of Tertullian and Cyprian presented itself at the beginning of the fourth century when the Emperor Diocletian ordered the Christians to hand in their sacred books to be burned. Those who complied were called traditores (traitors, or handers-over) and were considered public sinners. Felix of Apthonga, who consecrated Cecilian Bishop of Carthage, was ac­ cused of this crime. Certain priests of Carthage, backed by the bishops of Numidia, took advantage of the prin­ ciple of the rebaptizers and deduced with ease from it that Cecilian was invalidly ordained bishop. This last appealed to Rome and won. But the rebels set up Majorinus as bishop and, in 315, upon his death, Donatus the Great, who organized the schism in a solid hierarchical way and so gave his name to it. Donatism was founded on two principles readily understandable to the people: (1) the Church is a society of saints; (2) the sacraments administered by sinners and heretics are invalid. Bolstered by the fanatical zeal of the Circumcellions and propa­ gandized by sharp writers (Parmenianus, Ticonius, Petilianus, etc.), the new sect spread and consolidated so deeply that it endangered the exist­ ence of Catholicism in Roman Africa. Neither the repeated intervention of the emperors nor the brilliant polemics by St. Optatus of Milevis were able to break the spirit of the rebels. Only at the beginning of the fifth century, with imperial support, did the serried logic and winning charity of St. Augustine succeed in weakening definitively the century-old schism and bringing into clear light the Catholic principle, according to which: (1) the Church Militant is not a society of saints but a corpus permixtum (mixed body) of good and bad; (2) the sacraments draw their efficacy from Christ and not from their ministers, and hence they are sancta per se et non per homines (“holy of themselves and not by virtue of men”). BIBLIOGRAPHY Chapman, "Donatists,” CE. Doronzo, De sacramentis in genere (Milwaukee, 1946), Index Analyticus: “Donatistae." Leclercq, L'Afrique chrétienne (Paris, 1904). Monceaux, Histoire litéraire de l'Afrique chrétienne (Paris, 1905). O'Down, “Donatism and An­ glicanism," Irish Eccles. Record, 4th series, Vol. 18 (August, 1905). Tixeront, History of Dogmas, trans. H.L.B., Vol. 2 (St. Louis, 1914), pp. 200-228. E Easter. See Pasch. Ebionites (Hcbr. ebion — poor). A Jetuish-Christian sect of the Apostolic 83 ecstasy Age, living in Palestine. Their doc­ of Dogmas, trans. H.L.B., Vol. 1 (St. Louis, trine can be reconstructed from the 1910), pp. 163-170. testimonies of Irenaeus, Origen, discens” (learning Tertullian, and Epiphanius: There “Ecclesia Church) (Lat. discere — to learn). is only one God, the Creator. Jesus That part of the members of the is a pure man, born of Mary and Church which consists of subjects. Joseph, who becomes the Christ of The Church is a society of unequals, God through His fidelity in the ob­ in which by divine right some are servance of the law. Every Christian superiors (the pope and the bishops) can become like Him and be saved and have the authority of teaching, through the Jewish observances. The while the others are subjects (all the only authentic Gospel is that of St. other faithful) and have the obliga­ Matthew; St. Paul and his epistles tion of accepting the teaching of faith are to be rejected. and morals imparted by the legitimate Toward a.d. ioo the Ebionites came pastors. Hence the theological dis­ into contact with the Essenes, another tinction of Ecclesia docens (teaching Jewish sect that had separated from Church — pope and bishops) and official and ritual Judaism for a purer Ecclesia discens (learning Church — and more perfect life. From this con­ the other faithful). tact stemmed the so-called EssenoEven the priests, while they do Ebionism, whose teachings are set indeed have care of souls, like parish forth particularly in the form of priests, belong to the Ecclesia discens, biographical novels in the pseudo­ although the bishops ordinarily use Clementine documents {homilies, their priests in the service of teaching contestation, epitome)·. God is one; the divine word; the bishops are He has a face and members; He teachers by virtue of their function, created all things in antithetic pairs while the priests are such only by (Cain and Abel, light and darkness, participation and delegation. etc.); only one Prophet exists, who Moreover, the bishops, united with manifested himself in Adam, Moses, the pope in their teaching, enjoy and, finally, in Christ, who is son of active infallibility (infallibility in God, but not God, because God is teaching). The faithful, in so far as not, like Christ, generated (a prelude they are the recipients of this teaching to Arianism, q.v.); the soul is free and assimilate the doctrines without and immortal and will be recom­ error, enjoy a sort of reflex infalli­ pensed by God according to its merits. bility, called by the theologians pas­ Circumcision is admitted as well as sive infallibility (infallibility in be­ baptism (renewed, in a certain way, lieving). by a daily bath); vegetarianism and early marriage are recommended; BIBLIOGRAPHY bloody sacrifices are forbidden. Briefly, Carretti, Propedeutica alia Sacra Teologia Ebionism is a hybrid merger of (Bologna, 1927), lez. 18. De Guibert, De Essene, Jewish, and Christian ele­ Christi Ecclesia (Rome, 1928), pp. 266-268. Various treatises De Ecclesia. ments, and has in itself the germs of future heresies. “Ecclesia docens.” See "Ecclesia IIIBLIOGRAPHY discens." Ahendzen, “Ebionitcs,” CE. Bareille, I,bilinites," DTC. Epiphanius, “Haercses i I'.uuirion)," 30, PG, 41, 400 ff. Mansel, I hr Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries (London, 1875). Tixeront, History ecstasy (Gr. ίκστασν: from ίκ — from, outside of, and ΐστημι.— I put). An extraordinary state in which a efficacy of sacraments 84 person is, as it were, outside of him­ self. There is a whole gamut of ecstatic phenomena, running from simple deliquium, quasi-absolute in­ sensibility, levitation, bilocation, bleed­ ing stigmata, to clairvoyance border­ ing prophecy. Ecstasy may be induced by extrinsic agents (alcoholic bever­ ages, anesthetics, solitude, fixation of the senses or of the mind on deter­ mined objects, etc.); or it may spring from a subjective impression in con­ templation of the beauty of nature or art; or it may be determined without motives, unexpectedly, even in babies. Unprejudiced physiologists often re­ duce all forms of ecstasy to path­ ological phenomena of hysterical catalepsy, of neurosis, or of hypno­ tism as in the medium of spiritism (q.v.). According to Catholic teach­ ing, a distinction is to be made between: (a) natural ecstasy, of spon­ taneous origin, artificial or path­ ological, with phenomena explicable by the laws of physical or psychic nature; (Z>) preternatural ecstasy, with phenomena requiring the intervention of a superior force (devil); (c) super­ natural ecstasy, due to a special action of God on the rational creature. The first lies in the field of medical science, but the last two require the judgment of the theologian. Diabolic ecstasy is marked with phenomena and actions contrary to faith and morals. Supernatural ecstasy is proper to holy and privileged souls, and consists chiefly in that superior knowl­ edge of God, made up of love and experience, which constitutes the apex of contemplation (q.v.). The somatic phenomena, e.g., stigmata, may ac­ company supernatural ecstasy, but are not in themselves the proof of it. As the highest grade of contemplation, ecstasy consists primarily in cognition, an intellectual experience of God, which is analogous to sensation (the mystics speak of spiritual senses'), through which a quasi contact is made with Him. The ecstatic, in this phase, though not seeing the divine essence, has clear knowledge of super­ natural truths and mysteries: this is explained by direct infusion of in­ telligible species by God. An ardent love accompanies this knowledge, and incites the will to accept any sacrifice for God. A more elevated form of ecstasy is rapture or flight of the spirit, in which the soul is transported and seemingly absorbed in God with flashing rapidity. Ecstasy is preva­ lently passivity of the soul: but this fact does not eliminate personality (as in the nirvana of Buddha), or liberty, or merit. The foregoing is all gathered from actual descriptions left by the great mystics, outstanding among whom are SS. Catherine of Siena, John of the Cross, Teresa, and Catherine of Genoa. BIBLIOGRAPHY Hamon, “Extase,” DTC. Pacheu, Introduc­ tion a la psychologie des mystiques (1901). Pascal Parente, The Mystical Life (St. Louis, 1946), Index: "Ecstasy.” Poulain, Les graces d’oraison (1909). Pourrat, La spiritualité chrétienne, 4 vols. (1921-1928). See under mystery; contemplation. efficacy of the sacraments. See causality of the sacraments (fact). elect. Those predestined by God to eternal life. Several questions are connected with this entry (see predestination), but only two are examined here: (1) the character of divine election and its relationship to divine knowledge, love, and predes­ tination; (2) the number of the elect. I. Character of divine election. St. Thomas frequently reminds us of the difference between God’s love and ours. We love a creature attracted by the perfection that we find in it and that can be helpful to us; while God, unable to undergo any externa) influence, loves the creature by infus­ ing into it the good it did not have. 85 Our love, then, is the effect of the perfection of the thing loved; God’s love, on the contrary, is the cause of that perfection: A mor Dei est in­ fundens et creans bonitatem in rebus (“The love of God is infusing and creating goodness in things,” Summa Theol., I, q. 20, a. 2). Therefore, while we are moved by the perfection of a creature, prefer that creature to others and love it, God first loves a creature and then prefers it on ac­ count of the perfection He has be­ stowed on it by loving it. Hence, the Thomists find this succession (logical, and not chronological — rationis et non temporis) in the divine acts: love, election, predestination. Thus, election as fruit of God’s love is ab­ solutely gratuitous, as is also pre­ destination to eternal life. But in order to love a creature with pref­ erence (predilection), God must first know the elect, and so a certain fore­ knowledge must precede the “fore­ love” or election. If we ask what is the cause of this choice, the Thomists reply that it depends exclusively on the Goodness of God who communi­ cates Himself to whom He wishes; the Molinists insist generally that prevision (foresight) of the elect’s merits must, in addition to the divine goodness, be a contributory factor in God’s choice. In any system, the dis­ tinction between elect and nonelect remains enveloped in deep mystery, as St. Augustine recognized long ago. If, indeed, in the abstract and inten­ tional order election is independent of the consideration of human merit, practically, in the order of execution, it is certain that merits (in the adult) arc a condition of salvation that can­ not be prescinded from, just as demerits are a requisite condition for damnation. 2. Number of the elect. The ques­ tion has been discussed from the earliest centuries, there being two opposite tendencies: one optimistic, elevation opening heaven’s portals wide to the majority of men, the other more rigorous, reducing the elect to a few. In ancient times the rigoristic tend­ ency predominated, while today even the theologians are somewhat more liberal, although they reject the exag­ gerated optimism of certain authors (e.g., the Humanists). The truth is that God alone knows, with certainty and ab aeterno, the exact number of the elect; in the liturgy, the Church says this expressly: Deus cui soli cognitus est numerus electorum in superna felicitate locandus (“God to whom alone is known the number of the elect who are to be put in the place of happiness above”). We can — harmoniously with God’s wisdom and the redeeming work of Jesus Christ — think that the elect are more numerous than the reprobate, but each faithful, as far as he is con­ cerned, must pray, fight, and even fear for his salvation, according to the warning of the Apostle: “With fear and trembling work out your salva­ tion” (Phil. 2:12). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 23, a. 4 and 7. Garricou-Lagrange, “Prédestination," DTC. Maas, “Elect," CE. Michel, “Elus (nombre des),” DTC. Peter Parente, De Deo Uno (1938), p. 307 ίϊ. elevation (to supernatural or­ der). A truth of faith that God not only created man with his natural perfections of soul and body (qq.v.), but also enriched him with supernat­ ural and preternatural gifts (qq.v.), in view of the end which He had appointed for him and which transcends human nature, namely, the beatific vision (see vision, beatific). The Council of Trent speaks of the “sanctity and justice in which [Adam] was constituted” {DB, 788). Pius V condemned Bay (see Baianism) who denied this elevation to the supernatural order. empiricism 86 1. Adam was enriched with sancti­ fying grace and the virtues and gifts deriving therefrom. The entire New Testament speaks of the work of the Redemption, as a return to the orig­ inal state (rehabilitation). But the Redemption consists chiefly in the restoration of the reign of grace in the human soul (cf. St. Paul); there­ fore, in the primitive state of Adam there must have been grace with the virtues and the supernatural gifts. St. Augustine, re-echoing the other Fathers, writes {De Genesi ad Utt., 6, 24, 35): “We will renew ourselves in our spirit according to the image of Him who created us, an image which Adam lost by sinning.” 2. Adam had also the preternatural gift of integrity {q.v.), which in­ cludes immunity from concupiscence (q.v.), from corporal death and from ignorance. This supernatural and preternatural endowment constituted Adam in the state of innocence or original justice, which in Adam God had bequeathed, as it were, to all human nature after the fashion of an accidens speciei (St. Thomas), i.e., a property added gratuitously to all mankind, which was virtually in Adam as in its origin and source (see innocence). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 94 ff. Beraza, De Deo elevante (Bilbao, 1924). Boyer, De Deo creante et devante (Rome, 1940). Peter Parente, De creatione universali (Rome, 1943), p. 159 ff. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), PP· 311-319· empiricism (Gr. Ιμπαρία — experi­ ence). A philosophical system which reduces all reality to the data of ex­ perience, whether internal (data of consciousness) or external (data of sense perception). Empiricism is a method rather than a system, which makes sensation the only means of knowledge, and the sensible phenom­ enon the only reality. Therefore, it is principally found in positivism and materialism (qq.v.), and from the gnosiological standpoint it is also known as sensism. Empiricism is traced back to the atomism of the Abdera’s School (Leucippus, Democritus, etc.); to Stoicism, which reduced everything to corporal substance, and to Epicu­ reanism. In more modern times empiricism, favored by the scientific methodology of Francis Bacon, was developed in England by the material­ ism of Hobbes (·)· 1679), which found favor also with the French Encyclopedists, the sensism of G. Locke ("J· 1704), and more decisively in France the sensism of Condillac (f 1780) and Comte ("f· 1857). Like­ wise pragmatism (q.v.) is character­ ized psychologically by empiricism, and so is the intuitionalist philosophy of Bergson. Obviously, empiricism makes the construction of any meta­ physics impossible by denying objec­ tive value to any reality that tran­ scends sensation or psychological experience. It is, therefore, opposed to sound philosophy and to religion. BIBLIOGRAPHY De Broglie, Le Positivisme et la science expérimentale (Paris, 1880). Ladd, Philosophy of Knowledge (New York, 1897). Maréchal, Le point de départ de la métaphysique (Paris, 1923). Mercier, Critériologie (Louvain, 1906). Siegfried, “Empiricism,” CE. Sortais, La philosophie moderne jusqu'à Leibniz (Paris, 1922). Tonnard, Précis d'histoire de la philoso­ phie (Paris, 1937), p. 779. Encratites (Gr. «γκράταα—mastery of self, continence). Heretics who ob­ served a rigorous temperance (ab­ stinence from wine, meat, conjugal relations) for fundamentally Mani­ chaean motives (see Manichaeism). The Encratite movement developed in the second century under the direc­ tion of Tatian, called by St. Jerome princeps encratistarum, of Dositcus of Cilicia and of a certain Severus, through whose work an Encratite 87 sector broke up into small groups with individual names: Apotactici (ab­ stinents), Hydroparastatae (aquari­ ans), Saccophors (because they dressed in sacks). A strong prop­ aganda, favored by the rigoristic tend­ encies of certain primitive ascetics, stimulated the widespread influence of the sect. St. Epiphanius, in the middle of the fourth century, points out their existence on the borders of the Church. They were effectively attacked by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and severe juridical measures were taken against them. BIBLIOGRAPHY Arendzen, "Encratites,” CE. Bareille, “Encratistes,” DTC. Cruttwell, A Literary History of Early Christianity (1893). encyclical (Gr. Εγκύκλιον — circular, revolving in a circle, periodical). A letter that the pope sends to all the bishops in communion with the Apostolic See in order to make known to the whole Church his mind and will on some point of dogma, morals, or Church discipline. The popes of modern times especially have made great use of such circular letters, enriching them with a large and in­ tense doctrinal content. The encyclicals of Leo XIII are famous. They deal with the most vital problems concerning ecclesiastical constitution or social and political life: Aeterni Patris (1879) on Thomistic philosophy; Arcanum divinae sapientiae (1880) on Christian mar­ riage; Diuturnum illud (1881) on the State; Immortale Dei (1885) on the Christian constitution of govern­ ments; Libertas (1888) on freedom and civil activities; Rerum Novarum (1891) on social and labor problems; Providentissimus (1893) on biblical studies; Satis cognitus (1896) on the unity of the Church; Mirae caritatis on the Eucharist. Well known is the encyclical, Pascendi (1907), with which Pius X endjultimate condemned modernism. The encyclicals of Pius XI are numerous, rivaling those of Leo XIII. Pius XII gave us, in 1939, his first encyclical Summi Pontificatus, an outstanding document of juridical wisdom and Christian charity, fol­ lowed by the others on the Mystical Body, Holy Scripture, St. Cyril of Alexandria (defender of Church unity), Liturgy, modern errors {Hu­ mani generis), the Council of Chal­ cedon which propound themes of cur­ rent interest and importance. BIBLIOGRAPHY Chaupin, Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siège (Paris, 1929), pp. 50-55. Eyre, The Pope and the People (London, 1897). Mangenot, “Encyclique,” DTC. Thurston, “Encyclical,” CE. Wynne, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII (New York, 1903). end, ultimate. The supreme term to which is ordained the action of the efficient cause. The end is the final cause; hence whatever is said of the final cause applies to the end (see final cause). The ultimate and pri­ mary end of creation is the divine goodness communicated to creatures {extrinsic glory of God). Now this effusion of goodness and glory of God may be considered objectively, in so far as it shines by itself in the life of the universe, and formally, in so far as it is known and loved by the one who is capable, namely: by the rational creature. This is the absolute ultimate end, to which divine providence orders all things. Nothing escapes this end, not even rebellious man, since the sinner leaves the order of divine love only to enter inexorably that of divine justice. Here, however, we wish to speak of the relative last end of man. The lower beings have a proper finality too, which for all of them consists in the attainment of their perfection and which is realized in their sub­ ordination to the higher beings, and energumeni 88 definitively, to man (anthropocentric Conférences de N.D. (1903). Richard, "Fin relative finality}. Man, made to God’s dernière,” DTC. image and likeness, is not ordered to any other created being, because his energumeni (Gr. èvepyoôpxvos — furi­ spirit, naturally extended toward an ous). In ecclesiastical language enerinfinite Good and an infinite Truth, gumen is one who is under the evil cannot find its specific perfection and influence of the devil as manifested satisfaction in finite things, i.e., in by phenomena beyond the power of any creature whatsoever. Therefore, nature (vision of the future, intro­ spection of consciences, overpowering his ultimate end will be a supreme Good, capable of satisfying his un­ strength, etc.) or by morbid effects limited aspiration, and so of actuat­ (epilepsy, paralysis, melancholy, deaf­ ness). Energumeni, rare in the Old ing in full his specific perfection of rational creature. This Good can be Testament (cf. 1 Kings 16:23; I9:9’> but God, who is, therefore, man’s Tob. 6:8, 19; 8:3), appear frequently around Christ in the hope of obtain­ proper final end. God, however, may be considered ing cure. In the Church, their num­ ber has progressively decreased, but objectively as the highest Good in Himself, and subjectively with respect they have never completely disap­ peared. A very old liturgical practice, to man, as the object of man’s hap­ piness (see beatitude). Formally, then, called exorcism (q.v.), for the purpose the ultimate end of man is the pos­ of expelling the devil, still exists in the Church. The possession of ener­ session of God, effected through gumeni by the devil is called obses­ knowledge and love. This end could sion (Lat. obsidere — occupy, be­ be limited within the natural order; siege), and consists in the use the but we know from revelation that evil spirit makes of the body of his God has elevated man to the super­ natural order (grace — beatific vision) victim as an instrument. The devil can influence the soul only indirectly, from the first instant of creation (see through sensations (see demon, elevation), and that this order, dis­ devil). turbed by original sin, has been re­ stored by the Redemption. God, BIBLIOGRAPHY ultimate end of man in the natural Kent, “Demoniacs,” CE. Leclercq, “Dé­ order, determines the ethical world moniaque,” DACL. Ortolan, “Démonia­ based on morality (relationship be­ ques,” DTC. Smit, De daemoniacis in historia tween human action and human end, evangelica (Rome, 1913). expressed in the law). God, ultimate end of man in the supernatural order, epiklesis (Gr. ίπίκλησκ— invoca­ tion). The name used to designate determines meritorious activity which, the prayer that is read in many under the impulse of charity (q.v.), eastern liturgies after the consecration. tends dynamically to the beatific The epiklesis, taken literally, asks vision, supreme goal in which will be God to effect the transubstantiation, actuated fully the perfectibility of as if the words of consecration al­ man, who in the intuitive knowledge ready pronounced had not had their and love of God will achieve his end full effect. and implicitly also the end of the For this reason, from the fourteenth universe, of which he is the apex and century certain Greeks, like Nicholas synthesis. Cabasilas, Simeon of Thessalonica, BIBLIOGRAPHY Marcus Eugcnicus, maintained that St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I-Π, qq. t-15. the epiklesis is absolutely necessary Avelino, "Man," CE. Janvier, "La béatitude," 89 for transubstantiation. Later they were followed also by two Latin theolo­ gians, the Dominican Ambrose Catarino and the Franciscan Christopher Cheffontaines, who maintained that transubstantiation is the effect of the words Quam oblationem, which in the Roman canon precede the consecration. But the most ancient patristic tra­ dition, represented by St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., has constantly attributed to the words of institution the power of changing the elements into the body and blood of Christ. The Church, therefore, in its ordinary magisterium, has on more than one occasion inculcated the ancient doctrine; not long ago Pius X has explicitly declared: “The Catholic doctrine on the sacrament of the Eucharist is not safe if the Greek doctrine is held acceptable, according to which the words of consecration do not have their effect until after the epiklesis” (Letter to the apostolic delegates of the Orient, Dec. 26, 1910). As regards the apparently singular fact that the epiklesis requests tran­ substantiation anew, after it has hap­ pened, there are two convenient ex­ planations: (1) St. Thomas says that the epiklesis is asking for the spir­ itual transmutation of the mystical body; (2) Bossuet holds that it is characteristic of the liturgy to go back over what occurred solely at one instant, in order to make the whole effect of that single occurrence better understood. eschatology (Rome, 1943). Pohi.e-Preuss, Dogmatic The­ ology, IX The Sacraments, Vol. 2, The Holy Eucharist (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 210-216. Sala ville, "Epiclèse," DTC; “Eucharistique (Epiclèse)," DA. Ttrer (non-Catholic), The Eucharistic Epiklesis (London, 1918). episcopate. See bishops; hierarchy; orders, holy. eschatology (Gr. ίσχατα — last things; Aoyos— discourse). That part of theology which treats of the end of life and of man’s future after death {the last things: death, judgment, heaven, hell, purgatory, the end of the world, and the resurrection of the body). The eschatological doctrine, re­ vealed substantially in Holy Scripture, is developed in Tradition gradually and occasionally in connection with erroneous opinions on one or other of its various elements. Thus in the second and third centuries, millenarianism {q.v.) was much discussed, with writings pro and con. The fourth and fifth centuries were char­ acterized by great polemics against Origenism (an aggregate of errors drawn from the writings of Origen, often badly interpreted), which cast doubt on the eternity of the pains of hell and suggested the idea of a final catharsis or purification for all, the demons included. Orthodox eschatology finds its first schematic organization in St. Augustine, and its definitive and complete systemization in the development of the Scholastic teaching, synthesized by St. Thomas. As regards the recent eschatological theories on the kingdom of God an­ nounced in the Gospel, see Parousia. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Sr. Thomas, Summa Theol., HI, q. 8, a. 4, .id 9. Brinktrine, De Epiclesis Eucharisticae origine et explicatione (Rome, 1923). Doronzo, De Eucharistia, Vol. 1 (Milwaukee, 1948), Index Analyticus: “Epiclesis.” Fortescue, "Epiklesis," CE. Jugie, Theologia Dogmatica Christianorum Orientalium, Vol. 3 (Paris, 193°). ΡΡ· 256-301; De forma Eucharistiae St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, Suppl., qq. 69-81; Summa Contra Gentiles, 1. 4, c. 79-97. Arendzen, What Becomes of the Dead? A Study in Eschatology (London, 1925). Batiffol, "Apocatastasis,” CE. Billot, De Novissimis (Rome, 1908). Braun, Aspects nouveaux du problème de l'Eglise (Fribourg en Suisse, 1942), p. 113 ff. Lanslots, The essence, divine 90 End of the World and of Man (New York, 1925). Oesterly, The Doctrine of the Last Things (London, 1908). Otten, Manual of History of Dogmas, Vol. 2 (St. Louis, 1915), pp. 418-437. Oxenham, Catholic Eschatology (London, 1878). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, XII Eschatology (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 103-120. Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality (Edinburgh, 1903). Sasia, The Future Life (New York, 1918). Sutcliffe, The Old Testament and the Future Life (Westminster, 1947). Tanquerey, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae, Vol. 3 (Paris, Rome, 1930), Ρ· 587 ff. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 1101-1282. Toner, "Eschatology," CE. essence, divine. Essence, in gen­ eral, is the formal element, constitu­ tive and distinctive of a being. A being is specifically what it is, pre­ cisely on account of its essence. Man is man on account of animality and reason (essence). What is God essentially? Old and New Testament revelation answers: God is spirit, wisdom, goodness, omnipotence, holiness; God is eternal, immutable, the synthesis of all perfections, infinite, unique. But these are so many concepts formed from our knowledge of crea­ tures and attributed to God analog­ ically (see analogy)·, they are only an attempt of the human intellect to express the divine essence. Ecclesi­ asticus declares: “We shall say much [about God], and yet shall want words: but the sum of our words is, He is all” (43:29). But even this concept is very vague. There is, how­ ever, a passage in Exodus 3:13 fï., in which God reveals Himself to Moses, saying: “I am who am,” more prop­ erly: “I am who is”; nay, the Hebrew text has: “I am the Is” (Is — Jahweh). And this is the most sublime revela­ tion: God is Being of Himself, or Being Itself. From this stems the theological teaching on the divine essence. The theologians distinguish: phys­ ical essence, which in God is the aggregate of all the perfections; and metaphysical essence, i.e., that most formal reason without which God cannot be conceived and which is the source of all His perfections. For some, the metaphysical essence of God is infinity, for others intellectual­ ity, and for others aseity (being from oneself). But the opinion most con­ sonant with revelation is the one which places the metaphysical essence of God in being. While in creatures the existence is participated and thus is distinct from their essence, in God essence and existence are identical. Being subsisting by itself {ens per se, or esse subsistens), accounts for the infinity of God and for all the other attributes, while it places an abyss between Him and the created world (see Tetragram maton). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 3, a. 4. Bittremieux, “Deus est suum esse, creaturae non sunt suum esse,” Divus Thomas (Pia­ cenza, 1930). Garrigou-Lagrange, The One God, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1943), pp. 156162. Michel, "Essence," DTC. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, I God: Knotvability, Essence, Attributes (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 144-176. eternity. Eternity is made up of two essential characteristics: the absence of a beginning and of an end, and the absence of all succession and change. The Scholastics distinguish: {a) time (defined by Aristotle: measure of movement according to a “before” and an “after”), which involves change, even substantial, in things; (Z>) aevum, proper to spiritual beings (duration of souls and angels), which involves a beginning but not an end, and admits of only an accidental change; (c) eternity, which excludes all limitation, all change, all succes­ sion. It is a truth of faith that God alone is properly and simply eternal (see immutability). There are im­ mortal creatures, like human souls and the angels {qq.v.), which have a beginning, but on account of the 91 simplicity of their nature do not tend to perish. According to St. Thomas, the hypothesis is not absurd of an eternal world (i.e., which never be­ gan), created so and conserved by God. In the absolute sense, however, no creature can be eternal, i.e., in such a sense as to exclude not only beginning and end, but also change and succession, and to possess in act (i.e., actually and together) its en­ tire perfection. Absolute eternity be­ longs to God alone, as defined by Boethius: Interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio (“Perfect and simultaneous possession of a life without terms — beginning and end”). Eternity excludes and transcends time, and so in God there is no past or future, but only a changeless pres­ ent. The problem of “before” and “after” makes no sense in God, to whom all of time in its succession is always present, like all the suc­ cessive points of a circumference are simultaneously present to its center. This is the divine presentiality, one of the most important elements in the solution of the problem of the socalled prescience or foreknowledge of God. Eucharist In other words, the Eucharist is the prolongation of the Incarnation (Leo XIII): as the Word of God became present in human form to procure salvation for us by rendering due homage to God and condign satisfaction for sin, so Christ renders Himself present under the eucharistie veils to apply to us the work of the Redemption, in its ascendant phase, by renewing the sacrifice of the cross, and in its descendant motion by dis­ tributing grace through the sacra­ mental rite of Holy Communion. The eucharistie Mystery embraces, therefore, the Real Presence (see Pres­ ence, Real), the sacrifice of the Mass (q.v.), and the sacrament of Com­ munion (see Communion, eucha­ ristie). On account of the multiplicity of the mysteries it includes, the Eu­ charist is the compendium of faith, the center of gravitation of Christian piety, and the polar star that directs all the activity of the Catholic Church. The numerous names given to the Eucharist reflect, as in a prism of many facets, the variety of its aspects: Most Holy Sacrament, Body of Christ, Body of the Lord, the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, Mass, Synaxis, Viaticum, Communion, Divine Table, etc. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. io. Garif ioou-Lacrangb, The One God, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1943), pp. 276-292. McDonald, "l'.ternity,” CE. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic The­ ology, I God: Knowability, Essence, Attributes (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 306-314. Sertillanges, St Thomas d’Aquin, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1925), p. 203 ff. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, cd. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 98-101. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, qq. 73-83 (with the classical commentaries of Cajetan, Gonet, Contenson, Billot, etc.). D'Alès, Eu­ charistie (Paris, 1933). Cochlan, De SS. Eu­ charistia (Dublin, 1913). Connell, De Sacra­ mentis (Brugis, 1933), pp. 173-287. Doronzo, De Eucharistia, 2 vols. (Milwaukee, 1948). Filograssi, De SS. Eucharistia (Rome, 1940). Garrigou-Lagrance, De Eucharistia (Turin, 1943). Goossens, Les origines de I'Eucharistie (Gembloux, 1931). Hedley, The Holy Eucha­ rist (London, 1907). Hugon, La Sainte Eucharistie (Paris, 1924). Labauche, Lettres à um etudiant sur la Sainte Eucharistie (Paris, 1911). Lebreton, “Eucharistie," DA. Mattiussi. De SS. Eucharistia (Rome, 1925). Pohle, “Eucharist,” CE. Pohle-Preuss, Dog­ matic Theology, IX The Sacraments, Vol. 2, The Holy Eucharist (St. Louis, 1946). Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, trans, from the hucharist (Gr. ά-χαριστάν — to I hank). The sacrament which, under the species or appearances of bread and wine, contains truly, really, and substantially the body and blood of Jesus Christ, which is offered in sacrifice and distributed as spiritual food of souls. eucharistie accidents 92 second German edition (St. Louis, 1913). Ruch, Bareille, Bour, Vernet, De Ghellinck, Mancenot, Godefroy, "Eucharistie," DTC. Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, trans. Vollert (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 4(>9_535· Tissot, The Real Presence (New York, 1873). Vonier, A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucha­ rist (Westminster, 1946), pp. 53-85. Wise­ man, Lectures on the Real Presence (London, 1842). eucharistie accidents. The species of bread and wine (quantity, color, taste, and smell) which remain un­ varied. They are an absolute, neces­ sary condition for the body and blood of Christ to be present in a sacra­ mental manner (see Presence, Real, Eucharistic [fact]). In fact, if the accidents did not remain, the presence of the body of Jesus could only be in specie propria, that is, by adaption of the single parts of the glorious body to the corresponding parts of sur­ rounding space, so that remaining enclosed in place A it could not simultaneously be in place B, just as a quart of water cannot be in its en­ tirety simultaneously contained in two bottles of one quart each. The ac­ cidents remain unchanged, and the body of Christ, which is contained locally, one time only, in heaven, can be made present “after the manner of substance” as many times as there are eucharistie consecrations. In this manner the claim of absurdity cannot be made, the absurdity of a body many times distant from itself. Dis­ tance is the interval between two bodies locally present in space, and so it does not occur in the case of Christ’s body in heaven and the same body in the Eucharist, seeing that in the host it is not present locally (i.e., after the manner of quantity), but only sacramentally (i.e., after the manner of substance). There has been much discussion among philosophers and theologians on the nature of the accidents, but the data of Tradition as well as the declarations of the Church, made at Constance (DB, 582) and at Trent (DB, 884), lead us to accept the classic doctrine of the Scholastics. The Scholastics constantly maintained that the sacramental species are not sub­ jective modifications of the senses (against Descartes) or effects pro­ duced divinely in the place of the bread and wine (against the atomists and dynamists), but that they are the same numerical realities which had the substances of bread and wine as their subject of inhesion before transubstantiation. After transubstantiation these realities remain without any natural subject, sustained in their first being by that same divine omnipo­ tence which, having been able to form in the Virgin’s womb the body of Christ without human seed, can also in an eminent manner supply the effect of substance with relation to the accidents. On corruption of the eucharistie species, the Real Presence ceases im­ mediately because their relationship of container with respect to the body of Christ vanishes, without the body of Christ being subject to any change. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., HI, q. 77. D’Ai.ès, De Eucharistia (Paris, 1929), pp. 94-98. Billot, De sacramentis, Vol. 1, pp. 436-440. Doronzo, De Eucharistia, Vol. 1 (Milwaukee, 1948), pp. 315-384. Jansen, “Eucharistiques (Accidents),” DTC. PohlePreuss, Dogmatic Theology, IX The Sacra­ ments, Vol. 2, The Holy Eucharist (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 143-158. Van Hove, De SS. Eucharistia (Mechliniae, 1941). Eutychianism. Christological heresy of Eutyches, Archimandrite of Con­ stantinople, also called Monophysitism because, in opposition to Nestorianism, it defends the sub­ stantial unity of Christ up to the point of positing in Him not only one Person, but also one thcandric nature (Monophysitism: Gr. μόνη — one, and ψυσ« — nature). The genesis evil 93 of this heresy lies entirely in an at­ tempt to exaggerate the position of St. Cyril of Alexandria against Nestorianism; in his polemic fervor the holy Doctor had advanced some extreme expressions on the profound unity of the Man-God (unity not of nature but only of person) and had adopted a famous Apollinarianistic phrase (see Apollinarianism)·. μία φνσιι τοϋ Λόγου σΐσαρκωμίνη (the incarnate nature of the Word is one) which he attributed to St. Athanasius. But the concept of a fusion of the divine and human natures of Christ is foreign to the mentality of St. Cyril. The Eutychians appeal abu­ sively to his authority. Besides, Eutyches, a man of no great ability, maintained stubbornly and without reasons that before the union there were two natures, but after the union there was one sole nature in Christ. His disciples advanced various ex­ planations, often fantastic, of that statement of their master: they speak of mixture of the two natures, of absorption of one in the other, of formal union similar to that of the soul with the body. All these formulas compromise inexorably the integrity of one or of both natures. The Council of Chalcedon (451) condemned the new heresy, vindi­ cating precisely the integrity of the two natures and their real distinction, notwithstanding the personal unity: Christ is one, sole subject (Person), the Word, who incarnating Himself remains perfect God and becomes per­ fect man. Distinction and not divi­ sion, union and not confusion or transformation: the two natures, subsisting in the Person of the Word, remain integral with their respective properties. The Council follows and repeats in its definitions the doctrine expounded by Pope St. Leo the Great in his famous letter to Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople (449). Monophysitism spread widely on account of its definite mystic char­ acter, giving rise to various churches and sects, among which is noteworthy that of the Jacobites (from Jacob Baradai, Bishop of Odessa, ψ 578) which still remains in the East with its hierarchy (see Theopaschism; Docetism). BIBLIOGRAPHY Cayré, Manual of Patrology, trans. Howitt, Vol. 2 (Paris, Tournai, Rome, 1940), pp. 52—71. Chapman, "Eutychianism,” CÈ; “Monophysites and Monophysitism,” CE. Jugie, “Monophysisme,” DTC. Lebon, Le monophysisme sévérien (Louvain, 1909). evil. The subject of a problem that has always harassed philosophers and theologians. The first who attempted an integral solution of the old ques­ tion was St. Augustine — constrained to study it in his struggle against Manichaeism (q.v.), which by the side of the Principle of good put the Principle of evil, according to the Mazdaistic conception of the Persians. St. Augustine refuted this extravagant dualism by bringing to service the neoplatonic (cf. Plotinus) concept of evil as non-being, i.e., as privation of being and, therefore, of goodness. The Pseudo-Dionysius speaks along the same line (De Divinis Nominibus, Ch. IV). From these sources St. Thomas drew his principles in de­ veloping on repeated occasions the important doctrine of evil in relation to creation, divine providence (q.v.) and knowledge (see science, divine) and divine motion in creatures (see concourse, divine). The chief heads of the Thomistic teaching are: (1) metaphysically, evil is a partial privation of good, and, therefore, it is rather a non-being (non ens)·, e.g., blindness means ab­ sence, lack of the good of sight in a man who ought to have it. (2) Where there is fullness of being, pure act (God), evil is not possible; but evil blends with good where there is po­ evolutionism 94 tency, and, therefore, defectibility. From the viewpoint of being, evil has its roots in the limitation and in the multiplicity of created beings. From the viewpoint of operation, evil is inserted between potency and act, in­ asmuch as the former may not attain the latter; e.g., the seed that does not develop. (3) Evil, inasmuch as it is non-being, cannot cause (realize, give being), nor can it be caused un­ less per accidens by good itself. Thus God in creating the world (good) is the indirect cause also of evil which has its subject in created good, nec­ essarily limited and multiple. (4) Evil is not in the intention or in the idea of God, who knows it through good, of which it is the privation. Evil, both physical and moral (sin) is entirely on the part of creatures, which are deficient in acting because limited in being. (5) Evil is not contrary to providence, be­ cause God provides, in an orderly way, rather for the universal good, which demands often the sacrifice of the particular good. Moreover, He who does not will but permits evil is able to draw good from evil. For example, original sin, which has ag­ gravated physical and moral evil in the world, was permitted by God, who, however, grafted, as it were, onto it the wondrous work of the Redemption. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Quaest. Disp. De Malo. Clarke, The Existence of God: A Dialogue (London, 1887). Jolivet, Le problème du mal d’après St. Augustin (Paris, 1936). Peter Parente, “Il male seconde la dottrina di S. Tommaso,” Acta Acad. Pont. Romanae S. Thomae Aq. (1940). Rickaby, “Evil and Necessity," Month (Nov., 1898). Sertillances, St. Thomas d'Aquin, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1925), p. 61 ff. Sharpe, “Evil,” CE. Smith, The Problem of Evil (London, 1906). The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 228-241. evolutionism. The scientific theory, according to which all present living beings are the result of a progressive transformation from one or more primordial elements. It is also called transformism. This theory arose at the beginning of the past century from the work of the French botanist John de Lamarck and, more proxi­ mately, from the work of Charles Darwin, from whom the theory took the name of Darwinism. Lamarck assigned, as the cause of the evolution of species, adaptation to environment and natural finalistic tendency of the organisms {internal factors) ; Darwin attributed the evolu­ tion of species to natural selection and the struggle for existence {external factors). The Dutchman, H. de Vries, also made an important contribu­ tion to the evolutionistic theory, ad­ mitting real natural mutations in plants {mutationism). The new theory aroused great enthusiasm: the materialist Haeckel used it as a weapon of propaganda for his athe­ istic monism, even using fraud in scientific experiments. But quickly, after the enthusiasm boiled down, doubts and delusions set in, once scientists began to examine the facts more accurately. This is not the place for a scientific exposition and an adequate refutation of this complex system; a cursory evaluation of it from a philosophicotheological standpoint will be ap­ propriate and sufficient. Atheistic materialistic evolutionism, philosoph­ ically and theologically speaking, is just as absurd as materialism and atheism {qq.v.). But there is a theistic evolutionism, which desires to be linked with Christianity; it is integral or partial. The former main­ tains the evolution of all living beings from one or a few primordial organ­ isms up to the human body inclu­ sively (the soul is excluded, being an effect of creation). The latter, partial evolutionism, admits an evolution of various primitive organisms, re­ 95 stricted, however, within the limits of principal groups or genera. Theistic evolutionism, whatever its form, al­ ways supposes an influence of God, immediate or mediate, on the progres­ sive development of the organisms. Its adherents mistakenly appeal to St. Augustine (see cosmogony'). Sci­ entifically speaking, evolutionism lacks solid foundations; serious difficulties militate against it from systematics, geology, paleontology, and embry­ ology, which at one time seemed to favor it. The stability of the species is the reef of destruction of the whole system. Philosophically, if we prescind from a direct divine intervention, evolutionism clashes with the prin­ ciple of causality, which does not admit derivation of a higher effect from a lower cause (the more from the less). Theologically speaking, it is possible to admit hypothetically a kind of partial evolutionism, provided it is subordinated to the influence of the First Cause. Such evolutionism could embrace the vegetable and the animal kingdom, but could not be inclusive of man, for, according to divine revelation, man’s soul was created by God and placed in a body which He fashioned. But such a con­ cession would have to be backed up by probative scientific evidence which, up to now, is lacking. BIBLIOGRAPHY Baule, Le transformisme au regard de la science et de la foi (Paris, 1936). De Sinéty, "Transformisme," DA. Dorlodot, Darwinism and Catholic Thought, trans. Messenger (Lon­ don, 1922). Gaia, L’evoluzione e la scienza (Home, 1921). Muckermann, "Evolution," Cil. Wasmann, The Problem of Evolution (London, 1912). “ex cathedra.” See infallibility. exegesis (Gr. ΐξήγησι·;, from the verb Ιζηγΰσθαι — to explain). The art of finding and proposing the true sense of a text, and, in the theological field, exemplary cause of a text of Holy Scripture. It is an art insomuch as it applies the rules and principles of both the rational and the theological orders, which the science of hermeneutics (?-f·) establishes. The process of interpretation of a biblical text starts with the determina­ tion of the text itself through the principles of textual criticism. Through the means of the rules of hermeneutics the exact exegesis of the text is given, recourse being had, whenever necessary, to literary criti­ cism to determine the literary style of the book in which the text under examination is contained, and to historical criticism to locate it in its time relations. The supreme purpose of exegesis is to illuminate through human words the fullness of the light and thought of God. BIBLIOGRAPHY See under hermeneutics. exemplary cause. That according to which something is made (see cause). It is proper to intelligent being to act according to ideas con­ ceived in the mind, which are, there­ fore, exemplary causes of the effects produced. Plato placed ideas in a supersense world, subsisting in them­ selves outside the mind of God; ac­ cording to such ideas the Demiurge molded and arranged the material world (exemplarism). Catholic doctrine, based on divine revelation, teaches that God, as He is die efficient cause, so He is also the exemplary cause of the created uni­ verse. In Holy Scripture, divine wis­ dom is called the craftsman of the universe and God Himself is com­ pared to an architect who creates and forms things according to his mind’s plans and designs. That is why theologians distinguish in the mind of God the so-called architype ideas, exemplary causes of creation; existentialism 96 these ideas are the divine essence it­ self, as known by God as imitable outside of Himself. Absolutely speak­ ing, the divine Idea is but one, the Word (q.v.), but the architype ideas are said to be many, inasmuch as in the Word the divine essence is viewed as imitable in various ways. By virtue of exemplary causality there is in all things an imprint of God, which in irrational creatures is a simple mark, while in men, who have thought and will to the likeness of God, it reaches the intensity and perfection of an image. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 44, a. 3; q. 45, a. 7. Peter Parente, “Rapporte tra partecipazionc c causalité in S. Tommaso," Acta Pont. Acad. Romanae S. Thomae Aq. (1941). existentialism. A philosophical cur­ rent started in the past century by the Dane, Soren Kierkegaard (f 1855), and developed by recent scholars (Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, Abbagnano) in a variety of interpretations and connotations. Existentialism orig­ inated as a reaction to Hegelian idealism, but today is generally pre­ sented as an antithesis to abstractism or transcendentalism and as adhesion to the concrete existence of the in­ dividual man. Existence is the basic problem of existentialism. There is in man a collective, public, and superficial exist­ ence, enslaved to the tyrannical exigencies of the mass, of society; but there is in him a more deep, more proper and subjective, more free existence: the authentic existence, which is not, but is being made, which is not static but dynamic, and constitutes our own proper unmis­ takable personality. Descending into the depths of his own personality, man discovers that his own real, authentic existence is in tragic con­ flict with his superficial existence, and feels himself seized by anguish. This anguish or distress is determined by consciousness of our own finite­ ness, by the sense of guilt, by the desire of emancipating ourselves from the crowd, and of being truly our­ selves. To discover oneself in this authentic existence is to find out one’s own possibilities and stretch forward to a future of conquest: but on the horizon of these aspirations the specter of death looms as an inexora­ ble barrier, and increases the distress of the spirit. In this way, living authentically is living with the thought of death. For Kierkegaard (a Protestant) the tragic discovery of this real existence resolves itself in an appeal to the supernatural and, what is more, to an appeal without further ado to Christianity; but the other existentialists have eliminated this religious motive in order to stand aside in the problematicity of life and thought, and be free from the worries of definitive solutions. From a philosophical standpoint, existentialism tries to be realistic and claims to be so, even with a Thomistic penchant, in Marcel; but in the others it remains caught in a Kantian posi­ tion, halfway between realism and idealism. Its pessimistic tinge, its tendency to affirm the irrationality of life, its agnostic attitude toward God and the supernatural world, make existentialism unacceptable, without important reservations, to the Chris­ tian. But is must be recognized that existentialism, with its realistic mo­ tives, has broken the spell of the haughty dreams of idealism and re­ vived the problem of individual life by spurring consciences to find an adequate solution. BIBLIOGRAPHY Fabro, Introduzione all'esistenzialismo (Milan, 1943). Jolivet, Les doctrines exis­ tentialistes (Abbaye Saint-Wandrille, 1948). Kniper, "Aspetti dcU'esistenzialismo," Acta Pont. Acad. Rom. S. Thomae Aq., Vol. 9 (1944). PP· 99-taj· 97 “ex opere operato.” The Council of Trent, sess. VII, can. 8, defined: “If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law do not confer grace ex opere operato, let him be excom­ municated” {DB, 851). The expression ex opere operato and its contrary ex opere operantis were used for the first time by Peter of Poitiers (f 1205), and long before the Council of Trent had a precise and fixed meaning in Scholastic usage; in fact, in theological speech opus operatum means the objective act considered in itself independently of the moral value that may derive from the one who does the act. Opus operantis, instead, means the act sub­ jectively considered, in so far as it has a moral value deriving to it from the person acting. Applied to sacramental theology, the opus operatum is nothing more than the sensible sign validly per­ formed, i.e., the external rite con­ sisting of matter and form administered according to the institu­ tion of Christ; the opus operantis, on the contrary, is the act of either the minister or the subject inasmuch as it has a moral or meritorious value. Now since causality ex opere operato is opposed to that ex opere operantis, to affirm the first is the same as to deny the second. Therefore, the Tridentine Fathers, by saying that the sacraments produce grace ex opere operato, teach that the grace of the sacrament is caused by the sacra­ mental rite validly placed and not by the merits of the minister or the subject. Thus with a brief formula they disposed of the Lutheran prin­ ciple, according to which confidence or fiducial faith {opus operantis) is the cause of grace and not the sacra­ ment itself, and they consecrated the Catholic doctrine already formulated by St. Augustine: “Baptism has its value, not through the merits of the minister, or through those of the exorcistate receiver, but on account of its own proper holiness, communicated to it by Him who instituted it” {Contra Cresconium, 1. IV, c. 19). (See causality of the sacraments.) BIBLIOGRAPHY Doronzo, De sacramentis in genere (Mil­ waukee, 1946). Index Analyticus: “Opus Operatum.” Franzelin, De sacramentis (Rome, 1911), thes. 7. Michel, “Opus opera­ turn," DTC; Les décrets du Concile de Trente (Paris, 1938), p. 206 f. Van Noort, De sacramentis, Vol. 1 (Hilversum, 1927), n. 44. exorcism (Gr. έξορκισμόϊ— the act of conjuring up). A rite administered by a person legitimately deputized for the purpose of expelling devils, especially from energumeni {q.v.). Authority over the devil was directly conferred by Christ on the Apostles and disciples; in the primitive Church we find numerous references to the practice of exorcisms. In the middle of the third century the office of exorcist (see exorcistate) was es­ tablished. In the actual discipline, only a priest is permitted to exorcise according to the formulas of the Roman Ritual and after explicit authorization from his bishop. In the liturgy, exorcism is very frequent (e.g., in the baptismal ceremonies, the blessing of holy water, etc.). Exorcism supposes that persons and elements may be infested with malign spirits who seek to impede the fruitful use of holy things. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., ΙΠ, q. 71, a. 2-4. Arendt, De sacramentalihus (Rome, 1900), pp. 329-385. Forget, “Exorcisme," DTC. Toner, “Exorcism,” CE. See under exorcistate. exorcistate (Gr. ^ξορκιστής — he who conjures out). The third of the four minor orders (see orders, holy). The functions proper to this order is to impose the hands on the ob­ sessed, whether baptized or catechu­ mens, and to recite prayers in order experience, religious 98 to expel the devil from the body. In the first period of the Church this office did not constitute an ecclesi­ astical dignity but was a gratuitous gift (charism) granted by the Holy Spirit even to laymen; only in the third century did it rise to the dignity of a minor order. In the present Church discipline, exorcisms are reserved to priests prac­ ticing them with prudence and authorized to do so by their bishops (see exorcism). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, Suppl., q. 37, a. 2. Kurtscheid, Historia luris Can­ onici, Vol. i (Rome, 1941). Leclercq, “Ex­ orciste," DACL. Tixeront, Holy Orders and Ordinations, trans. Raemers (St. Louis). Toner, “Exorcist," CE. See under exorcism. experience, religious. In the ge­ neric sense it can be defined as the aggregate of psychological impres­ sions relative to the origin and development of religion in the con­ sciousness and life of man. Thus un­ derstood, religious experience is no more than religion intimately lived and felt in the various phases of its de­ velopment in each religious subject, and has nothing heterodox about it. Christian consciousness day by day lives the drama of its faith, of its rela­ tionship with God, believed and loved, and through ascetic exercise can at­ tain, with the help of grace and of the heavenly gifts, the sphere of mystical life (see mystics; contempla­ tion), in which religious experience manifests itself intensely in the phe­ nomena that accompany union and contact with God (see ecstasy). The term “religious experience” in later times has taken on a specific meaning in certain currents of re­ ligious philosophy, like pragmatism and modernism {qq.v.), in open conflict with Catholic doctrine. The American, W. James, is the author and principal proponent of a whole complicated theory on religious ex­ perience (cf. his work, Varieties of Religious Experience, 1902). He studies the religious fact chiefly as an individual psychological phenomenon, in which sentiment, breaking through from subconsciousness (q.v.), holds sway over the functions of intel­ ligence. This psychological experience has, as its proper object, not a God personally distinct from man, but “the divine,” vaguely felt as some­ thing that transcends man and at the same time is immanent in him, and toward which the soul has sentiments of love or fear, of filial confidence or desperation, of joy or sadness. All religions, according to James, are in their essence reduced to this kind of experience and, therefore, it can­ not be said that one is more true than another, all religions being ex­ pressions of that experience. This theory has its roots in Lutheranism {q.v.), which denied reason and faith, as intellective acts, affirming in their stead a kind of fiducial faith and sentiment; a tendency which found later justification in Kantianism (q.v.) with the playing down of reason (agnosticism) and recourse to the will and to faith for religious certitude. Contributory to James’s theory was the sentimental theology of Schleiermacher (f 1834), a disciple of Kant, who was in turn followed by Ritschl (j· 1889), who, while ad­ mitting the historical fact of the Christian religion documented by Holy Scripture, subjected all Chris­ tian truths, including the divinity of Christ, to the control {value judg­ ment) of sentiment or religious ex­ perience. A. Sabatier (f 1901) made himself a popularizer of these ideas; and Le Roy added to them the at­ tractiveness of Bergson’s philosophy. Modernism has adopted without re­ serve this current of psychological immanentism, thus compromising the substance of Catholic doctrine. 99 Indeed, religious experience, up­ held systematically as a criterion of knowledge and of ethico-religious life, opens the way to all aberrations of which sentiment — blind, indi­ vidual, undisciplined by the light and strength of reason — is capable. It reduces religion to the status of a psychological caprice, denying, to­ gether with the dignity of the in­ tellect, the personality of God, the historical fact of revelation, and all external religious facts, which impose themselves upon our conscience in­ stead of stemming from it. The Church has condemned this tendency by rejecting Lutheranism (Counc. of Trent), Molinosism, and modernism {qq.v.; encycl., Pascendi). BIBLIOGRAPHY Leclère, Pragmatisme, Modernisme, Protes­ tantisme (Paris, 1909). Michelet, “Religion," DA, col. 899 ff. Pacheu, L'expérience mysti­ que et l'activité subconsciente (Paris, 1911). Pinard, "Expérience religieuse,” DTC. expiation (Lat. expiatio from piare — to placate by a sacrifice the divine wrath; hence piaculum — a means for placating the divinity). The act by which man seeks to placate the divine wrath caused by a sin or an offense, and to regain heavenly favor by subjecting himself to a penalty. The feeling of guilt accompanied by the fear of punishment and, therefore, the desire of expiation are found in nearly all peoples and religions. Gen­ erally sacrifice has also an expiatory character: the bloody immolation of animals (of man at times) was to serve to placate God, divert His punishment, and purify the people from the crime committed. This con­ cept is also found in the Hebrew re­ ligion, especially in the feast of Kippurim, in which a goat was killed and its blood sprinkled on people and things in sign of purification and reconciliation with God (Lev. 16:16; cf. Heb. 9:19-28). expiation In the Catholic religion the concept of expiation integrates the doctrine of Redemption (q.v.), especially in relation to the passion of Jesus and His bloody sacrifice on the cross. Isaias of old (Ch. 53) had predicted that the future Messias would be the expiatory Victim for the sins of men; the Gospels re-echo this sublime thought when they say that Christ will give His life in redemption (λυτρον) and His blood to remission of sins (Matt. 20:28; 26:28). Still more emphatic is the insistence of St. Paul on the expiatory value of the death and the blood of the Saviour, using the technical term ίλαστήριον (instrument of expiation) to specify the sacrifice of Christ (Rom. 3:25). Tradition, too, is rich in testimonies emphasizing this truth. Hence we understand why the Church has condemned the following proposition of modernism: “The teaching on the expiatory death of Christ has its origin not in the Gospel but in Paul” (decree, Lamentabili, DB, 2038). According to the teach­ ing of the Church, therefore, the ex­ piatory character of the death of Jesus is simply a revealed truth. How­ ever, not all the doctrine of Redemp­ tion lies in this truth. Luther and his followers deformed the concept of the Redemption by restricting their view to the external aspect of the passion and death of Christ, in which they saw only a punishment of God for our sins {penal substitution). Christ thus would be a passive Victim of the vindictive justice of God. Expiation corrects this ultra-severe concept with the idea of the spon­ taneity with which Christ accepted death to pay off the punishment due for our sins. Catholic doctrine rejects the Lutheran theory, accepts the theory of expiation, and goes beyond it to a more adequate concept of vicarious satisfaction (see satisfaction of Christ), which brings out the extreme unction 100 moral content of Redemption (love, humility, obedience of Christ). Ex­ piation and satisfaction are mutually integrative: in the former, the passion of Christ is the principal means of reparation, in the latter, the passion is concomitant. BIBLIOGRAPHY Kent, “Atonement,” CE. Madebielle, “Expiation,” DBES. Oxenham, The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement (London, 1865). Rivière, The Doctrine of the Atonement, trans, from the French, 2 vols. (London, 1909). The Teaching of the Catholic Church, cd. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 952-954. extreme unction (Lat. extrema — last; unctio — anointing, unction). The sacrament of the dying. The Apostle St. James, in his Catholic Letter, writes: “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him” (5:14-15). In this inspired text are found all the ele­ ments constitutive of the sacrament of the sick. Its institution is indicated in the incidental phrase in nomine Domini, which in the Greek original means “by virtue of the command and on the authority of the Lord,” i.e., of Christ, because in the style of the New Testament the term Kyrios {Dominus, Lord) is the proper epithet of Jesus Christ. The ministers are the “presbyteri,” by which we are to understand not the old men or ancients of the people but the duly ordained bishops and priests, as the Church has always understood in theory and in practice. The elements of the rite are ex­ pressly indicated in the oil (the mat­ ter) and the prayer (the form). Olive oil blessed by the bishop is used to anoint various parts of the body, which are the most likely instruments of sin — eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, hands, feet — and at the same time the sacramental formula is recited. The Latin form is: “Through this holy unction and His most pious mercy, may the Lord pardon you all evil you have committed with the eyes, with the ears,” etc. The effects are summarized by the Council of Trent when, synthesizing the data of Tradition, it calls this sacrament consummativum poeniten­ tiae (sess. 14, exord., DB, 909), i.e., completing and perfecting the sacra­ ment of penance. It completes the effects of the sacrament of forgiveness because it completes the incorpora­ tion in Christ restored by penance; strengthens the soul for the last struggle against the devil; removes the remnants {reliquiae') of sin, flinging down tbe last obstacles to perfect adhesion to Christ; disposes the sick to suffer and die in Christ and for Christ, associating him with the sufferings and death of Christ the Head. Particularly, this sacrament makes the supernatural organism robust and fit to overcome the supreme weak­ nesses of the spirit, aggravated by the exhaustion of the flesh. In fact, the wounds of original sin cured by baptism, and of personal sins healed by penance, weaken the spiritual organism of the soul, which, at the point where the body is about to break down and the devil makes his final assault, finds itself exposed to the grave danger of succumbing in the supreme struggle. To obviate such a danger, the sacramental grace of extreme unction increases the virtue of hope, by which the sick gives him­ self with confidence into the hands of the divine mercy and multiplies the helps of actual grace, effecting for the sick a strong shield against the darts of the enemy. This is the alleviatio faith 101 (the relief), of which the Apostle speaks. To all this are added the maternal attentions of the Church, who increases her efficacious assistance for this child whom she is rebearing unto eternal life: She invokes all the saints of heaven, calls on the souls in purgatory, assembles the just on earth who pray unseen around the bed of the dying, while the priest, official representative of the Church, per­ forms the sacred rite, in which “the devotion of the recipient, the per­ sonal merit of the ministers, and the general merit of the whole Church are of very great help” (St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 32, a. 3). In the case where the sick man is unable to confess his sins, this sacrament supplies for the effects of the sacrament of penance, and, should the Lord judge it ex­ pedient, it procures also bodily health. The subject is the adult and sic\ Christian; therefore, extreme unction cannot be administered to one in good health, even if he is very close to death, like the soldier entering com­ bat, or even the condemned going up to the gallows. The definitions of the Council of Trent against the Protestants, who call extreme unction “a hypocritical farce” (Calvin), are found in sess. 14, right after the canons on penance (DB, 926-929). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., ΙΠ, Suppl., <|<|. 29-33. B°rd. L'Extrême Onction (Lou­ vain, 1923). Cappello, De Extrema Unctione (Turin, 1942). Hanley, Extreme Unction (New York, 1907). Kern, De sacramento Extremae Unctionis (Freiburg i.-Br., 1907). K ii.KER, Extreme Unction (St. Louis, 1927). McDonald, "The Sacrament of Extreme Unclion,” The Irish Theological Quarterly, Vol. 2 (1907), n. 7, pp. 330-345. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, XI The Sacraments, Vol. 4, Extrema Unction, Holy Orders, Matrimony (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 1-51. Quinn, Extreme Unction (Dublin, 1920). Ruch, Godefroy, I xtrème Onction,” DTC. Schmitz, De effec­ tibus Extremae Unctionis (Freiburg, 1893). Toner, "Extreme Unction.” CE. The Teach­ ing of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 990-1021. extrinsicism. See justification; Re­ demption. F faith. In general faith consists in be­ lieving the word of another. In a technical and supernatural sense, faith is adhesion of the intellect, under the influence of grace, to a truth revealed by God, not on account of its in­ trinsic evidence but on account of the authority of Him who has revealed it. St. Paul defines faith: “The sub­ stance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not” (Heb. 11:1). Faith is formally in the intellect as a habit (one of the three theolog­ ical virtues infused by God together with sanctifying grace) and as an act. But in the act of faith the will also concurs, because the divine truths, often surpassing the rational capacity of man, lack that evidence which usually determines the assent of the intellect. Therefore, the intervention of the will is necessary in order to move the intellect to adhere to the revealed truth, although incompre­ hensible, out of homage to God. Hence, faith is a rationabile obse­ quium, a free submission of human reason to the eternal Truth who un­ veils Himself, and as such is meri­ torious. The formal motive of faith is exclusively the authority of God, which constitutes an extrinsic evi­ dence, while science requires intrinsic evidence; consequently, faith is ob­ scure, but possesses a firmness and certainty superior to those of any purely human knowledge. Faith, both in its beginning and its successive development, is always the faith, articles of 102 effect of the grace of God (cf. the II Council of Orange against the Semi­ Pelagians). It is indispensable for sanctification and salvation (Council of Trent), but is not sufficient without good works: Fides sine operibus mortua est (St. James). Luther reduces faith to a blind trust or confidence in the divine mercy, the modernists to a sentiment erupting from the subconscious (see subconsciousness; Lutheranism; mod­ ernism). Cf. Council of Trent, sess. VI, cc. 6-7 {DB, 2074); Vatican Council, sess. Ill, cc. 3-4 {DB, 17891800); encyclical, Pascendi {DB, 2074). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Il-Π, qq. 1-16. Aveling, "Faith and Science,” Westminster Lectures (London, 1906). Bainvel, La foi et l'acte de foi (Paris, 1908). Harent, “Foi," DTC. Manning, The Grounds of Faith (1852); “Faith and Reason,"DublinReview (July, 1889). McNabb, Oxford Conferences on Faith (Lon­ don, 1905). Newman, “The Introduction of Rationalistic Principles into Revealed Religion,” Tracts for the Times (1835). Petazzi, Analisi psicologica dell'atto di fede (Vicenza, 1927). Pope, “Faith,” CE. Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, trans. Vollert (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 762-796. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 10-35. Ward, "The Agnosticism of Faith,” Dublin Review (July, 1903). faith, articles of. See articles of faith. fatalism. See destiny; freedom. Father. The proper name of the First Person of the Holy Trinity, which has its foundation in the in­ tellective generation (see procession, divine) from which originates the Son — Word. This paternity with respect to the Son is to be taken in the proper and natural sense. Be­ sides, God is called in a figurative or analogous sense Father of the uni­ verse, the effect of His omnipotence, and, in a sense more connected with His true paternity He is called the Father of men, especially by virtue of sanctifying grace (see grace, habitual) which makes the rational creature the adopted son of God, and sharer, in a way, of the natural filiation of the incarnate Word. Two other proper titles belong to the Father: Principle and Unbegotten (Ingen­ erate, Unborn). He is called Prin­ ciple, because He is the first term and the first source, as it were, whence derive the processions of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But in the Holy Trinity we must exclude all concepts of chronological priority and of pro­ ductive causality, because the three Persons are perfectly equal and hence coeternal. The Father is called Un­ begotten {Ingenitus; Innascibilis; ayemjTos) not only in the sense that, unlike the Son, He is not generated, but also because, unlike both the Son and the Holy Spirit, He is not proceeding from any principle. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 33. Hugon, Le mystère de la très Sainte Trinité (Paris, 1930), p. 172 ff. Joyce, “Trinity,” CE. Klein, The Doctrine of the Trinity, trans. Sullivan (New York, 1940), pp. 108-130. Lebreton, Histoire du dogme de la Trinité, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1928), p. 635. Fathers, Apostolic. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 301). Fathers of the Church. The eccle­ siastical authors who, according to the classical definition of Mabillon, "doctrina eminent, sanctitate florent, antiquitate vigent, qui expressa vel tacita Ecclesiae designatione gaudent" {Praef. ad opera S. Bernardi, § 2, No. 23). This means that, to be honored with the title of Father of the Church, an ecclesiastical author must possess four qualifications; eminent doctrine, holiness of life, antiquity, recognition (explicit or tacit) by the Church. Such are, for example, SS. Ignatius of 103 fideism Antioch, Justin, Irenaeus, Cyprian, etc. all value today, due to discoveries Others who stand out only with re­ made through strictly methodical spect to doctrine or antiquity are studies. Fetishism, in reality, consists called simply ecclesiastical writers, in the use of magical objects, amulets, like Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius, etc., which are considered as symbols Eusebius, etc. or as receptacles of the Divinity, but The morally unanimous consent of not as the Divinity Itself. Certain the Fathers in matters of faith or primitive peoples believe that divine morals is an irrefragable testimony of spirits or ancestor souls are hidden divine Tradition (q.v.). This con­ in the fetishes. Fetishism is usually sent may be established either di­ practiced by peoples of secondary cul­ rectly (from explicit testimonies) or tures (not primitive) and, therefore, indirectly: (a) from the agreement, is rather a degeneration of religion, e.g., of all the Western Fathers, (Z>) which passed from the cult of a from the testimonies of many Fathers supreme being (monotheism) to poly­ outstanding in doctrine and authority, theism. Fetishism had its greatest living in different times and places, development in West Africa (see when their statements have gone un­ animism; idolatry). contradicted, (c) or even from the BIBLIOGRAPHY testimonies of a few, provided they Brinton. The Religions of Primitive Peoples have been given in such circumstances (New York. 1897). Driscoll. "Fetishism." that it may be argued they reflect the CE. Haddon, Magic and Frtichism in Re­ ligions, Ancient and Modern (London, 1906). common faith of the Church. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bright, The Age of the Fathers (London, 1903). Chapman, “Fathers of the Church," CE. Cruttwell, A Literary History of Early Christianity (London, 1893). Hurter. The­ ologiae Dogmaticae Compendium. Vol. 1 (Qcniponte, 1900), nn. 183-195. Mazzella, De Ecclesia (Rome, 1892), n. 342 ff. New­ man, The Church of the Fathers (London, 1840). fear. See gifts of the Holy Ghost. Ferrariensis. See “Outline of the History of (p. 303). Dogmatic Theology” fetishism (Portuguese feitico, derived from Lat. factitius — thing done, con­ structed). A lower form of religion which, according to evolutionistic ethnologists, is the first rung (A. Comte), or the second, after animism (q.v.) or after atheism (Tylor, Lub­ bock), of the ladder in the develop­ ment of human civilization. But these opinions are not based on the direct study of documents: they have lost Glyn Leonard, The Lower Niger and Its Tribes (London, 1906). Norris. Fetishism in IK. Africa (New York, 1904). fideism. A system which exaggerates the function of faith in the knowledge of truth. There is a fideism which has shown itself openly in the very bosom of the Church under different forms more or less pronounced. The Neoplatonic-Augustinian current at the time of Scholasticism reacted, on the basis of sentiment and of faith, against the rationalistic tendencies. This re­ action affirmed itself without modera­ tion in nominalism, but became heterodox in Luther. Mistrust of reason lurks in the works of Pascal, finds a systematic exposition in Daniel Huet, Bishop of Avranches (·}· 1721), if indeed he is the author of Tractatus de debilitate intellectus humani (Muratori doubts it), and becomes organized into a system in traditionalism (q.v.). But a worse fideism (because it is naturalistic) is that derived from Kantianism (q.v.), based on The “Filioque” 104 Critique of Practical Reason; its most outstanding representative is the Ger­ man, Jacoby, who places above reason an intuitive faculty (yernunft) which reaches God. The positivists (Mill, Spencer) and the pragmatists (James) often appeal to faith to affirm the Divinity, which they are not able to demonstrate by way of reason (see positivism; pragmatism). The mod­ ernists, with their theory of religious sense and experience (q.v.; also mod­ ernism) draw close to fideism. As the Church defends the dignity of human freedom while affirming the efficacious power of grace, so it does not fail to defend reason’s dignity in its affirmation of the rights of faith (cf. Vatican Council, sess. Ill, DB, 1781 ff.). BIBLIOGRAPHY Bainvel, La foi et l'acte de foi (Paris, 1908); “Foi-Fidéisme," DA. Hontheim, Institutiones theodiceae (Freiburg, 1926), p. 44 ff. Sauvage, “Fideism,” CE. “Filioque.” The term which the Catholic Church uses in the Creed: Qui [Spiritus] ex Patre Pilioque pro­ cedit (“Who proceeds from the Father and the Son”) to signify that the Holy Spirit has His origin from both the Father and the Son. The “Filioque” was not in the Nicene-Constantinople Symbol orig­ inally, but was inserted into it in Spain in the sixth century; later in France in Charlemagne’s time, then in Germany, in Italy, and finally also at Rome (eleventh century). One of the oldest and main points of accusation of the Greeff schismatic Church against the Roman Church is the insertion of the “Filioque” in the Symbol and the consequent cor­ ruption of the traditional doctrine. To this we can respond: (1) The magisterium of the Church cannot change the Creed, but can add to it an expression, or, what is more, a truth of faith, e.g., that of the Eucha­ rist, in order to integrate it. (2) The addition of the “Filioque” is legiti­ mate because Holy Scripture affirms that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Son (John 15:26), will receive from the Son (John 16:14), an<^ *s Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9) —expres­ sions which cannot be understood un­ less we admit the procession of the Holy Spirit not only from the Father, but also from the Son. As regards Tradition, it is to be noted that the Greek Fathers agree (at times even verbally) with the Latins in saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son (Ephraem, Epiphanius, and others). But it is also true that while the Latins use more often the formula a Patre et a Filio, the Greeks generally prefer the other formula a Patre per Filium. It is, however, evident that the two formulas say substantially the same thing. Consequently, the schismatic Greeks wrongfully reprove the Roman Church, which is perfectly in the right. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 36, a. 2-4. Hugon, Le mystère de la très Sainte Trinité (Paris, 1930), p. 213 ff. Jugie, “De processione Spiritus Sancti,’’ Lateranum (Rome, 1936). Maas, "Filioque,” CE. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, II The Divine Trinity (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 168-190. final cause. The end for which one acts; it is the mover of the efficient cause and consequently of the other causes. Divisions: (a) finis qui (i.e., to which one tends) and finis cui (the subject to which one directs the good he wishes to do); (b) finis operis (derives objectively from the action itself) and finis operantis (intended explicitly by the agent); (c) finis remotus, to which finis proximus is ordered. The end is always a good (at least something perceived as good): the agent, however, can tend 105 either to communicate its own good (love of benevolence) or to acquire a good which it does not have (love of concupiscence). Against materialism, fatalism, and rationalism, the Catholic teaching af­ firms that God is the final cause, i.e., the supreme end of creatures. The Vatican Council (sess. Ill, cans, i and 5; DB, 1783, 1805), states pre­ cisely that God has created everything for His glory; namely, not to increase His happiness, but to manifest freely His perfections, by communicating His goods to creatures. It is a question of the extrinsic glory of God which adds nothing to His intimate happiness. Holy Scripture: Ps. 18: “The heavens shew forth the glory of God”; Prov. 16:4: “The Lord hath made all things for himself.” The Fathers: St. Gregory of Nyssa summarizes their thought in a fine image: God uses the creation of the world to fete His glory as in an open book. Reason sees clearly that God, supreme Intelligence, has created the world for an end and that this end can only be God Him­ self. If God would act for an end outside of Himself, He would be sub­ ordinated to it, and this is counter to His nature of First Being. In this primary end, however (glory of God), is implicit the secondary end, which is the good of the creatures themselves, of man especially. Thus the apparent egoism of God resolves itself into sublime love of benevolence, since in God alone, to whom he tends as to his end, man finds his supreme perfection, God being infinite Truth and Goodness, capable of satisfying the infinite thirst of our minds and hearts. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 44, a. 4 (ire also q. 20 on divine love). Aveling, "t aune," CE. Garricou-Lacrange, God: His I Alienee and His Nature, trans. Rose (St. I.ouh, 1947-1948). Fraticelli “fomes peccati.” See concupiscence; Immaculate Conception. foreknowledge. See prescience. form (Gr. μορφή). In philosophy and theology form is used in the proper sense to indicate the formal, intrinsic cause, which constitutes the nature of things. It is applied to the angelic world (separate forms), to the human composite (soul, form of the body), to material things which are com­ posed of matter (passive and de­ terminable element) and form (ac­ tive and determining element, the Ιντελίχαα of Aristotle). In an analogical sense, form is said of all that implies actuation, perfec­ tion. Thus it is applied to grace (supernatural, accidental form), to charity which informs faith (i.e., per­ fects it: fides formata), to the words as the determining element of the sacramental sign (see matter and form of the sacraments). BIBLIOGRAPHY Aveling, “Form,” CE. Michel, “Forme,” DTC. fortitude. See gifts of the Holy Ghost; virtue. “forum internum”—“forum ex­ ternum.” See hierarchy. Franzelin. See “Outline of the His­ tory of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 303). Fraticelli. A sect of vagabond re­ ligious of the thirteenth and four­ teenth centuries, deriving probably from the rigoristic tendency repre­ sented in the Franciscan Order by the so-called Spirituals opposed by the Conventuals of more moderate views. The story of the Fraticelli is very obscure and complicated; into it enter popes, with different attitudes, and freedom 106 princes, as well as theological, as­ cetical, political, and juridical con­ troversies. Suffice it to recall here that the Fraticelli, sprung up already in the time of Nicholas III, con­ solidated and gained strength with the blessing and protection of Celes­ tine V, and fell into disgrace with his successor, Boniface VIII; through struggles and troubles they managed to get by up to the pontificate of John XXII (1316), who tried to put an end to their activities by dis­ banding the sect and condemning its errors. From this condemnation (Consti­ tution Gloriosam Ecclesiam, DB, 484 ff.) we can deduce the principal errors of the Fraticelli which had their repercussions on the heresies of the following centuries. Foremost of all, the Fraticelli are independent spirits, rebellious to the authority of the Church; to justify themselves, they invented the theory of the two Churches: one carnal, rich, corrupt, with the pope at its head; the other spiritual, poor, pure, and holy, to which belong the Fraticelli and their followers. Priests and bishops stained with sin lose their power of jurisdic­ tion and of administering the sacra­ ments. The Gospel and Christ’s prom­ ises are fulfilled only in the family of the Fraticelli. The sacrament of matri­ mony is detestable, and the end of the world is near (DB, 484-490). It seems that the Fraticelli were influenced by other sects, indulging somewhat in sensuality. In the social field this sect contributed more or less directly to weakening the prin­ ciple of the right of private property, by criticizing the luxury and riches of the official Church. Condemned, they did not disband; as late as the fifteenth century we find them going around spreading errors and stirring up strife, in Italy especially. Two saints in that century, John Capistrano and James della Marca, worked efficaciously to convert them. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bihl, “Fraticelli,” CE. Callaey, L'idéal­ isme franciscain au XIV siècle (Louvain, 1911). De Nantes, Histoire des spirituels dans l’ordre de Saint François (Paris, 1909). Vernet, “Fraticelles.” DTC. freedom. An essential property of the will which consists radically in the dominium over one’s own actions, by which the will can will or not will, and will this rather than that. The will is an appetitive faculty proper to every intelligent being. It has for its object, “good,” which coincides with being, and has therefore no limits, like “true,” object of the intelligence. Thus the will has a quasi-infinite potentiality with reference to .pure and absolute good. Should the will be confronted with the absolute good, its adequate object and end, it could not fail to adhere to it, but would adhere to it necessarily (not, however, with blind necessity). But since the human will operates in the midst of creatures, limited beings and limited goods, it cannot be determined neces­ sarily by any of them. On the con­ trary, it dominates them with an active indifference, according to which it can choose one or the other or none, consequent on the judgment of reason, which considers the relation­ ship of those particular goods as means, more or less useful, to the end. Freedom may be: of exercise or contradiction (to will or not will), of specification (to will this rather than that), and of contrariety (to will good or, its contrary, evil). To be able to do evil is a defect of the human will, which per se tends to good. The true freedom lies in the choice of good. This is physical freedom or free will, which is proved by the testimony of the individual and of the social con­ science: man feels he is free before, during, and after the action; and on 107 the basis of this certainty, humanity punishes or rewards, respectively, the one doing evil or the one doing good. Without freedom there would be no responsibility, and, therefore, no moral world. In addition to physical freedom, also called psychological freedom, there is a moral freedom, which con­ sists in immunity from obligation (law): this liberty, absolutely speak­ ing, exists only in God, who is the Author of Law. In man, there is immunity from this or that law, but not from all law. Hence, human free­ dom is limited; physically man has freedom of will, but morally his will is subordinated to the exigencies of the law and of the supreme end of life. Errors: fatalism, which subordi­ nates the world and man to an iron­ clad and blind will, called also destiny fq.v.). Still more insidious is deter­ minism, according to which man believes himself to be free, whereas his action is the result of psychological and external coefficients, which nec­ essarily determine it. The Church has always defended human freedom, even with respect to the divine knowledge and will, and to the action of grace; she has con­ demned every attack on freedom (see Lutheranism; Jansenism; predestina­ tion). Cf. DB, 317, 615, 1904. As to the freedom of God, and of Jesus Christ as Man, see will, divine; will of Christ. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 83; Quaest. Disp. De Malo, q. 6, a. 1 ; De Veritate, <|. 22. Alexander, Theories of the Will (New York, 1884). Fonsegrive, Essai sur le libre arbitre (Paris, 1896). Maher, “Free Will,” CE. Mercier, Psychologie (Paris, 1923), p. 96 fl. freedom of Christ. See will of Christ. free thought free thought (free inquiry). The basic principle of Lutheranism (q.v.). Having eliminated the authority of the Church and its infallible magis­ terium, Luther gave the believer the Bible, telling him that this is the sole source and the only rule of his faith. There is no intermediary between God and man; the believer goes to the sacred books, reads them, examines them freely, and draws from them the truth to be believed and the law to be observed. Very quickly, however, Luther became aware of the implicit danger in such a principle. When he saw opinions and tendencies multiply according to the individual choice of the faithful, he raised his voice to impose his creed, paying no heed to the inco­ herence of his action; what is more, he had recourse to the secular arm of the princes. But liberty of thought, i.e., freedom of examination of the Scriptures, had taken over consciences and was producing its bitter fruits: the disregard for the ecclesiastical au­ thority was followed by scorn of all authority, rebellion against all law and everything imposed from without. Free thought ad absurdum and the whole demagogic tide, that infests the eighteenth and nineteenth cen­ turies, have their first root in the doctrine of free inquiry introduced by Luther. In religion, this harmful principle has produced the innumer­ able Protestant sects in a process of gradual decay and disintegration that nothing succeeds in arresting. “Lib­ erty of thought,” as explained above, has no foundation in Holy Scripture: rather it is excluded by the institu­ tion of the teaching authority of the Church (see magisterium of the Church'). BIBLIOGRAPHY Bouvier, "Réforme” (XV. “Principe et essence du Protestantisme,” iii. "Le libre fruits of the Mass 108 examen et la libre conscience"), DA, cols. 801-804. See under Lutheranism; Protestantism. fruits of the Mass. The eucharistie sacrifice has a fourfold efficacy (cf. Council of Trent, DB, 950): latreutic (it adores and praises God), eucha­ ristie (thanks Him for benefits be­ stowed), imperative (obtains new graces), and propitiatory (moves the divine mercy to the pardon of sins). The first two effects regard God, the last two, men. The offerers of the Mass are three: the Principal (Jesus Christ), the min­ isterial (the priest), and the general (the faithful). Inasmuch as the Mass is the work of Christ it produces its effects ex opere operato {q.v.), i.e., independently of the merits and dis­ positions of the priest and the faithful; in this sense the Mass is an ever pure sacrifice {oblatio munda) which can­ not be stained by any iniquity of its secondary ministers (cf. Council of Trent, DB, 939). Inasmuch as it is the work of the priest and the faith­ ful, it obtains the four effects ex opere operantis, i.e., in the measure of the holiness and fervor of the minister and the assistants, and in this sense it is said that the Mass of a holy priest is better than that of a sinner. The effects that derive to men (the im­ petrative and the propitiatory) are commonly called fruits of the Mass, of which we distinguish: (1) the gen­ eral fruit, in favor of the whole Church; (2) the special fruit, in favor of the person for whom the Mass is celebrated; (3) the most special fruit, which is inalienably reserved to the celebrant. BIBLIOGRAPHY Billot, De sacramentis, Vol. 1 (Rome, 1931), PP· 640-658. De la Taille, L'oecuménicité du fruit de la Messe (Rome, 1926); Mysterium Fidei (Paris, 1931), Elucidatio 31. Doronzo, De Eucharistia, Vol. 2 (Milwaukee, 1948), pp. 1064-1158. Müller, The Holy Mass, The Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead (New York, 1879). Pohle-Preuss, Dog­ matic Theology, IX The Sacraments, Vol. 2, The Holy Eucharist (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 371-397. Van Hove, De Eucharistia (Mechliniae, 1941), pp. 295-311. future, futurible. See prescience. G Gallicanism. A complexus of the­ ories developed in France, especially in the seventeenth century, which tended to restrict the authority of the Church regarding the State {Political Gallicanism) or the authority of the pope regarding councils, bishops, and clergy {Ecclesiastico-Theological Gallicanism). The remote roots of Gallicanism go back to the polemic literature occa­ sioned by the struggle between Pope Boniface VIII and Philippe le Bel, King of France, and then to the turbid period of the Western Schism, which exposed to contempt the pon­ tifical dignity contested by various antipopes. Peter d’Ailly, who played an important role in the Council of Constance (1414-1418), collected and developed principles of other writers who preceded him, and formulated a whole doctrine on the superiority of councils over the pope and on the derivation of the jurisdiction of the episcopacy and the clergy directly from God, and not through the pope. Four famous articles were approved in the Council of Constance, under the tumultuous chairmanship of d’Ailly (a cardinal now), which re­ flect his antipapal teaching. The Gallicans of the seventeenth century cited these articles as articles of de­ fined faith, while Martin V anil Eugene IV refused to recognize them as legitimate. Another precedent of Gallicanism is the Pragmatic Sanction 109 of Bourges (1438), compiled by the clergy and signed by Charles VII of France, in which are repeated the principles about the superiority of the council, defined by a faction of the Council of Basel, opposed to the orders of Eugene IV. In the seventeenth century, under Louis XIV, an absolutist in politics and religion, Gallicanism set itself up officially as a system. The French at­ mosphere, even in universities like La Sorbonne, was by this time im­ pregnated with teachings adverse to papal jurisdiction: Peter Pithou (•f 1596) and Peter Dupuy (Ϋ 1651) had already compiled, with com­ mentary heightened by much erudi­ tion, the list of Libertés de l’Église Gallicane; Dupuy was encouraged by the astute Richelieu. The question of the regalia (right of the king to re­ ceive the incomes of vacant bishop­ rics), moved Louis XIV to call a general assembly of the clergy (1681), from which came forth the Déclara­ tion du clergé gallican in 4 articles, formulated by Bossuet, which was immediately approved and promul­ gated by the King (1682): Art. i. Absolute independence of the king and the princes, in temporal matters, from the ecclesiastical authority. Art. 2. The pope is subordinate to general councils. Art. 3. The pontifical authority is moderated by the sacred canons, and, in any case, cannot touch the rules and customs of the Gallican Church. Art. 4. The papal judgment lacks value, unless the consent of the Church concurs in it. These four articles, which were immediately condemned by the Church {DB, 1322 and 1598), reap­ pear in the seventy-seven organic articles which Napoleon I added abusively to the concordat stipulated with Pius VII (1802). genealogy of Christ BIBLIOGRAPHY Degert, “Gallicanism,” CE. Dubruel, “Gallicanisme,” DTC. Dubruel, Arquillière, “Gallicanisme,” DA. Fauchet, Traité des libertés de l’Eglise gallicane (1590). Hotman, Traité des droits ecclésiastiques, franchises et libertés de TEglise gallicane (1594). Le vayer de Boutigny, Traité de l'autorité des rois touchant l'administration de TEglise (Lon­ don, 1753); this book is a fundamental and complete source on the Gallican system. De Boutigny was one of the prominent counselors of King Louis XIV. genealogy of Christ. Is recorded by two Evangelists: by Matthew, at the beginning of his narrative (1:17) and by Luke after the story of the infancy of Jesus (3:23-38). No serious diffi­ culty can be advanced as to the origin and preservation of this genealogy, because it is a characteristic of the Orientals, and of the Hebrews es­ pecially, to preserve with accuracy the memory of their ancestors. Official documents also facilitated this work, because important rights depended on dcscendancy. The specific difficulty in the genealogy of Jesus is that from David to Joseph only two of the ancestral names are the same in Matthew and Luke. Matthew follows the descending line from Abraham to Joseph, and Luke the ascending line from Joseph to Adam; both go through David of whom the Messias was to be the “son.” Both are ob­ viously sketchy and incomplete. But how are we to explain that while in Matthew the father of Joseph is called Jacob, in Luke he is called Heli, and so the ancestors of Jesus in Matthew are not those recorded by Luke? Various solutions of this singular problem have been attempted from the first Christian centuries. The oldest and most common has recourse to the Hebraic law of the levirate {levir— brother-in-law), according to which the widow of a man dead with­ out sons had to be married by her generation 110 brother-in-law, and the first-born son received the name of the deceased in order to give him a descendant. Joseph, therefore, is said to be the natural son of Jacob but the legal son of Heli, brother of Jacob who had died without sons. Matthew, then, gives the natural genealogy and Luke the legal. A readier and more recent solution sees in Matthew the genealogy of Joseph and in Luke, Mary’s. So that Luke 3:23 should be understood thus: “Although Jesus was held the son of Joseph, he was really only the son of Mary, whose father was Heli, etc.” Some modern authors have recourse to a particular form of adoption in use among the Hebrews: Joseph’s case was that of the husband of an only daughter and heiress, who entered his father-in-law’s family with the full rights of a son and shared in the genealogy of that family. Thus Luke gives the adoptive genealogy of Joseph, which corresponds to the list of Mary’s ancestors. The quality of daughter-heiress in Mary has not, however, been definitively proved. BIBLIOGRAPHY Holzmeister, in Verbum Domini, 23 (1943), pp. 9-18. Maas, "Genealogy of Christ,” CE. Prat, Jesus Christ; His Life, His Teaching, and His Wort;, trans, Heenan, 2 vols. (Milwaukee, 1950). Ricciorn, The Life of Christ, trans. Zizzamia (Milwaukee, 1947). Vosté, De conceptione virginali Jesu Christi (Rome, 1933), pp. 83-110. generation. See Only-Begotten; pro­ cession, divine; Son. gift. See charism. gifts of the Holy Ghost. The gifts of the Holy Ghost are dispositions infused by God, by which the sancti­ fied soul is made docile to and ready for the impulses of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of salutary activity. There is an explicit text of Isaias (11:1, 2) that enumerates seven gifts-, intellect, counsel, wisdom, knowledge, fortitude, piety, and fear. This text is inserted in the liturgy of the sacra­ ment of confirmation. Leo XIII, in his encyclical Divinum illud, develops the doctrine of the gifts according to the principles of St. Thomas {ASS, 29, 654). There is a scholastic question on the nature of these gifts; namely, whether they are an actual movement or a habitual disposition. St. Thomas and the majority of the theologians are for the second opinion. The gifts are infused habits distinct from virtues. The difference is that while the virtues are intrinsic principles of activity, the gifts are dispositions of the faculties of the soul to receive the external impulse of the Holy Spirit. Billot appropriately compares the virtues to the motors of a ship and the gifts to sails unfurled and ready to receive the impulsion of the wind. The gifts are distributed as follows: i. intellect in the] 2· counsel reason ] theoretical practical ] simple apprehcn. sion theoretical 1 jud 3. wisdom knowledge practical J ■5. fortitude (with respect in the to oneself) will j 6. piety (with respect „ to others) in the irascible and concupis- cible apperites 7. fear of die Lord (moderating the sense appetites — concupiscible and irascible) The gifts of the Holy Ghost, together with the virtues and sanctifying grace, which is the root of both the gifts and the virtues, constitute the so-called supernatural organism, which may be represented graphically as follows: Ill BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I—II, q. 68. Billot, De Virtutibus (Rome, 1928). Forget, "Holy Ghost,” CE. Gardeil, “Dons du SaintEsprit," DTC. Pascal Parente, The Ascetical l-ife (St. Louis, 1947), pp. 152-162. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 634-658. gnosis. See Gnosticism. Gnosticism (Gr. γΐ'ώσις—knowl­ edge). A very complex system of religious doctrines and practices, philosophical, theurgical, and mystagogical in character, which began in the Alexandrian period in Judeopagan circles and developed in the first centuries of Christianity. The basic principle of the “gnosis” is: In religion there is a common faith, which may be sufficient for the ordinary people, but there is also a higher knowledge, reserved to the learned, which offers a philosophical explanation of the common faith. Christian Gnosticism draws various elements from Plato, from Persian Mazdaism, from the pagan mysteries, and applies them to the Christian Gnosticism religion by using and abusing the allegorical exegesis of Holy Scripture. The Christian “gnosis” may be de­ fined as a theosophic philosophism, tending to absorb divine revelation in order to make a religious philosophy of it. It developed in Syria with Simon Magus, Menander, and Sa­ turninus, and in Egypt (Alexan­ drian gnosis) with Basilides, Valen­ tine, and their respective disciples. Despite differences, the “gnosis” is reducible, more or less, to this outline: (ff) God is the inaccessible Being (Platonic transcendence), who can have no contact outside of Himself; opposed to God but coeternal with Him is matter (Platonico-Persian dualism), bad in its nature (pes­ simism); (Z>) between God and mat­ ter is the pleroma or ogdoad, an in­ termediate, supersense world (the hyperuranium of Plato) inhabited by beings called aeons, emanating one from the other or disposed in pairs (syzygies')·, (c) one of the aeons, the Demiurge (God of the Old Testament) worked matter into the actual form of this world; (d) a di­ vine spark from that superior world fell one day on the matter of this world of ours and remained there to suffer as in a prison (soul in the body); (e) another of the aeons (Christ) descended into this world, took the appearance of a body (see Docetism) and lived and died to free spirit from matter (Redemption); (/) side by side with these theories there was a moral teaching, often lax, and a superstitious cult, in which the sacraments appear deformed. Marcion developed some Gnostic elements along lines of a very predominant and austere asceticism. Gnosticism constituted one of the gravest dangers for the newborn Christianity; Judaism was the other. Fortunately, Gnosticism was antiJcwish. The Fathers spotted the menace immediately and endeavored God 112 to eliminate it. St. Irenaeus refutes Gnosticism in the 5 books of his Adversus Haereses. His position, like that of Tertullian, is conservative, with uncompromising reaction; but in Alexandria, Clement and Origen used the false gnosis to build up a Chris­ tian gnosis (science in service of the faith): hence theology was born. BIBLIOGRAPHY Arendzen, “Gnosticism,” CE. Bareille, “Gnosticisme," DTC. Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries (London, 1875). Tixeront, History of Dog­ mas, trans. H.L.B., Vol. 1 (St. Louis, 1910), pp· 153-183· God. In all peoples, in all times and places, the idea of, and the faith in, a supreme being, creator and lord of the universe, and of man especially, has always been existent and lively. According to the best historians of comparative religion, polytheism is a degeneration of primitive monotheism (<7.t/.). The idea of God does not stem exclusively from the revelation made to the first parents, as tradi­ tionalism {q.v.) would have it, but it is also the result of spontaneous reflection of human reason on the world. St. Paul (Rom. 1:18 ff.) affirms that the Gentiles, outside of the sphere of the Hebrew religion, knew God through creatures, but did not adore Him duly, and through their own malice fell into idolatry. Against all forms of agnosticism {q.v.) the Church has defined in the Vatican Council, sess. Ill, c. 2, that man with the sole light of reason can arrive at the sure and certain knowledge of God, by considering created things, which are a reflection and a manifesta­ tion of the perfections of God the Creator. Moreover, the Church has always rejected the opinion, diamet­ rically opposed to agnosticism, which holds that God is the object of a direct and immediate intuition (ontologism). The theologians translate this teach­ ing of the Church in the following statements: (1) God, supreme being, who transcends infinitely all created nature, cannot be known intuitively either by an innate idea or sentiment (ontologism and innatism are outside of and against psychological con­ sciousness). (2) God can be known and, what is more, His existence can be demonstrated, by starting not from God Himself {a priori), but from creatures {a posteriori), which even at first blush present the character­ istics of an effect, in which the exigency of a cause is implicit. (3) This natural knowledge of God is never adequate, but only analogical (see analogy). St. Thomas, working on these principles, has developed five arguments or ways of demonstrating the existence of God: I. dynamically (becoming) 2. statically (being­ essence) first way: from the origin of motion or becoming to the first Immovable Mover fifth way: from the order and finality of motion to the In­ telligent Being second way: from the origin of being to the First Cause third way: from the contingency of being ·, to the Necessary Being fourth way: from the limited essence to the highest and L most Perfect Being These arguments are all based on the principle of causality, and to them are to be reduced all the other arguments, which take as a point of departure either the universal truths of our intellect, our desire of a su­ preme Good, or the moral law en­ graved in our hearts. As to the argument of St. Anselm, see apriorism. As regards the know! edge of God in the other life, see vision, beatific. 113 BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 2. Chossat, Mangenot, Le Bachelet, Moisant, “Dieu," DTC. Driscoll, Christian Philosophy, God (New York, 1900). Flint (non-Catholic), Theism (Edinburgh, 1877). GarrigouLacrange, The One God, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1943); God: His Existence and His Nature, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1947-1948); “Dieu,” DA. Hall, The Being and Attributes of God (New York, 1909). Heydon, The God of Reason (New York, 1942). Rickaby, O/ God and His Creatures (St. Louis, 1898). Sertillanges, Les sources de la croyance en Dieu (Paris, 1928); Dieu ou rien (Paris, '933)· The Teaching 0/ the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 41-46, 79-109. Toner, "God,” CE. Zacchi, Dio, 2 vols. (Rome, 1925). goodness. See perfection. Gospels (Gr. evayyiKtov, from evάγγίλλω — good news, happy mes­ sage). In the time of Christ and the Apostles, the gospel is the good news of universal Redemption contained in the preaching of Christ. Very soon, however, already in the first genera­ tion of Christians, the term indicated the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which contain the story of that announcement. Matthew, called to the Apostolate from the Capharnaum customs, wrote his Gospel with the intention of demonstrating to die Jews of Palestine that Jesus, in whom all the ancient prophecies were fulfilled, was the awaited Messias. Mark, disciple of Peter, preserved in his book the memory of the living preaching of the Apostle to the Romans, in which the figure of Jesus Man-God is pre­ sented with enchanting freshness of details. Luke, Antioch physician and disciple of Paul, gathered together with scrupulous care the materials, covering the words and actions of the Lord’s life, most suited to the instruc­ tion and edification of the Christian communities converted from pagan­ ism. These first three Gospels re­ semble one another substantially in Gospels the general narrative plan of Jesus’ life and also in their mode of treating the material. This property, which makes it possible to arrange the three stories in three parallel columns so as to allow the eyes to take them in at a glance, has given rise to their name of Synoptics, i.e., “visible to­ gether” in the same glance. The Gos­ pel of John, beloved disciple of Christ, departs sensibly from the plan and mode of presentation common to the three Synoptics. John gives greatest development to the Jerusalem min­ istry of Jesus, not high-lighted by the other three, during which Jesus spoke more often and more clearly of His divinity. The authenticity (q.v.) of the four Gospels is assured by an uninterrupted series of detailed and precise his­ torical testimonies, beginning with Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia and disciple of the Apostles (first decades of the second century), and continuing from century to cen­ tury consistently and without contra­ diction. In addition to statements of particularly authoritative writers, like St. Irenaeus (c. 140-202), bishop of Lyons and spiritual bridge between East and West, there are also official documents, like the list of the books of the New Testament, called by the name of its discoverer, the Canon of Muratori, written at Rome around A.D. 185. Both the authors and the documents are echoes of a tradition that goes back evidently to the first years of the Church and that has been weighed and sifted in the course of disputes with the heretics. In the second- and third-century writers, there is so great a number of quota­ tions of the text of the four Gospels that these could be nearly recon­ structed integrally therefrom. An im­ placable adversary of primitive Chris­ tianity, the Epicurean philosopher Celsus, writing about a.d. 178, rec­ ognizes in the four Gospels a work of Gospels 114 Jesus’ disciples, and mentions the fact that the heretics had tried to bend them in support of their teach­ ings, in order to avail themselves of such authoritative writings. The internal examination of the Gospels — their language, the men­ tality they reflect, the customs they mention, their historical and geo­ graphical references, when confronted with the most recent and most certain discoveries — confirms the authen­ ticity of these four books as unani­ mously affirmed by Christian Tradition. As regards the date of the Gospels, it is an established fact that they were circulated widely and recognized in the second century in all the Christian communities of the East and West; they must, therefore, have been writ­ ten in the first century. The historical testimonies, convalidated by internal textual examination, permit the con­ clusion that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem (a.d. 70). More precisely, Matthew and Mark published their books before the death of Peter and Paul (a.d. 64 or 67); Luke concludes abruptly the narrative of the Acts in the year 62, and declares that his Gospel has preceded this second of his books (Acts 1:1). Because the ancient testimonies are nearly unani­ mous on the priority of Matthew and Mark over Luke, the first two Gospels must have been published before a.d. 60. Matthew, according to some scholars, goes back to a.d. 42-50. That the work of the four biog­ raphers of Jesus has been transmitted integrally down to us is shown by the exceptional condition of privilege the text enjoyed. There are fully 1500 manuscript codices of the Greek text of the Gospels; two of them were copied in the fourth century, while some papyrus fragments go back to the third and second centuries. Many ancient versions in western and east­ ern languages afford an effective check on the Greek text as contained in its actual codices. Many thousands of text variants (different readings), none of which compromises the sense of the text in matters of faith and morals, allow us to state that the Greek gospel text read today is sub­ stantially identical with the original. In this connection, it is noteworthy that there is no manuscript of the Greek or Latin classics which goes back beyond the ninth century A.D., and even those prior to the twelfth century are extremely rare. The historicity of the Gospels, i.e., their objectivity, is declared by the authors themselves (Luke 1:1-4; John 20:30 f.; 21124) and was a necessary postulate for their acceptance by the Church. Besides, no one would have dared to narrate things that were false, or to alter the facts, when there existed, on the one hand, jealous witnesses of these facts like the Aposdes and, on the other, fierce enemies of Christianity, like the Jews, who had played leading roles in the life of Jesus and who would have found an easy matter in their polem­ ics, had they been able to find the historians of the Nazarene in error. But the best the Hebrew literary tra­ dition can do is to observe silence on the life and teaching of the Master of Galilee. Non-Catholic criticism contests the historical value of a considerable part of the Gospels only because it con­ tains supernatural facts. The efforts of this criticism which, from the eighteenth century, commits itself to the absurd task of explaining the life of Jesus to the exclusion of every supernatural element, have resulted in a “tower of Babel” (Loisy) of opin­ ions that pulverize the texts without succeeding in drawing from them any possible organic meaning. BIBLIOGRAPHY Fortescue, "Gospels,” CE. De Grandmai­ 115 Jesus Christ, 3 vols. (New York, 19301934). Hôpfl-Gut, Introductio specialis in N.T. (Rome, 1938). Lagrange, Preface to his commentaries on the four Gospels. Lepin, "Evangiles canoniques," DA. Ricciotti, The Life of Christ, trans. Zizzamia (Milwaukee, 1947). Rose, Studies on the Gospels, trans. Fraser (London, 1903). son, government of God. God, efficient and final cause of the world, has a design in His mind, according to which He leads created things to their end. Such design or plan is called providence (q.v.). But a plan must be actuated; the actuation or realization of providence is called government. Government has to do with the being and the operation of creatures, and, therefore, includes conservation (of being) and mo­ tion or concourse (in operation). Schematically: providence (plan in the intentional order) I government π conservation (being) I concourse (operation) The Vatican Cpuncil (sess. Ill, c. I.), teaches that God guards and governs by His providence all the things He has created. The texts of I loly Scripture that speak of prov­ idence apply as well to divine govern­ ment. In Wisdom 14:3 it is said ex­ plicitly: “Thy providence, O Father, governeth it.” The Fathers of the Church exalt the wisdom of divine government in all creatures (cf. RJ under the word “Gubernatio”). The attainment of their end is the supreme perfection of created things; it is reasonable to attribute this at­ tainment to God, to whom their first perfection, that of being, belongs (creation). The divine government is not exercised directly in everything, grace but God also uses second causes, either necessary or contingent, ac­ cording to the effects He wishes to realize, without doing violence to nature or disturbing it. God in His wisdom acts /ortiter, suaviter (strong­ ly, sweetly) and reaches His ends infallibly, despite apparent creature reluctances or defections. Nothing escapes the control and the power of His wisdom and of His omnipotent will. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 103. See under providence, divine. grace (Gr. χά/η<>; root χαρ— concept of pleasure, of joy; Lat. gra-tus, whence gratia). Both in the classic and modern usage it has various meanings, reducible to two aspects: (1) subjective (beauty, benevolence, favor, gratitude); (2) objective (gift, benefit). In the Hellenistic religious language χαριν had already come to mean an interior strength infused by the gods. In the Old Testament is found the word “grace” (Hebr. JÎ7 then, whence the name Anna) in the sense of benevolence (cf. Gen. 18:3). In the New Testament it is most frequent in Paul (no times), and quite often used by Luke, John, and Peter, prevalently in the sense of a gratuitous gift of God to men (gratia Dei). The doctrine of grace was exten­ sively developed by St. Augustine against the Pelagians (see Pelagianism) who denied it, thus com­ promising the whole supernatural order. The Church magisterium on repeated occasions took up the matter of grace, especially in the Council of Carthage (418, DB, roi ff.); II Coun­ cil of Orange (529, DB, 174 ff.); Council of Trent (sess. VI, DB, 79$843); in the condemnation of Baianism by Innocent X (DB, 1902 ff.). From these documents we draw the grace, actual 116 definition of grace: “A gratuitous gift infused by God into the rational creature with reference to the end of eternal life.” Divisions: (i) grace gratis data, given to a person for the good of oth­ ers (e.g., gift of prophecy), and grace gratum faciens, given for the good of the receiver himself. 2) actual grace (transient divine movement) ' operant — co-opcrant antecedent — subsequent exciting — helping . sufficient — efficacious habitual grace (permanent habitlike gift) sanctifying grace (in the essence of the soul) - infused virtues (in the faculties) gifts of the Holy Ghost Grace, in general, confers on man the capacity or power to act supernaturally, in a way proportionate to life eternal. It transcends the natural order. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., qq. no-111. Joyce, The Catholic Doctrine of Grace (New York, 1920). Nuremberg, The Marvel of Divine Grace, trans. Lovat (London, 1917). Peter Parente, Anthropologia tupernaturalis (Rome, 1943). Pohle, “Grace,” CE. PohlePreuss, Dogmatic Theology, VIII Grace (Ac­ tual and Habitual) (St. Louis, 1946). Van Der Meersch, De divina gratia (Brugis, 1924); "Grâce,” DTC. Wirth, Divine Grace (New York, 1903). tion. The Council of Trent (sess. VI, c. 6, DB, 798) describes actual grace as disposing man to justification. A great part of the systematic doc­ trine about actual grace, however, was developed immediately after the Council of Trent, on the occasion of Baianism and Jansenism (qq.v.), which adulterated the concept of the supernatural influence of God with respect to human activity. A violent controversy flared up between Domin­ icans and Jesuits (see Bannesianism and Molinism) about the essence of actual grace. Molinists: actual grace is essentially the same as the supernatural vital act (e.g., salutary thought or deed), which comes at once from God inso­ much as it is supernatural, and from our faculties insomuch as it is vital. Some Molinists, however, following Bellarmine, admitted that actual grace is a divine motion, at least for inde­ liberate acts. Thomists: actual grace is a supernatural physical premotion, by which God moves the soul (in potency) to a salutary act. It is re­ duced to a fluent quality, preceding the act and moving to it (according to Banez and his followers, to the point of determining free will specifically to this, rather than to that object). See concourse, divine; grace. BIBLIOGRAPHY grace, actual. The transient super­ natural influence of God in the soul, moving it to the salutary act, i.e., to an act ordained to sanctification and eternal life. The existence of this grace, as distinct from habitual grace, is attested to by Holy Scripture, which speaks of illumination (Ps. 12:4), of attraction (Cant. 1:3; John 6:34), of impulse (Acts 9:5)· Thus also Tradi­ tion: St. Augustine, who had to deal most with grace, speaks rather rarely about sanctifying grace, but continually about actual grace — or perhaps about both without distinc­ St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I-II, q. 109; q. no, a. 2. Del Prado, De Gratia et libero arbitrio. Vol. 1 (Freiburg, Helv., 1906). Peter Parente, Anthropologia tupernaturalis (Rome, 1943). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, VII Grace (Actual and Habitual) (St. Louis 1946), pp. 3-270. The Teaching of the Catho­ lic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), PP· 584-621. Van Der Meersch, De divina gratia (Brugis, 1924), p. 222 ff.; “Grace,” DTC. grace, efficacious. A supernatural, divine influence, on account of which the human will is determined, in­ fallibly but freely, to act with respect to eternal life. 117 The characteristic note of this grace is the infallibility of the effect. Testi­ monies of Holy Scripture are not lacking and they are all to the effect that God’s dominion and power is absolute, and that no creature, even man endowed with free will, can re­ sist it: “As the divisions of waters, so the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: whithersoever he will he shall turn it” (Prov. 21:1); “I will cause you to walk in my com­ mandments, and to keep my judg­ ments, and do them” (Ezech. 36:27). An example of most efficacious grace is the conversion of Paul on the Damascus road. St. Augustine, more than the other Fathers, develops amply the doctrine of efficacious grace, to which he at­ tributes all the supernatural good of man, man’s free will remaining in­ tact: “Man through mysterious ways is drawn to will by Him who knows how to work in the innermost re­ cesses of the human heart, not that men believe without willing — which is impossible — but that from not willing they become willing” (Enchir., 98). And again: “We do not defend grace in such a way as to seem to destroy free will” (De peccatorum meritis et remissione, 2, 18). Cf. Council of Trent, sess. VI, can. 4 (de iustificatione), DB, 814. But the controversy lingers on be­ tween Molinists and Thomists on the essence of efficacious grace. The Thomists defend intrinsic and ab­ solute efficacy: efficacious grace is the supernatural physical predetermina­ tion to which the human will is subordinate and which de jacto it does not resist (although being able to resist, as the Council of Trent says). But for the Molinists grace is efficacious, not by itself, but depend­ ently on the consent of our free will, which can always resist and leave the grace without fruitful effect. Between these two extremes there is, nowadays grace, habitual especially, a tendency toward a rea­ sonable syncretism, which rejects physical predetermination on the one hand, for it does not seem to fit even in the framework of St. Thomas’ thought and in a certain sense com­ promises free will, and, on the other hand, abhors also the Molinistic con­ cept of a divine grace that must go begging the consent of man. Such syncretism proposes an intrinsic, di­ vine motion in the human will (of the natural or supernatural order, as the case may be) which moves phys­ ically and immediately to the act as regards the exercise of the act, but leaves the will free to determine itself with respect to the specification of the same act, through choice of the object made by the reason, on which, how­ ever, God exercises His influence by way of illumination. But no system will ever be able to eliminate the mystery that lies in conciliating the internal and effica­ cious motion of God with the free­ dom of the will that is moved. BIBLIOGRAPHY Del Pmdo, De gratia et libero arbitrio, 3 vols. (Freiburg, Helv., 1906). De Reckon, Banez et Molina (Paris, 1883). Pohle, “Grace (Controversies on)," CE. Pohle-Preuss, Dog­ matic Theology, VII Grace (victual and Habitual) (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 231-248. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith. 2 vols. (New York, 1949). pp. 617621. Van Der Meersch, De divina gratia (Brugis, 1924), p. 25811. See under grace, sufficient; Molinism; Thomism. grace, habitual. A divine gift in­ fused by God into the soul, as some­ thing permanent by its nature. In the strict sense, habitual grace is that in­ fused into the very essence of the soul, and is called also sanctijying and justifying grace, inasmuch as it con­ fers holiness and makes righteous one who had been a sinner. In a broader sense, habitual grace includes, in ad­ dition to sanctifying grace, also the grace, necessity of 118 virtues and the gifts of the Holy Ghost, which are like a ramification of sanctifying grace and are received in the faculties of the soul (see gifts of the Holy Ghost; virtue). The Scholastics, starting from the data of revelation, developed an abundant doctrine on habitual grace with the help of the Aristotelian theory about habits. But Luther, op­ posing this theory on account of his nominalistic mentality, rejected the entire traditional doctrine and re­ duced sanctifying grace to an ex­ trinsic, divine favor or to an extrinsic imputation of Christ’s sanctity to the sinner, who remains in himself in­ trinsically corrupted and incurable (see Lutheranism). The Protestants have followed in their master’s foot­ steps up to our times, with however a few exceptions (Liddon, Sanday). Bay (see Baianism) conceives grace dynamically, i.e., only as actual, and identifies it with morally good and salutary action, namely: with the observance of the divine precepts which, according to him, is possible only with grace, integrative element of the creature. The Church has condemned both of these errors (Council of Trent, session VI, canon it, DB, 821; Prop. 42 of Bay, DB, 1042), appealing to revelation (especially St. Paul and St. John), which manifests to us grace as a regeneration, a new life, a divine energy, diffused by the Holy Spirit and inherent in the soul. Hence the true theology of sanctifying grace is that grace is a divine quality (Catechism of the Council of Trent) or entitative habit inherent in the soul, upon which it confers a mode of divine being, a participation of the divine nature, according to St. Peter (see consortium, divine), adoptive divine filiation (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:5; John 3:1), and the right of inheritance to eternal life (Rom. 8:17). Tradition, in the East especially, is rich in con­ cepts and developments with respect to sanctifying grace, boldly termed "divinization of man" (Irenaeus, Origen, Cyril of Alexandria). Sanctifying grace is lost through mortal sin (Council of Trent, DB, 808), is conserved and increased through good works, done under the influence of God, and by means of the sacraments duly received (Council of Trent, DB, 834 and 849). See indwelling of the Holy Trinity; justification. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I—II, q. no. Bouillard. Conversion et grace chez S. Thomas d'Aquin (Paris, 1944). Boyer, Trac­ tatus de gratia divina (Rome, 1938). Lemonnyer, Théologie du N. Testament (Paris. 1928). Pascal Parente, The Ascetical Life (St. Louis, 1947), pp. 18-27. Pohi.ePreuss, Dogmatic Theology, VII Grace (Ac­ tual and Habitual) (St. Louis, 1946). Rondet, Gratia Christi (Paris, 1948). The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 549-583· grace, necessity of. Necessary is equivalent to inevitable, indispensable. There is a twofold necessity: physical necessity, in connection with the laws . of nature in its being and operation; moral necessity, with reference to human conditions and customs. The first is more rigorous. Grace, divine gift for the conquest of eternal life, is inserted in man as a new principle of activity, which strengthens, purifies, and elevates man’s faculties to the supernatural order. Since intellect and will are the faculties specific to man, the necessity of grace is considered with reference to their objects, i.e., truth and goodness. A. Grace is necessary: ' a) to know truths that are objectively super­ natural, e.g., mysteries I. physically b) for supernatural faith (as an in­ (adherence of intellect ternal gift): and will to the re­ vealed word of God; see faith) 119 2. morally (as an ex­ ternal gift; revelation) to know the moral-reli­ gious truths easily, cer­ tainly, and without admixture of error. Although proportionate to human reason, these truths still present dif­ ficulties due to the condition of mankind after the original sin Cf. Vat. Council, sess. Ill, DB, 1786. The reason of both necessities lies in the disproportion (absolute in the first case, relative in the second) be­ tween the natural capacity of the in­ tellect and the objects just mentioned. B. Internal grace is necessary: '«) to do all good accord­ ing to all the precepts of the natural law I. morally (cf. C. Car- b) to love God above all things, not only affec­ thag., DB, tively but also effec­ 104, 105, tively (in every action) 106, 107): c) to avoid for a long time all mortal sins [) opposition to the definition of the Church magisterium. If a truth is contained in the deposit of revela­ tion, but has not been proposed to the faithful by the Church, it is called a truth of divine faith; if the revealed truth is also defined and proposed for belief by the ordinary or the extraor­ dinary magisterium of the Church, it is called a truth of divine-Catholic faith. Heresy in the full sense of the word is opposed to a truth of divineCatholic faith. If the denial concerns a revealed truth which is clear and commonly admitted as such, but has not been defined by the Church, the one who denies such a truth is called proximus haeresi (very close to heresy). As regards the relationship of the heretic to the Church, see members of the Church. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II-II, q. n. Michel, “Hérésie,” DTC. Van Noort, De fontibus revelationis (Amsterdam, 1911), n. 259 fl. Wilhelm, “Heresy,” CE. hermeneutics (Gr. Ιρμηνεύιιν — to interpret). The art of interpreting texts, particularly the sacred texts of the Bible. Hermeneutics is to exegesis (q.v.) what logic is to philosophy, in so far as the art of hermeneutics establishes the laws which exegetical science applies in order to find the true sense of the texts, like logic es­ tablishes the laws of correct reasoning. The norms in use for the interpreta­ tion of ancient profane writings are not entirely adequate for the biblical texts, which present particular diffi­ culties inherent in their divine origin and their religious-dogmatic char­ acter. Indeed, their human aspect subjects them to the common rules of interpretation, but at the same time their character of inspired writings demands also a code of particular norms (see inspiration). The objective of hermeneutics is threefold: (i) To determine the nature and the different species of the biblical sense, i.e., of the truth which God, principal Author of the Bible, intends to express through the words written by the hagiographer (q.v.), who is only the secondary author of the biblical text. (2) To establish the principles which regulate the interpretation of the heterodox 124 Bible. (3) To find the most conven­ ient way of proposing, according to the various aptitudes of the readers, the true sense of the texts. Each of these three parts has its proper name, i.e., noematics (from νόημα — sense), heuristics (from ευρίσκω — I find), prophoristics (from προφέρω — I propose). Recent ecclesiastical documents, par­ ticularly the encyclicals Divino afflante (Sept. 30, 1943) and Humani generis (Aug. 12, 1950) have given hermen­ eutics a development equal to the progress of the profane sciences, safe­ guarding the perfect harmony be­ tween the rights of reason and the demands of faith. BIBLIOGRAPHY Chase, Chrysostom, A Study in the History of Biblical Interpretation (London, 1887). Cruveilhier, “Herméneutique sacrée,” DBVS. Kortleitner, Hermeneutica biblica (Oeniponte, 1923). Maas, “Hermeneutics,” CE; "Exegesis,” CE. Steinmueller, A Companion to Scripture Studies, Vol. 1 (New York, 1941), pp. 225-249. See under Bible. heterodox. See orthodox. hierarchy (Gr. ιερά όρχή— sacred authority). The body of persons par­ ticipating in ecclesiastical power, which is divided into power of orders and power of jurisdiction. The power of orders is immediately directed to the sanctification of souls through the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass and the administration of the sacraments. The power of jurisdic­ tion, on the other hand, is im­ mediately directed to ruling the faith­ ful with reference to the attainment of life eternal, and is actuated through the authoritative teaching of revealed truths {sacred magisterium), and through the promulgation of laws {legislative power), together with the authoritative decision of legal actions involving its subjects {judicial pow­ er), and the application of penal sanctions against transgressors of the law {coactive or coercive power). These last three powers are functions of the same sacred jurisdictional authority with which the Church is endowed as a perfect society. The power of jurisdiction is divided into: (1) power of jorum externum, when directed principally to the common good, in so far as it regulates the social relations of the members and produces public juridical effects; and power of forum internum, when directed principally to private good, in so far as it regulates the relations of consciences with God and is exercised per se secretly and with prevalently moral effects; (2) ordi­ nary power, when ipso jure (by law) it is connected with an office, and delegated power, when it is granted to a person by commission or delega­ tion. Ordinary power is further di­ vided into proper, i.e., annexed to an office and exercised in one’s own name {nomine proprio), and vicari­ ous, i.e., annexed to an office but exercised in another’s name. Since sacred power is twofold, hierarchy is likewise twofold, and therefore we have in the Church the hierarchy of orders, constituted by the body of persons having the power of orders in its different grades (see orders, holy), and the hierarchy of jurisdiction, consisting in the series of those persons who have the power of teaching and governing. In both hierarchies there arc grades, i.e., the fundamental grades, which have their source in divine right (episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate in the hierarchy of orders; papacy and episcopate in the hierarchy of juris­ diction) and the secondary grades, which have been instituted by the Church. The two hierarchies, although very closely related, are really distinct. They are distinct in their mode of origin (orders are conferred by the appropriate sacrament, while jurisdic· Holy Ghost 125 tion originates through canonical mis­ sion) and in their properties (the valid use of orders, in most cases, cannot be prevented, while jurisdic­ tion is revocable). They are, however, mutually related, because jurisdiction supposes orders and, vice versa, the exercise of orders is moderated by jurisdiction; and also because both come from God and directly or in­ directly lead to God. Those members of the Church who belong to the twofold hierarchy are called clerics (Gr. κλήρο·; — lot, por­ tion, sort, i.e., in sortem Domini vocati — “called to the lot of the Lord”), while all the others are called laics, laymen, laity (Gr. λαόν — the people). Since in its bosom the Church carries superiors and subjects, really distinct by divine right, it is an unequal society, i.e., a society in which the members do not have equal rights and duties. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Π—IT, q. 39, 11. 3. Billot, De Ecclesia, Vol 1 (Rome), theses 15-24. De Dunin Borkowski, "Hier­ archy of the Early Church,” CE. Romani, Institutiones luris Canonici, Vol. I (Rome, i) objectivation (re­ ligion); (<■) synthesis of the subject­ object (philosophy). 5. Individual men are so many empiric egos, unified in a transcen­ dental ego, the thinking act, in which all that is real (God and the world) exists in the flux of becoming. Apart from other difficulties, ideal­ ism is absurd for the following rea­ sons: (1) because it affirms that the spirit or thinking act creates itself, admitting thus the inconceivable prin< iplc of a thing cause of itself; (2) because it identifies finite with in­ finite, contingent with absolute, and admits the possibility of an evolution idolatry of the transcendental ego, given as an infinite, eternal, and, hence, most perfect being; (3) because it fails to explain the distinction, the variety, and the contrariety of the individual consciences, coefficient elements and actors in the drama of human life; (4) because it removes the distinction between error and truth, bad and good, and proclaims that the spirit in the act of thinking is always truth and goodness, and that evil and error are the past of the spirit itself. Idealism, both as a pantheistic sys­ tem and as a relativism in the field of morals, is irreconcilable with Christianity. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bradley, Appearance and Reality (London, 1897). Carson, “The Reality of the External World,” Dublin Review, 125 (1899). Cor­ dovan!, Cattolicismo e Idéalisme (Milan, 1928). Dehove, “Idéalisme," DA. Eucken, Christianity and the New Idealism (New York, 1909). Lyon, Idéalisme en Angleterre au XVIII siècle (Paris, 1888). Willmann, “Idealism,” CE. Zacchi, Il nuovo idealismo italiano di B. Croce e di G. Gentile (Rome, 1925). idolatry (Gr. ΐΙδλων λατράα — wor­ ship of idols). Consists in paying to false divinities the worship due only to God. Some Fathers call idolatry the gravest offense to God, as it robs Him of His honor by putting the Creator after creatures. In its most vulgar form, it identifies the divinity (whatever this is) with the idol (material image); in this sense it is akin to fetishism (q.v.), which, however, rather than a religion is an ignoble sorcery of an individual and utilitarian character. In a more elevated form, accord­ ing to the opinion and teaching of the idol-worshiping priests and schol­ ars, idolatry is said to represent the idol as an image of the divinity, to which the worship is properly di­ rected. But it is historically proved that the idol-worshiping peoples hold idolothyte 130 that the divinity informs the idol with its spirit, which remains ever present in the idol and bound to the idol. Against the rationalists, the Catholics demonstrate, by an objective criticism of the documents, that idolatry is not the first stage of religion, but is rather a degeneration: religion went from monotheism to polytheism, not vice versa. Man fell into idolatry, un­ der the pressure of his passions, as he gradually lost sight of the supreme and true God (Rom., Ch. i). The sense of the divine, basic to all re­ ligion, is also at the root of idolatry: but it undergoes a deviation from the celestial spheres down toward earthly things, very likely under the influence of animism {q.v.), an ancient belief that everything is animated and moved by a spirit. The Church was always very rigorous, during the per­ secutions, with Christians who fell into idolatry (see animism; fetishism). BIBLIOGRAPHY Bugnicourt, "Animisme,” DA. Chantepie De la Saussaye, Manuel d’histoire des re­ ligions (1904). Hull, Studies on Idolatry (Bombay, 1906). Michel, “Idolâtrie,” DTC. Ring, Religions of the Far East (Milwaukee, 1950). Tixeront, History of Dogmas, trans. H.L.B.. Vol. i (St. Louis, 1910), pp. 346354. Wilhelm, "Idolatry,” CE. idolothyte (thing offered to an idol, from Gr. άδώλω θνω — I sacrifice to the idol). One of the most delicate cases of conscience for the first Chris­ tians was the lawfulness of eating meats offered to the gods by the pagans in their temples. At that time, Greco-Roman society was permeated with a religious consciousness, and every occasion of life, happy or sad, was marked with sacrificial offerings to the gods. The flesh of the im­ molated victims was eaten in places adjoining the temple, or in family banquets, or distributed to friends, or sold to butchers and entered into public use. At the Apostolic Council of Jeru­ salem it was decided that Christians converted from paganism should ab­ stain from meats of pagan sacrificial origin (Acts 15:20, 29) out of respect for their Jewish brothers, who felt an instinctive repugnance for the use of idolothytes. In a.d. 56, six years later, the faithful of Corinth put the question to St. Paul in all its practical aspects: (1) May Christians buy meat from butchers who purchase their meat from the temples or who, in butchering it, practice religious rites? (2) May they accept invitations to banquets at which they suspect idol­ othytes will be served? (3) May they participate in a sacred banquet of pagans for reasons of social obliga­ tion or convenience? In his answer to these three ques­ tions (1 Cor., Chs. 8-10) St. Paul is guided by two principles: (1) an idol is nothing, and so it cannot make holy or unholy the meat offered to it; (2) animals were given by God for man’s food. Accordingly, his answer to the first query is affirmative; such is also the answer to the second, ex­ cept there be someone at the table who might be scandalized. The answer to the third query, however, is nega­ tive, because the grave scandal here implied cannot be permitted for any reason, since it is a question of direct participation in an act of idolatrous worship: one cannot drink from the “demon’s cup” after having sipped the “Lord’s chalice.” BIBLIOGRAPHY Allo, Premiere épître aux Corinthien < (Paris. 1934). pp. 195-252. Mancenot, “Idol­ othytes,” DTC. Prat, The Theology of St. Paul, trans. Stoddard, Vol. 1 (Westminster. 1926), pp. 115—1x9. Ignatius Martyr. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 301); Roman pontiff. illumination of the agonizing. Sec death; infidels. image 131 Illuminism (or Enlightenment). A philosophico-religious current which spread in the eighteenth century from England into France, Germany, and Italy. Illuminism took up the spirit of Humanism and of the Lutheran Reformation and affirmed the au­ tonomy of reason released and eman­ cipated from all civil and religious authority, openly hostile to all tradi­ tion, and destined to enlighten with its light the mysteries of the world and of life. The leader of this cur­ rent was the Englishman Herbert of Cherbury (j- 1648), who professed a naturalistic religion reduced to a few fundamental truths in which all re­ ligions agree. There is a close con­ nection between this theory and the deism (cf.v.) of Tindal, Toland, Collins, and Bolingbroke. Illuminism also proclaimed the autonomy of the will in the moral field: neither re­ ligion nor civil laws can be sources of morality, but only the individual conscience by a kind of instinct (ethico-aesthetic sense). Individual ethics become social ethics by mod­ erating egoism with altruism through sympathy (A. Smith). English Illuminism passed into France, where it degenerated into ma­ terialistic and atheistic Encyclopedism (De la Mettrie, Holbach, Diderot, Voltaire). J. J. Rousseau, with his romantic naturalism, was influenced by French Illuminism. In Germany, Illuminism identified itself with Samuel Reimarus (j· 1768), who re­ jected all Christian revelation as an imposture, and still more with I 'phracm Lessing, aesthete, litterateur, and dramatist, who drew all his in­ spiration from the principle that truth is a perennial, personal conquest, and not a gift or immutable possession. In Italy, Illuminism had its influence on the Revival of the second half of the eighteenth century in the field of social and economic sciences (A. Gcnovesi, G. Filangicri, G. R. Carli, etc.). However, in this country, where Christian tradition was more tena­ cious, Illuminism did not in general undergo the ethico-religious degenera­ tions it knew beyond the Alps. BIBLIOGRAPHY Gentile, Dal Genovesi ad Galluppi (Naples, 1903). Hibben, The Philosophy of Enlighten­ ment (London, 1910). Rostan, Les philos­ ophes et la société française au XVII siècle (Paris, 1911k image. Usually means the drawn or sculptured reproduction of a person in his bodily likeness, e.g., a photograph. Philosophically, an image is a repro­ duction of a knowable object in the sensitive or in the intellective faculty (sensible or intelligible species). In theology, image is of special interest in the question of worship (see cult). The Church from remote cen­ turies adopted and defended the worship of the saints and their images: in the II Nicene Council (a.d. 787) the iconoclasts (q.v.) were condemned for opposing the custom of venerating images of our Lord, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the saints. According to Holy Scripture, God created man to His image and like­ ness (Gen. 1:26 ff.). Though the two words are synonymous in the Hebrew text, some Fathers make a distinction, referring image to the natural proper­ ties of man and likeness to the super­ natural gifts with which Adam was enriched. Rigorously speaking, Holy Scripture affirms no more than a re­ lationship of resemblance between God the Creator and man. This resemblance evidently does not refer to the body of man but to his soul, which really reflects in itself ana­ logically certain divine perfections, like immateriality, intellect, and will with their respective operations. St. Thomas sees also in the human spirit an image oj the Trinity, inasmuch as in God the Word is generated by the Father and from them both pro­ Immaculate Conception 132 ceeds the Holy Spirit, who is Love, and likewise in us there is a mental word or concept of the thing known, followed by a movement of love or inclination toward that thing. Trini­ tarian theology waxes eloquent on this relationship of resemblance be­ tween human psychology and the intimate life of God (see Trinity). In a stricter and theologically more interesting sense, the term image is attributed to the Word according to St. Paul: "Who is the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). In fact, the Word {q.v.) is the term of the divine intellection, proceeding from the Father by way of spiritual gener­ ation: the son is born to the image of his father. The concept of image is even more profound in the Word, because He is not only like the Father, but also of the identical substance of the Father (see consubstantial). Less correctly can the Holy Spirit be called image of the Son (as some Eastern Fathers do), because the Holy Spirit proceeds through love, and love does not produce, but supposes resemblance. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 45, a. 7; q. 35. Hetzenauer, Theologia Biblica (Freiburg i.-Br., 1908), pp. 537-539. See under iconoclasts; Trinity; consub­ stantiel. Immaculate Conception. Solemnly defined in the bull, Ineffabilis, by Pius IX, December 8, 1854. It is, therefore, a truth of Catholic faith that the Virgin Mary from the first instant of her conception was pre­ served immune from original sin, in view of the future merits of Christ. This singular privilege was not ignored by the magisterium of the Church before its definition; suffice it to mention that a liturgical feast of the Conception of Mary existed at least since the seventh century in the East and the ninth century in the West (first at Naples, then in England and Ireland and in the rest of Europe). In the Western Church this truth was obscured and made progress slowly against contradictions and difficulties, because from the fifth century onward the ecclesi­ astical writers were forced to defend against Pelagianism (q.v.) the uni­ versal transmission of original sin, and hence the universality of the Redemption. But its champions were never lacking. Characteristic of this fact is the controversy that arose in the thirteenth century between Do­ minicans and Franciscans: the former, led by St. Thomas, denied that Mary was exempt from original sin, but admitted her sanctification in her mother’s womb immediately after conception. The Franciscans, led by Scotus, maintained first the possibility and then the fact of Mary’s privilege. However, St. Bonaventure, the great Franciscan, agreed with St. Thomas and St. Bernard. Apart from the anti-Pelagian preoccupations, imper­ fect knowledge of the theologians on the physiology of fecundation and conception sharpened and confused the issue. From Sixtus IV, who ap­ proved the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, down to Gregory XVI, who had the beautiful title of “Im­ maculate” inserted in the preface of the Mass and the litanies, the Church smoothed the way for the solemn definition of Pius IX. The privilege of Mary is implicit in the text of Genesis 3:15, where the triumph of the Woman and of her Offspring (Christ) over Satan is prophesied. Moreover, Mary, before the Incarnation, is greeted by the angel as “full of grace” ( κεχαριτωμίΐο) — permanently full of divine grace), an expression in which the Fathers recognize perfect sanctity, without limit of time. The parallelism /tdarnEve (slaves of Satan and ruin of mankind) and Christ-Mary (victors 133 over Satan and salvation of men) is familiar to the Fathers (Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.). Ephraem has vivid expressions on the incon­ taminated purity of Mary. St. Augus­ tine, notwithstanding his fight against the Pelagians, does not dare to men­ tion Mary when it is question of sin (De natura et gratia, 36, 42; RJ, r79)· Theological reason: It is repugnant that the Mother of Christ, victor of Satan and of sin, should have been subject to one and the other, even for one instant. BIBLIOGRAPHY Harper, The Immaculate Conception, reedited by Rickaby (1919). Holweck, "Im­ maculate Conception," CE. Jaggar, The Im­ maculate Conception (New York, 1925). Le Bachelet, Jugie, “Immaculée Conception,” DTC. Livius, The Blessed Virgin Mary in the Bathers of the First Six Centuries (London, 1893). Lumbreras, S. Thomas and the Im­ maculate Conception (Notre Dame, Ind., 1923). McKenna, The Dogma of the Im­ maculate Conception (Washington, D. C., 1929). Merkelbach, Mariologia (Paris, 1939). Pius IX, bull, Ineffabilis. Pohle-Preuss, Dog­ matic Theology, VI Mariology (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 39-71. Scheeben, Mariology, trans. Geukers, Vol. 2 (St. Louis, 1947), pp. 32-111. Storff, The Immaculate Conception (San Francisco, 1925). Ullathorne, The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God (Westminster, 1905). immanence (method of). See apologetics; immanentism. immanentism. A philosophico-religious system which, in its most rigid form, reduces all reality to the sub­ ject, which is said to be the source, the beginning, and the end of all its creative activity. It is basically that same subjectivism (q.v.) which began with Descartes as a tendency to start from the subject and progressively to absorb in it the whole object. This absorption is already accomplished in the substantialistic monism of Spinoza with its definitely pantheistic charac­ ter; in Kant it undergoes a slight immanentism limitation in so far as the phenom­ enon is admitted as objective reality, at least fundamentally. But with German idealism (Fichte, Schelling, Hegel), immanentism becomes re­ surgent and reaches its apex in the Italian idealism of Croce and Gentile, according to whom all reality is im­ manent in the act of thought. Besides this intellectualistic de­ velopment, immanentism receives a sentimentalistic one in the works of Schleiermacher. This current, closer to the religious problem, became so strong all through the nineteenth cen­ tury as to threaten to eclipse the first. In the pragmatism (q.v.) of James, sentiment and action, no longer the idea, are the essence of religion. Finally, modernism (q.v.) steps in, making the divine gush forth from sentiment and religious experience (q.v.). The historical fact of revela­ tion is in function of religious con­ sciousness, in which God continues to reveal Himself in fact, and all religion becomes an individual, sub­ jective, and personal matter. Conse­ quences of this absolute immanentism are: (a) God is no longer personally distinct from man and the world; (b) revelation and religion are not tied down to fixed truths and im­ mutable dogmas, but they develop and are transformed according to the phases of sentiment and of religious consciousness. In view of these grave consequences, the Church has con­ demned immanentism (cf. encyclical, Pascendi, against modernism). But the method of immanence, adopted by Blondel and other Catho­ lics in apologetics, is another thing altogether: it consists in starting from the subject in the defense of religion, e., in making man feel the discom­ i. fort and unrest of his mind, the need of God and of the supernatural which lies dormant in every heart, and thus orienting men to the true, revealed religion, to Christ’s Church. immensity 134 This method of immanence is not heterodox in itself; used cautiously, it can be an effective preparation for the historical method. BIBLIOGRAPHY Illinworth. Divine Immanence (London, 1898). Michelet. Dieu et l’agnosticisme con­ temporain (Paris. 1920). Stbfanini, L’Azione (Milan. 1915). Thamirv, “Immanence," CE. De Tonouêdec, Immanence (Paris. 1913); "Immanence (Méthode d’),” DA. Valensin, "Immanence (Doctrine de Γ),” DA. immensity. See infinity. immolation. See Mass; sacrifice of Christ. immortality. Immunity from death. As regards the immortality of the body, together with other gifts to Adam and Eve, see integrity. Here we shall consider only the im­ mortality of the soul, which is at once a truth of faith and reason. Divine revelation is wholly ordered to eternal life, the supernatural des­ tiny of man. In Holy Scripture, life on earth is termed a pilgrimage to a country above (Gen. 47:9; Heb. 11:13-16). Ecclesiastes states the same explicitly: “before . . . the dust return into its earth from whence it was. and the Spirit return to God, who gave it” (12:7): the allusion is to the creation of man. whom God made of body formed from the earth and soul infused directly by Himself into the body (Gen. 2:7). In the Gospel Jesus refutes the Sadducees by reminding them that God is the God of Abraham and of the other Patriarchs, who cannot be altogether dead, because God is the God of the living, not of the dead (Matt. 22:31 ff.): and in another place He admonishes: “Fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). Tradi­ tion is unanimous on this doctrine, and that is why the magisterium of the Church has never felt the need of defining a truth which has always been apparent in the con­ science of the faithful: only the V Lateran Council spoke up against the audacious denials of certain neo­ Aristotelians (DB, 738). Thus the immortality of the soul is a truth of faith. But it is also a truth of reason. The best of the old philosophers admitted and proved it: a famous dialogue of Plato, per­ haps the most beautiful he wrote, the Phaedon, is also a celebrated demon­ stration of the immortality of the soul. The soul of its very nature is immortal; Christian philosophy and theology prove it with the following arguments: 1. The human soul is spiritual, as is demonstrated from the fact that its specific operation, intellection and volition and consequently its being, is independent of matter. Now, spirit is of its nature simple, i.e., not com­ posed of parts, and so, not corruptible, not subject to decomposition, like matter. 2. Man naturally aspires to im­ mortality; witness history and human institutions. Now, this aspiration which is rooted in the conscience of mankind cannot be a mere idle aspiration. 3. Man conceives truth, which is eternal, timeless, and spaceless. But he could not conceive it unless he too were of the same make-up, for there must be proportion between conceiver and conceived, between sub­ ject and object. 4. No adequate sanction is had in this life for man’s goodness or malice. God’s wisdom and justice demand such a sanction; hence, there must be another life. bibliography St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I. q, 75; Summa Contra Gentiles, I. 2, c. 65 and 80. 135 impeccability Cod: His Existence and His Nature, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1947—1948); The One God, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1943), pp. 268-275. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic The­ ology, I God: Knowability, Essence, Attri­ butes (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 298-305. Alger, The Destiny of the Soul, Λ Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life (New York, 1889). Coconnier, “Ame,” DA. Maher, "Immortality,” CE. Mercier, Psy­ chologie, Vol. 2 (Louvain, 1928), p. 347 ff. Plat, Destinée de l’homme (Paris, 1898). rigou-Lagrange, immutability. Excludes all passage impanation. See transubstantiation. or motion of being from one to another terminus; hence it is the opposite of any development or evolu­ tion. Immanentism and idealism, since they identify the world and God by reduction of both to the act of thinking, of necessity con­ ceive God as being in continual evolution. On the contrary, divine revelation declares the absolute im­ mutability of God in contrast to the ever becoming of the universe: “With whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration” (James 1:17). St. Paul (Heb. 1:10) repeats the words of Psalm 101: “They [the heavens] shall perish but thou remainest: and all of them shall grow old like a garment: And as a vesture thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed. But thou art al­ ways the selfsame, and thy years shall not fail” (27-28). The IV Lateran and the Vatican Councils com­ ment with the expression, Deus incommutabilis {DB, 428, 1782). Reason confirms and illustrates this truth: the being that changes and develops, and thus passes from “the less” to “the more,” has to be im­ perfect, has to be potency that be­ comes act, that acquires something it did not have before, something new. Now all this is opposed to the concept of being per essentiam (whose essence is to be) and to the concept of act, pure, simple, per­ fect, infinite (see Act, Pure; simplicity of God; perfection; infinity). There­ fore, evolutionism of God is anthro­ pomorphism, and advances the ab­ surdity of an Infinite-Finite. IIIIILIOGRAPHY Si Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 9. Gar- impeccability. Impossibility, physical or moral, of sinning. It is a doctrine of faith that Jesus Christ not only had immunity from all sin (i.e., impeccantia — absence of sin, de facto), but also impeccability in the real and true sense of the word. Jesus Christ Himself challenges His enemies with these solemn words: “Which of you shall convince me of sin?” (John 8:46.) St. Paul had proclaimed Christ: “High priest, holy, innocent, unde­ filed, separated from sinners” (Heb. 7:26). i St. Peter and 1 St. John attest categorically that in Christ there is no shadow of guilt. So, too, the Fathers, whose thought is summed up energetically by St. Cyril of Alexandria: “They are altogether stu­ pid who say that Christ could have sinned.” The reason for Christ’s impecca­ bility is in the hypostatic union; the Person in Christ being only one (i.e., the Word of God), only one also is the subject to which the divine and the human actions are attributed. If, therefore, there should be even the slightest sin in Christ, it would have to be attributed to and predicated of the Word of God, which is absurd. Secondary causes of this impeccability were also the beatific vision, the full­ ness of grace and the supernatural gifts which enriched the soul of Jesus Christ. All things considered, the im­ peccability of Christ, though belong­ ing to the moral order, has a metaphysical foundation. Impeccability is predicated also of Mary on account of her superhuman dignity as the Mother of God, on impenitence 136 account of her exemption from orig­ inal sin and, consequently, from the foment of concupiscence, and on ac­ count of tire fullness of grace with which her soul was adorned. But Mary’s impeccability was not intrin­ sic like Jesus’, but extrinsic rather, i.e., due to a special assistance of God. In fact, there was no sin in Mary, not even venial (Council of Trent). BIBLIOGRAPHY Hugon, Le mystère de l’incarnation (Paris, 1931), P- 292 ff. Richard, “Impeccabilité,” DTC. Various treatises, De Verbo Incarnato. impenitence. The opposite of pen­ ance, which is a virtue inclining the free will to be sorry for the sin committed and to form the intention of never again offending God. Es­ sentially the virtue of penance tends, as St. Thomas says (Summa Theol., Ill, q. 85, a. 2), to the destruction of sin inasmuch as it is an offense against God. Such destruction is not physical but of the moral order, con­ sisting in a reversal of the mind which repudiates evil by detaching itself from it and directing itself to good. In the Gospel this salutary disavowal is efficaciously expressed by the word μετάνοια — change of mind (cf. Matt. 4:17). Impenitence, on the other hand, is persistence in the state of sin and, therefore, of separation from God. This persistence may be merely a state of fact (e.g., if the sinner does not repent out of negligence), or it may be a bad dis­ position of the will which refuses to repent and make reparation for the offense against God. Impenitence is distinguished into temporary and final, just as persever­ ance (q.vi): temporary impenitence is the persistence in sin for a certain period of one’s life. If it is voluntary and malicious it constitutes a specific sin by itself, it is even a sin against the Holy Spirit (Summa Theol., Il­ li, q. 14, a. 2). It is, therefore, of in­ terest to the sinner and his duty to raise himself up after the fall, re­ turning contrite and humiliated to the heart of God. Not to do so out of malicious intention constitutes an ad­ ditional guilt, as has been said; to fail to do so out of neglect does not con­ stitute a new sin, unless particular circumstances demand such repent­ ance. Christian perfection requires that penance follow immediately af­ ter sin, but perfection is not commanded. The Church obliges all faithful to receive the sacrament of penance once a year; however, inde­ pendently of such law, there is a moral obligation of repenting at least in danger of death and before receiving a sacrament of the liv­ ing (as Communion, confirmation, matrimony). Final impenitence refers to the last moment of life; it is equivalent to death in the state of sin. It can be a mere condition of fact, as in the case of a man who died in the state of sin because he had no means or time to do penance. But it is also possible that a man refuses obsti­ nately to repent while he is living anti, moreover, that he resolves not to re­ pent even at the moment of death, refusing in advance any religious help. This would be a case of final impenitence, as a direct sin, which aggravates, before God’s tribunal, the condition of the sinner hardened in his guilt. Obduration in sin and blindness to sin, which are obstinacy in evil (re movable, however, with God’s grace and good will), dispose the sinner to final impenitence. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 851 I-Π, q. 79; Summa Contra Gentiles, I. (, c. 157, 160, 162. Doronzo, De Poenitentia, Vol. I (Milwaukee, 1949), Index Analyticmi "Impoenitentia." Richard, “Impenitence," DTC. 137 imposition of hands. This expres­ sion, which the Greeks translate by χειροτονία or χειροθεσία, signifies the simple and spontaneous gesture of placing the hands on the head or any other noble part (e.g., the eyes, the forehead) of a person or even of an animal (as in the Jewish ceremony of the scapegoat) for the purpose of pro­ ducing an effect (e.g., a blessing, a healing), or of conferring a power. It may be said that the use of this rite is threefold: biblical, liturgical, sacramental. In Holy Scripture, particularly in the New Testament, we find the imposition of hands often practiced by Christ, the Apostles, and the first evangelic missionaries, in order to produce a healing. In the various liturgies it is used quite frequently during the ceremonies that precede or follow the administration of cer­ tain sacraments, e.g., of baptism. In Christian antiquity it took on singular importance in the reconciliation of penitents and heretics. Probably in the sacrament of confirmation and cer­ tainly in holy orders (qq.v.), the χειροτονία is a constitutive and, there­ fore, indispensable part of the sacra­ mental sign (matter of the sacrament; see matter and form of the sacraments'). BIBLIOGRAPHY Oppens, L’imposition des mains et les rites connexes dans le N.T. et dans TEglise ancienne (Wetteren-Paris, 1925). De Puniet, "Confirmation," DACL. Doronzo, De Bap­ tismo et Confirmatione (Milwaukee, 1947), Index Analyticus: “Impositio manuum"; De Poenitentia, Vol. 3 (Milwaukee). Galtier, "Imposition des mains,” DTC. Morrisroe, Imposition of hands,” CE. Van Rossum, De ruentia sacramenti Ordinis (Rome, 1931). Incarnation (Gr. σάρκωσκ). The word had its origin in the Prologue of St. John: Et verbum caro factum est — “The Word became fleshi.e., man (a substitution characteristic of the Semitic languages, and one used Incarnation in the Bible, e.g., Gen. 6:12). The equivalence of the two terms, flesh and man, is consecrated officially in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which says that the Word was σαρκωθεί·; (incarnate) and ίνανθρωττήσα; (made man). The In­ carnation is also called in Holy Scripture: manifestation (of God) in the flesh, epiphany (manifestation), annihilation, economy. The Incarna­ tion is understood in two different meanings: (a) As a divine action, forming in the womb of the Virgin Mary a human nature and uniting it to and making it subsist in the Person of the Word. This action is common to the three divine Persons, since it is an action ad extra, (b) As the term of that divine action; it is the mysterious union of the divine nature and of the human nature in the Person of the Word. The in­ carnate Word is Jesus Christ. Necessity: The Incarnation was not absolutely necessary, because God could have repaired in various other ways the ruin caused by Adam’s sin. But it was hypothetically neces­ sary, i.e., the supposition granted that God demanded a reparation ac­ cording to the requirements of justice. That God actually did so demand is implicit in the sources of revelation. Therefore, since no creature could repair an offense against God, being morally infinite, a Man-God was necessary, who is capable of dy­ ing and of offering an infinite reparation. Purpose: The theological schools are not in agreement. The Scotists hold that God willed the Incarnation for itself and independently of Adam’s sin, and that the Word would therefore have become in­ carnate even if Adam had not sinned. The Thomists, on the contrary, teach that the Incarnation was ordered or directed to the Redemption as to its principal end; if, therefore, original incorporation, mystical 138 sin had not been committed, the Word would not have become in­ carnate, in the present order of the world established by divine providence. The first opinion seems attractive in a way, but only the second is based on the documents of revelation, which are decisive when it comes to events depending on God’s free choice. The sense of these documents is summarized in the following words of the Creed, frequently repeated by the Church in the liturgy of the Mass: Qui [Verbum] propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de coelis et incarnatus est (“on ac­ count of us and for our salvation, came down from heaven and became incarnate”). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. i. Arendzen, Whom Do You Say? A Study in the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London, 1927). Drum, "Incarnation," CE. Freddi, Sullivan, Jesus Christ the Word Incarnate (St. Louis, 1904). Hugon, Le mystère de l’incarnation (Paris, 1913). Michel, “Incarna­ tion," DTC. Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, trans. Vollert (St. Louis, 1946), PP- 313-404· Various treatises De Verbo In­ carnato, e.g., Billot, Van Noort, D’Alès, Peter Parente. incorporation, mystical. See Mys­ tical Body. indefectibility (of the Church). That prerogative of the Church in virtue of which it will endure to the end of time, keeping in­ violate the deposit transmitted to it by its divine Spouse (therefore, it implies also infallibility). This pre­ rogative, too, flows from the very nature and purpose of the Church; since, in fact, the Church is to take over and continue Christ’s work, it must last as long as there is a soul to be saved on earth. Moreover, the Saviour has explicitly promised: “Be­ hold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world . . . and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it [the Church]” (Matt. 28:20; 16:18). St. Ambrose, echoing Christ’s words, compares the Church to a ship “which is continually buf­ feted by high seas and storms, but which can never be sunk because its main mast is Christ’s cross, its skipper is the Father, its prow keeper is the Holy Spirit, its rowers are the Apos­ tles” {Liber de Salomone, Ch. 4). History has fulfilled the divine promise. Each age has put to the test the stability of the Church: the perse­ cutions of the first centuries, the Trinitarian and Christological heresies from the fourth to the eighth cen­ turies, schism in the East and Nicholaism in the West, the pope-emperor struggle of the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and the French Revolu­ tion— all these storms have buffeted the temple of God, which has re­ mained immovable in the midst of crumbling empires, institutions and civilizations, that had seemed to defy the ravages of time. Stat crux dum volvitur orbis. The Vatican Council affirmed, therefore, that “the unconquered stability of the Church is a great and perennial motive of credibility and an irrefutable testimony of its divine mission, whereby like a sign lifted among the peoples (Isa. 11:12), it invites the infidels to itself and assures its sons that the faith they profess is based on the most solid foundation” {DB, 1794). BIBLIOGRAPHY Mazzella, querey, De De Ecclesia, n. 738 If. Tan· Ecclesia, n. 105. Other treatises De Ecclesia. “Index” (of prohibited books). An official list of books prohibited by the Church as erroneous or danger ous in matters of faith or morals. From the first centuries the Church has always been on the alert against indifferentism 139 the circulation of writings that might endanger in any way the salvation of souls. Suffice it to recall, e.g., the Gelasian Decree (496), by which cer­ tain books of a religious content were denounced and prohibited. But the discovery of printing compelled the Church to even stricter vigilance. Paul IV is the author of the first official Index (1557 and 1559), to which the Council of Trent added a preface of guiding principles and rules, sanctioned by Pius IV (1564). Gradually the Index was amended, extended, and brought up to date by Popes Clement VIII, Alexander VII, and Benedict XIV. It underwent an integral and quasidefinitive systemization in the Index of Leo XIII, with the Constitution Officiorum ac mu­ nerum (1896), and the annexed Decreta Generalia. In 1910 the official Index appeared in an edition brought up to date, which was re-edited in 1929 and 1938. Paul IV had instituted also a Con­ gregatio Indicts (Congregation of the Index) with the function of watching over the press; under Benedict XV, this congregation was completely ab­ sorbed by the Holy Office (1917), which has a Section for the Censor­ ship of Books, to which matters re­ garding the Index are entrusted. A book may be placed on the Index either by virtue of an apostolic letter or of a simple decree of the Holy Office. This insertion prohibits to all the faithful: publication or reprinting (without authorization) of the book, reading of it, possession, sale, transla­ tion, communication to others of its contents. Those who read or keep with them books expressly prohibited by apostolic letter incur excommuni­ cation reserved in a special way to the Holy See (CIC, Can. 2318). The Church has the right and the duty to prohibit those books which can do harm to souls, as is obvious from her divine mission. Nor is this prohibition injurious to freedom, but is rather a valid help of this most noble human faculty, directing it to good, which is its natural object, and preserving it from evil, its ruin. Even civil governments adopt at times press censorship. As regards books prohibited even independently of the Index, see CIC, Canons 1385-1405. The faithful who must read prohibited books for rea­ sons of research can obtain permis­ sion from the Holy Office. BIBLIOGRAPHY Forget, “Index,” DA. Leo XIII, Constit. Apost., Officiorum ac munerum (Feb., 1896). Ojetti, "Roman Congregations (VII)," CE. Périès, L'Index (Paris, 1898). Teouvenin, “Index,” DTC. indifferentism. Systematic attitude toward the various forms of religion, for which no interest is shown {nega­ tive indifferentism') or which are held to have all the same value {positive in­ differentism). The position that all re­ ligions are false is called irreligious indifferentism; the belief that all religions are good and useful for this life and the next is termed religious indifferentism. A particular form of this tendency is known as social-political indifferentism, charac­ teristic of liberalism {q.v.), which leaves the religious question to the individual conscience and holds that society and the State should be non­ confessional (nondenominational, non­ sectarian), i.e., without any religion, and grant full liberty and equality of treatment to all kinds of cult. In the eighteenth century, Illuminism {q.v.), putting aside divine revelation and reducing religious doc­ trine and practice to a few rational principles, inaugurated naturalistic religious indifferentism (akin to deism), which spread extensively in the past century with the help of the autonomous moralism of Kant. From the breakdown of Protestant­ indissolubility 140 ism into hundreds of different sects there arose, on the other hand, a sort of supernaturalistic indifferentism, which judges equally useful for eternal salvation all the Christian religious forms that lay claim to divine revelation. Recently the Prot­ estants attempted to unite all their sects in a common religious entity of minimum content, and invited even the Catholic Church into this hybrid union! Negative indifferentism is detest­ able because it denies the supreme end of life to which religion is directed. Positive indifferentism is irreligious and impious; socio-political indiffer­ entism is illogical and unjust, be­ cause without examination of the value of the various religions it rele­ gates them all to the same treatment, and because it offends the consciences of the citizens by taking no interest in the religious factor. Supernaturalistic indifferentism is absurd, because by giving the same value to conflicting religions it puts God, who would be the Revealer of them, in contradiction with Himself. The conclusion is that the religious problem is of great individual and social interest, hence, it must be attentively examined psychologically and historically in order to come to a selection of what is true from what is false, and to adhere to that one religion which offers the soundest guarantees of truth and supernaturality. The Church has condemned the various forms of indifferentism (cf. especially the Syllabus, Nos. 15-18, DB, 1715 ff.). BIBLIOGRAPHY Balfour, The Foundation of Belief (Lon­ don, 1895). Calvet, Le problème catholique de l'union des Eglises (Paris, 1921). Fox, "Indifferentism," CE. Hoffman, Origins and Development of Secularism (New York, 1940). Michelet, Dieu et l’agnosticisme contem­ porain (Paris, 1909). McLaughlin, Is One Religion As Good As Another? (London, 1891). Newman, “The Difficulties of Latitudinarism," Tracts for the Times, Vol. 5, n. 85. Richard, "Indifférence religieuse," DTC. Schanz, A Christian Apology (New York, 1891). See under liberalism. indissolubility. See divorce. indulgences. In Imperial documents of the Christian epoch (cf. Codices of Theodosius and of Justinian) in­ dulgence meant amnesty or condona­ tion of penalty. Since the IV Lateran Council (1215), the Church has used indulgence in the sense of the re­ mission of penalty due for sin after the guilt of sin has been remitted. The precise concept of indulgence has been fixed by the Code of Canon Law in these terms (Can. 911): “A remission, before God, of the tem­ poral punishment due for sins al­ ready remitted with respect to their guilt, which the ecclesiastical au­ thority, drawing from the treasure of the Church, grants to the living after the manner of absolution, and to the dead after the manner of suffrage.” An indulgence is, there­ fore, a payment for the penal obliga­ tions of sinners made before God out of what may be likened to a public treasury, namely: the Church treasury (infinite merits of Christ, merits of the Blessed Virgin and of the saints). The indulgence is an extrasacramental act and, as such, belongs exclusively to the jurisdictional power (pope and bishops), which, for a just cause, may grant to the faithful, on determined conditions, the benefits of the treasury of the Church, by way of a partial or total condonation of the temporal punishment due for sins already remitted (as to guilt), a punishment for which the Christian would have to give satisfaction cither 141 in this life with good works or in purgatory for a determined time. The Church customarily attaches indul­ gences to various good works (prayers, pilgrimages, almsgiving), which are not causes, but mere con­ ditions of the fruit of the indulgence. For the souls in purgatory, indulgence works per modum suffragii, in the sense that, since the Church does not have jurisdiction outside of this world, it presents to God the merits of Christ in order that in view of them God may condone their penalty. The exercise of the Church’s power is direct in the case of the living, indirect in behalf of the dead. Such power is based on these dogmatic foundations: (a) the Communion of Saints (q.v.), which makes possible the interchange of spiritual merits and goods among the members of the Mystical Body of Christ; (b) The “power of the keys” granted to Peter and his successors, through which the Roman pontiff, and, subordinately, the bishops, can draw from the infinite treasury of the Church, and apply its goods to souls, effica­ ciously in the sight of God. In the course of the centuries, many were the abuses and misunder­ standings in the matter of indul­ gences, but the Church has always deplored and condemned them. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., III. Suppl., a· *6· Dubi.anchy, “Infaillibilité du Pape,” DTC. Gibbons. Faith of Our Fathers (Baltimore, 1890). Rivington, The See of Peter (London, 1894). Toner, “Infallibility,” CE. Various treatises De Ecclesia and De Romano Pontifice, mentioned under Church and Roman pontiff. infants. See babies deceased without baptism. infidels. According to the obvious meaning of the word, infidel is one who has not faith (morally speaking, is one who does not stand by his prom­ ises, his obligations, his duties). Faith (q.v.'), understood theologically as ad­ herence of the intellect to the truths revealed by God, may be lacking through the fault or without the fault of the individual. We distinguish, therefore: (a) the positive infidel, who refuses assent to revealed truth proposed as such with sufficient evi­ dence; (b) negative infidel, who does not have any knowledge at all of divine revelation, and so has not the means of exercising an act of faith. The infidel properly so called, either positive or negative, is the nonbap­ tized person. But the name is at times extended to include the baptized fallen into heresy (q.v.), which is the denial of some truth of faith defined by the Church, or the baptized fallen into apostasy, which is the abandon­ ment of the whole doctrine of faith. The positive infidel, the heretic, and the apostate, being in bad faith, volun­ tarily shut off from themselves the way of salvation. But those who are born in heresy and are in good faith (material, not formal heretics) may be saved by the action of divine grace, although they are not incorporated in the Catholic Church. The gravest problem is the salvation of the infidels who, without guilt, infinity 144 are ignorant of divine revelation, and thus of Jesus Christ and His Church. Without revelation faith is impossible, and without faith salvation is impos­ sible (St. Paul and the Council of Trent). And the traditional adage still aggravates the situation: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (“Outside the Church, no salvation”). The the­ ologians try to solve the problem in various ways: (i) God wants all to be saved (i Tim. 2:4 ff.) and so gives to all the means and the grace sufficient for them to be saved, even outside the Church, when they are ignorant of its existence. (2) God can bring to the infidel some trace or spark of revelation to make it pos­ sible for them, under the impulse of grace, to make an act of faith, as a starting point in their salvation. (3) Whoever, under the divine influence, makes an act of faith and then attains sanctification by adhering to God and His will, does already belong in some way to the Church. Since he has an implicit desire of baptism, he be­ longs to the Church in voto. (4) The infidel who would die with only orig­ inal sin, and without any personal sins, would go to limbo and not to hell. At any rate, salvation is more diffi­ cult for an infidel than for a Chris­ tian. Hence the importance and the necessity of the missions. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bainvel, Is There Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?, trans. Weidenhan (St. Louis, 1917). Boudinhon, "Infidels,” CE. Caperan. Le problème du salut des infidèles (Toulouse, 1934). Fischer. De salute infidel­ ium (Essen, 1886). Hugon, Hors de l'Eglise, point de salut (Paris, 1927). Lombardi, La salvezza di chi non ha la fede (Rome, 1943). Martindale, “Paganism,” CE. infinity. The absence of limits or terms. Such indetermination may be taken in two senses: (a) as the privation of a determination that a thing should have naturally; e.g., prime matter, devoid of any form; (Z>) as the negation of a determina­ tion which a thing neither has nor requires, e.g., a form without matter. Evidently, the privative infinite im­ plies imperfection, while the negative infinite involves real and true perfec­ tion, on which account it may also be called positive: it excludes limits because it implies fullness. Act and form, negatively and positively in­ finite of themselves, are limited by potency and matter in which they are received, and so their infinity is only relative, because circumscribed by a genus or a species; if, however, an act transcends all genera and species, as being does, then it is the absolute infinite. Only God is such, because only God is essentially Being, sub­ sisting Being Itself (see essence, di­ vine). This positive and absolute infinity of God does not exclude, how­ ever, His determinateness or con­ creteness, which implies personal dis­ tinction, not limitation. From the divine infinity there de­ rive two other attributes: immensity and ubiquity. God is immense be­ cause infinity excludes all limits and measurements; hence God is every­ where and no creature can escape His presence. The formal reason of this ubiquity (omnipresence) is the action that God exercises on the universe to maintain it in being and move it to its multifarious operation. Thus is solved the question of the relationship between the finite and the Infinite without falling into pantheism: In a certain sense God is immanent in the world, and the world in God, hut without confusion, the distinction be­ tween one and the other remaining, as between cause and effect. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, qq. 7-8. Fullerton, The Conception of the Infinite (Philadelphia, 1887). Garrigou-Lagrani.c. Cod: His Existence and His Nature, trans Rose (St, Louis, 1947-1948); The One Cod, 145 trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1943), pp. 236-252. Sertillanges, Sr. Thomas d'Aquin, Vol. I (Paris, 1935), p. 193 ff- The Teaching of the Catholic Church, cd. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 88-91. Zimmerman, "In­ finity,” CE. influence, divine. See concourse, divine. infusion. See baptism. “Ingenitus” (Ingenerate, born) . See Father. Un­ innocence (state of). The condi­ tion in which God placed Adam and Eve as soon as He created them. This state, called also original justice, im­ plies sanctifying grace with the re­ spective infused virtues and gifts {supernatural order), as well as cer­ tain privileges integrative of human nature {preternatural order). The state of innocence is entirely a gratui­ tous gift of God, to which man had no right and no active capacity (see obediential potency}. God could have left man in the state of pure nature, i.e., of nature in its own proper order and condition, with its final destina­ tion to a natural end. In the state of innocence, the body and the sensitive life (passions) were subject to reason through means of the gift of integrity {q.v.}; the soul was subject and united to God, by the supernatural gift of grace, which made man fully holy and just. Sin, therefore, in our first parents was difficult, but not impossible, be­ cause they were not confirmed in grace nor did they, like the blessed in heaven, see God directly in His es­ sence. Our first parents sinned in fact, and their sin was proportionally as great as the light and the grace they enjoyed. Admitting, as revelation demands, the fact of primitive innocence or orig­ inal justice, the theologians discuss Inquisition the essence of this justice; some think it adequately distinct from grace and reducible, as St. Anselm says, to a natural rectitude of the will. But the best opinion is that of St. Thomas, who rightly maintains that: {a) orig­ inal justice is a gratuitous gift added to human nature by the divine liberality; {b) this justice implies per­ fect subjection of the soul to God through sanctifying grace, which is the jormal element of the justice itself; in addition, it implies subjection of the passions, especially of con­ cupiscence, by means of the gift of integrity, which is its material ele­ ment; (c) grace is the cause and root of both subjections. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 95, a. 1; Comment. In 2 Sent., dist. 32, q. 1, a. 1, ad I. Kors, La justice primitive et le péché originel d'après St. Thomas (Paris, 1930). Michel, “Justice originelle," DTC. Peter Parente, De creatione universali (Rome, 1943), Ρ· Ι9°· Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, trans. Vollert (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 201-239. Inquisition (Latin inquisitio — in­ quiry, search, investigation). Jurid­ ically, it refers to a new procedure in­ troduced in the beginning of the thirteenth century. According to Roman law, all the acts of a criminal trial were completely public; the Church held to this principle through­ out the twelfth century. It was In­ nocent III (j- I2i6) who, observing that public prosecutions had become weak and gave an easy opening to cruel vengeances, established that some acts of the canonical procedure should be carried out in secret. To these procedural acts the name “in­ quisition” was given. Historically, it indicates the famous tribunal instituted by Gregory IX, about 1231, in which a special judge called inquisitor haereticae pravitatis (inquisitor of heretical crime) func­ tioned, distinguished from ordinary Inquisition 146 judges by the following character­ istics: (a) he enjoyed a jurisdiction which was variable as to territory, and limited, as regards matter, to cases of obstinate heresy only; (Z>) he had a permanent pontifical delegation; (c) such delegation, however, did not annul the ordinary jurisdiction of the bishops over the same matter. The inquisitor and the bishop were two parallel judges in questions concern­ ing heresy. The specific character of the in­ quisitorial trial was not constituted by the crime, or the procedure, or the torture, or the penalty (death by burning at the stake) — elements all more or less common to all civil and ecclesiastical trials of the time, but by the fact that the inquisitor was an exceptional judge, although having a permanent delegation. The motive that induced the Pope to create this exceptional court was the religious policy of Frederick II who, before Philip the Fair, attempted to usurp the rights of the Church, making himself an arbitrary judge of heretics. Gregory IX, with the new tribunal, determined the limits of imperial competency in religious mat­ ters and introduced a sharp division between the responsibilities of Church and State. The procedure of the Inquisition manifests its intimate nature: as soon as the inquisitor had assumed his office he published a time of grace, consisting in a preaching period that lasted one month. The guilty who confessed were, in exchange for their promise and guarantee to re­ nounce heresy, free from all further prosecution. The charges against heretics were briefed and then communicated to the accused, without the names of the witnesses — to avoid reprisal. The accused was invited to defend himself personally, but could not use an at­ torney (in deference to the preceding law which prohibited attorneys to defend the causes of heretics); but he had the right of appeal to the pope, which was a real escape valve! The penalties were most varied. The gravest was excommunication (separation from the body of the Church) and consequent handing over to the secular arm, which nearly always meant death by burning at the stake; the secular power con­ demned the heretic on its own au­ thority, considering him as a criminal who, by the profession of false the­ ories, was trying to sever the religious unity of the State and so disturb the public order. The Inquisition func­ tioned as described up to 1542, when Paul III, with the spread of Prot­ estantism, reorganized the ancient institution and centralized everything in Rome (Roman Inquisition) es­ tablishing new inquisitors who had the right to decide in propria instantia all appeals against the procedure of the delegates. Altogether different was the Span­ ish Inquisition instituted at the re­ quest of Ferdinand and Isabel by Sixtus IV (1478) to proceed jurid­ ically against apostates (Hebrews, baptized and recidivist). It quickly became a political instrument in the hands of the Spanish kings. There have been enormous exaggerations in the attribution to this tribunal of crimes and misdeeds for which, even were they true, the Church could not be blamed. Too easily forgotten is the fact that, thanks to the Spanish Inquisition, Spain was first freed from internal enemies of her faith and then preserved from the invasion of Protestantism. Moreover, as Landrieux rightly remarks, however grave the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition are painted, they are nothing in com­ parison to the ferocious persecutions and the orgies of cruelty which Luther unleashed in Germany, and, after him and because of him, Calvin 147 at Geneva, Henry VIII and Elizabeth in England, Christian II in Denmark, Gustaf Wasa in Sweden, Jeanne d’Albret in Navarre, and the Hugue­ nots and Jacobins in France. On this point the incomparable apologist, Joseph de Maistre, has cleverly rid­ iculed Voltaire, in his fourth letter on the Inquisition. BIBLIOGRAPHY Blôtzer, “Inquisition," CE. Douais, L'In­ quisition (Paris, 1906). Giraud, Histoire de l’inquisition, 2 vols. (Paris, 1940-1941). Guraud, “Inquisition,” DA. Maycock, The Inquisition (London, 1928). Rodrigo, Historia verdadera de la Inquisiciôn, 3 vols. (Madrid, 1876-1877). Vacandard, L'Inquisition. Etude historique et critique sur le pouvoir coercitif de l'Eglise (Paris, 1907); “Inquisition," DTC. The Inquisition as an institution of the Catho­ lic Church was particularly attacked by H. Ch. Lea, A History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages, 3 vols. (New York, 1888); History of the Inquisition in Spain, 4 vols. (London, New York, 1906-1907). inspiration (Latin inspirare—breathe into; infuse, in a figurative sense, said especially of sentiment). In the eccle­ siastical sense inspiration is, in gen­ eral, an influence or motion of God in the soul, and, more strictly, in the will. But the theologians usually in­ dicate by this term a charismatic im­ pulse that moves men to communicate to others what God wishes them to communicate. When the communica­ tion is oral, we have prophetic in­ spiration; when it is written, hagio­ graphie or biblical inspiration. St. Paul (2 Tim. 3:16-17) affirms that “All the Scripture [is] inspired by God,” and St. Peter (2 Pet. 1:21) points out the nature of such inspiration: “The holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.” Leo XIII, in his great encyclical on biblical studies, Providentissimus Deus (Nov. 18, 1893), defined in­ spiration: “A supernatural action through means of which God excited and moved the Sacred Writers to write, and assisted them in writing, inspiration in such a way that they would con­ ceive rightly in their thought, they would want to write faithfully, and they would express appropriately and with infallible truth all that He wanted them to express” (EB, no). According to the constant and ex­ plicit declaration of the sources of revelation, God is the Author of the Holy Scriptures. He is not, however, the only and direct author, as if He had produced the holy books as they are, but He is the principal Author, on whom goes back all the responsi­ bility for the books; however, for their compilation and editing God used men, who are the secondary and instrumental authors. But since man is not a blind, but a conscious and free instrument, he puts in his own proper action, which is manifested in the ex­ ternal form of the writing of the book. In this way we speak of the style of Isaias, Jeremias, Matthew, Paul, etc. The inspirative action of God in man includes: (e) an enlightening of the mind, by which the sacred author perceives correctly what he is to write and judges infallibly its truth or falsity; (£) a movement of the will, by which God influences the hagiographer to decide to write what he has conceived and judged; (c) assistance of the executive faculties in order that, in the choice of words and expres­ sions, the hagiographers be protected against errors or deviations that could compromise the manifestation of the divine thought. It should be noted that God’s ac­ tion on the hagiographer’s mind is not a revelation proper, because the hagiographer can have information of his own, deriving, e.g., from direct participation in the events he nar­ rates, or acquired in advance through divine intervention. Revelation, how­ ever, is necessary when man must communicate for God truths of the supernatural order, of which the integrity 148 knowledge surpasses his human in­ tellectual possibilities. God’s inspirative influence is not necessarily perceived by the inspired author, since God acts in rational creatures without doing any violence to their nature. The solemn Church magisterium in the Councils of Florence, Trent, and Vatican has defined the in­ spiration of the Bible as a dogma of faith. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bea, De Inspiratione S. Scripturae (Rome, 1935)· Cotter, Theologia Fundamentalis (Weston, 1940), pp. 581-634. Durand, "In­ spiration de la Bible," DA; “Inspiration," CE. Florit, Ispirazione e inerranza biblica (Rome, 1943). Lusseau, Essai sur la nature de l'inspiration scripturaire (Paris, 1930). Mangenot, “Inspiration de l’Ecriture," DTC. Pesch, De Inspiratione Scripturae (Freiburg i.-Br., 1906); with the Supplementum (1926). Steinmueller, A Companion to the Scripture Studies, Vol. 1 (New York, 1941), pp. 6-43. integrity (gift and state). A prop­ erty of every being inasmuch as it has all that its specific nature requires. From this natural integrity is distin­ guished a preternatural integrity that God added to the natural perfection of Adam. In this sense integrity is a gratuitous gift of God, and establishes man in the state of integrity by which nature, in addition to its properties, is enriched with privileges that com­ plete and elevate its perfection. These privileges are reduced to three: (1) immunity from concupiscence {q.v.'), e., from the disorderly inclinations i. of the sense appetite; (2) immortality of the body as well as immunity from sickness and other sufferings; (3) in­ fused knowledge, proportionate to the ordinary life of man. The first privilege is attested to by Holy Scripture, which tells us that our first parents were both naked and did not blush, but as soon as they sinned they realized they were nude and tried to hide and cover themselves. Psychologically speaking, blushing on account of nudity is pro­ voked by the insolence of the senses, which man is no longer capable of controlling and dominating. The second privilege is implicidy con­ tained in the divine threat: “In what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death” (Gen. 2:17). Actually Adam did not die when he sinned; the sense, then, of the divine words are: “You will become mortal,” as, moreover, St. Paul explains: “By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death” (Rom. 5:12). Death is a natural law for all bodies, but God had established exemption from death for the human body: with sin the natural law comes back into play, with the addition of a penal or punitive character. The third privilege is dimly alluded to when Holy Scrip­ ture says that Adam, hardly issued from God’s hands, was able to give appropriate names to all the animals and to determine the intimate nature of matrimony (Gen. 2:19). This could not be an acquired knowledge, and, therefore, it was infused by God (cf. Ecclus. 17:5). The first two privileges belong to the defined doctrine of faith (Council of Trent, DB, 792 and 788). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, qq. 94. 95, 97. Boyer, De Deo creante et devante (Rome, 1940), p. 275 ff. Peter Parente, De crea­ tione universali (Rome, 1943), p. 185 ff. intellect. See gifts of the Holy Ghost. intellectualism. Holding to the ob­ vious sense of the word, we would understand it as a system in which the intellect predominates, just as in vol­ untarism {q.v.) the value and func­ tion of the will are stressed. But the vicissitudes of history have rendered the meaning of the word intellectual­ ism equivocal. Subtleties aside, we can say that there is a heterodox and 149 an orthodox intellectualism from a philosophico-theological viewpoint. Thomistic-Aristotelian philosophy is the orthodox intellectualism, affirming the primacy of the intellect and de­ fending the capacity of human reason — however subordinate to faith — both in the field of natural truth and also in the supernatural order as re­ gards the intelligibility and illustra­ tion of dogma and hence the value of the dogmatic formulas by which revealed truths are expressed. All the scientific elaboration of theology {q.v.) around the data of revelation is the proof that justifies that intel­ lectualism which has been accepted into the bosom of the Church. There is, however, an exaggerated and heterodox intellectualism that subordinates everything to human reason of which it proclaims the full sufficiency and absolute domain, even with respect to supernatural facts and truths. Intellectualism so understood coincides with rationalism {q.v.), and the Church rightly condemns it, as­ signing certain limits to the capacity of reason, as when the Vatican Coun­ cil defines the moral necessity of divine revelation for the knowledge of the sum total of ethico-religious truths (of the natural order) capable of decisively orienting human life toward the supreme end. Likewise the Church has condemned (Encycl., Pascendi, DB, 2071 ff.) the modern­ ists {q.v.), who, adhering to antiintellectualistic and agnostic systems, undervalue reason and adopt in its stead the sentimental movements of subconscious religious experience (see experience, religious). Between the two extremes, abso­ lute rationalism and agnosticism, there is a gradation of systems oscil­ lating between the primacy of the intellect and the primacy of the will. The Church leaves this middle zone to free discussion {Thomism-Scotism), so long as neither faculty is intention excluded, but merely stressed at the expense of the other. It is undeniable, however, that Thomistic intellectual­ ism is the Church’s favorite, as is clearly shown in official documents (cf. Leo XIII, Encycl., Aeterni Patris; Pius X, Motu proprio, Doctoris Angelici; C1C, Cans. 589, 1366; Pius XI, Encycl., Studiorum ducem; Pius XII, Encycl., Humani generis; etc.). BIBLIOGRAPHY Garrigou-Lagrange, Le sens commun (Paris, 1922). Rousselot, L'intellectualisme de Saint Thomas (Paris, 1908); “Intellectual­ isme,” DA. intention (of the minister of the sacraments). In general, an act of the will by which one determines to do something: in the case of the minister, the will to administer the sacrament. The minister, being human, is a free instrument, and that is the real reason why his intention, at least virtual, to act as the representative of Christ in the administration of the sacrament, is absolutely necessary — whereas the moral dispositions (faith and the state of grace) are not re­ quired — in order that the sacrament produce the grace. It depends, in fact, on the free act of will of the animated agent, as man is, that in each and all cases he commit himself as an instrument in the hands of Christ. Besides, only the intention of acting ministerially can determine ad unum the sacramental meaning of the ex­ ternal rite, susceptible per se of multi­ ple significations. The Council of Trent in defining against Luther and Calvin the neces­ sity of intention in the minister {DB, 854) determines also its object: faciendi quod facit Ecclesia (“The minister must intend to do what the Church does”). In this expression, which sums up and sanctions a cen­ tury-old theological formula, is in­ dicated the relationship of dependency intercession 150 of the minister on the Church. The harmony of the plan of salvation chosen by Christ, the manifestation of the spiritual in the corporeal (Tertullian: caro salutis cardo, i.e., “the flesh is the hinge of salvation”), de­ manded that the activity of the min­ ister be in a direct relationship of dependency on the visible society, the Church, which is the perennial mani­ festation of Christ. In fact, only in de­ pendence on the ministerial power of the Church, indefectibly faithful to the mandate of its Founder, do men of all times and places find the guarantee of the continuity of the means of salvation established by the Redeemer. The Church, moreover, is a wellorganized body, in which every vital movement, linked to an external rite, must depend in some way on the visible head. It is necessary, therefore, that every infusion of new vital energies, caused by the sacraments, be in some way dependent on the visible head of the Church and on her hierarchy, which is the pope’s co­ adjutor “in ministering the blood of the Lamb for the universal body of the Christian Religion” (St. Catherine of Siena). We purposely say: “it must de­ pend in some way,” because this de­ pendency can be various and from a maximum can descend to a minimum necessary to preserve the bond of reference. In fact, it can be explicit, as in the Catholic priest who ab­ solves the penitent, and implicit as in the infidel who, ignorant of the Church and her rites, is induced to administer baptism ad intentionem petentis (according to the intention of the one asking); it can, moreover, be direct, as in all ministers having communication with the Apostolic See, or indirect, as may be found in heretics and schismatics, who by the very fact that their respective sects or churches keep and repeat what Rome did when they separated from her, in­ directly put themselves in a position of dependency on, and connection with, the Catholic Church. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., HI, q. 64, a. 8-10. Billot, De sacramentis, Vol. 1 (Rome, 1932), p. 187 fl. Billuart, De sacra­ mentis, diss. 5, a. 7. Delany, "Intention," CE. Doronzo, De sacramentis in genere (Mil­ waukee, 1946), Index Analyticus: "Intentio.” Franzelin, De sacramentis (Rome, 1911), pp. 200-259. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic The­ ology, VIII The Sacraments, Vol. 1, The Sacraments in General, Baptism, Confirmation (St. Louis, 1945), pp. 175-187. Rambaldi, L'oggetto dell’intenzione sacramentale nei teologi dei secoli XVI e XVII (Rome, 1944). Thouvenin, “Intention,” DTC. Van Noort, De sacramentis. Vol. 1 (Hilversum, 1927), nn. no-112. intercession (of the saints). An ancient custom of the Catholic Church, invoking the saints and commending oneself to their intercession with God. The Cathars, the Waldensians, Wicliffe, Luther, and more recently the modernists attacked the legitimacy of that usage, rejecting it as idola­ trous, as derogatory to the worship due to Christ (the one Mediator, ac­ cording to St. Paul, between man and God), and as a sign of little con­ fidence in God’s mercy. The Council of Trent (sess. 25, DB, 984), outlining the reasons of the ancient custom, defends its legitimacy and utility and reproves the contrary teaching as impious: “The Holy Synod orders all the bishops, and all the others having the duty and charge of teaching, that — according to the usage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, in force since the first times of the Christian religion, and accord­ ing to the consensus of the holy Fathers of the Church and the decrees of the Councils — they instruct ac­ curately the faithful especially about the intercession and invocation of the saints . . . teaching them that the saints, ruling together with Christ, interdict 151 offer their prayers for men to God, and that it is good and useful to in­ voke them supplicantly and to have recourse to their prayers and to their powerful help in obtaining benefits from God through Jesus Christ, His Son our Lord, who is our only Re­ deemer and Saviour. Those who do not admit that the saints, blessed in heaven, should be invoked, or who say that the saints do not pray for men, or that . . . their invocation is idolatry, or ... is contrary to the dignity of the one Mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ, or that it is stupid to supplicate with voice or thought those who reign in heaven: all these do think impiously.” In this decree, is found the solution of all aspects of the question. 1. The saints can intercede for us in imitation of Jesus Christ, who (as Man) is always alive to intercede for us with the Father (Heb. 7:25). 2. The prayer we address to God is an act of latreutic cult (see cult) be­ cause we believe that the omnipotent God can fulfill all our desires. The prayer made to the saints, on the other hand, is an act of mere dttlia, because we expect the fulfillment of our desires not from their power, but from their intercession with God, who can grant us a grace directly in view of their prayers and their merits, or can also work a miracle through means of them. 3. The saints see in the beatific vision our conditions and our supplications. 4. The intercession of the saints is directed to Christ the Mediator, through whom all heavenly favors descend upon us. 5. God sees our needs and could provide directly, but it pleases the divine Wisdom to communicate His gifts through intermediaries. After Jesus, Mediator between God and men, Mary, the Mediatrix of all graces, excels over the angels and the saints, and so the Church addresses supplications to her in a special way. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II—II» q. 83, a. 4. D’Abès, “Prière,” DA. Fonck, ‘Trière,” DTC. Gibbons, Faith of Our Fathers (Balti­ more, 1890). Scannell, “Intercession,” CE. interdict. A censure or medicinal penalty, by which the faithful (lay and clerics), though remaining in the communion of the Church, are de­ prived of certain sacraments and other sacred things. It differs from excom­ munication, which severs from com­ munion with the other faithful, and from suspension, which is inflicted only on clerics. The interdict is dis­ tinguished as follows: As regards the subject: personal, if it strikes a de­ termined person general, if it local, if it includes all strikes di­ the territory rectly a terri­ particular, if tory and in-_ it includes directly all only a part the persons of the terri­ in it: it then tory, e.g., a can be church, a monastery 'total, if it prohibits the use As regards the J of all the sacred things effects: partial, if it forbids the use of . certain sacred things By force of a general, local interdict — limiting our consideration to the most common form of interdict — are prohibited, in a certain territory, the celebration of any rite and the solemn administration (in forma solemni) of any sacrament (except on Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, Corpus Christi, and the Assumption). The following cere­ monies are permitted, only in the cathedrals and parish churches: (i) celebration of one daily Mass; (2) ad­ ministration of baptism, Communion, penance; (3) keeping of the Blessed Sacrament; (4) assistance at the cele­ bration of matrimony, but without the nuptial blessing; (5) obsequies for the dead, without solemnity; (6) blessing investiture 152 of the oils and of the baptismal font; (7) sacred preaching; (8) administra­ tion of Viaticum in private form. In all these ceremonies bells are never rung, nor is the organ played, and all external pomp is avoided. This penalty is traced to the first centuries of the Church, but acquired its greatest development and its proper characteristic marks in the Middle Ages, when it was applied with full rigor, occasionally striking whole kingdoms, like France and England. Later the pope mitigated its conse­ quences, permitting the administra­ tion of some sacraments in private form. In recent times it seemed to have come into disuse, when suddenly it was applied, with happy effective­ ness, by Pope Pius X, on Adria (1909) and Galatina (1913). The current discipline is established in the Code of Canon Law (Cans. 2268-2277). BIBLIOGRAPHY Boudinhon, “Interdict,” CE. Chelodi, Jus poenale, ed. Dalpiaz (Trent, 1935), pp. 52-57. Prümmer, Manuale theologiae moralis, Vol. 3, nn. 527-530. Richter, De origine et evolu­ tione interdicti (Rome, 1934), 2 volumes in the collection, Textus et Documenta of the Gregorian University. Smith, Elements of Ec­ clesiastical Law (New York, 1884). Taunton, The Law of the Church (London, 1906). investiture. A ceremony having a juridical effect. Three elements are distinguished in the conferring of an ecclesiastical benefice: (1) Designa­ tion of the person — this gives the right to the thing (ius ad rem). It can be performed by the parishioners and the patron with respect to the parish priest, by the cathedral chapter with respect to the bishop. (2) Ca­ nonical institution {institutio canoni­ ca) performed by the legitimate su­ perior — this confers the right in the thing (ius in re), namely, the real right over the benefice and the actual spiritual jurisdiction. (3) Investiture, namely, the installation, by which the beneficiary takes actual possession of the benefice either personally or by proxy. These clear-cut ideas emanated from the bitter fight on investitures, which took place in the Middle Ages. In the eleventh century the emperor, be­ cause of a complexity of historical circumstances, arrogated to himself the right not only of presenting the person of the bishop or the abbot, but also of conferring on him — at the moment he invested him with the feuds annexed to the bishopric or the monastery — the spiritual power as well, by the consignment of the ring and crosier. Moreover, the sovereign’s great care and interest was to choose, as his candidates, persons with good managerial and vassal qualifications, rather than good priests. In this way the Church was threatened with be­ coming a large, imperial Tief. Hence the firm opposition of the popes, es­ pecially of St. Gregory VII. The long struggle, after many vicissitudes, was finally ended by the Concordat of Worms (1122), in which a clear dis­ tinction was made between the spir­ itual jurisdiction and the temporal power, and between the designatio personae and the institutio canonica. If we consider the many difficulties surrounding this struggle, as well as its tenacious bitterness due to the ma­ terial interests at stake, the victory of the Church, splitting the leaden lid that weighed down on it, is for us one of the proofs of its indefectibility. BIBLIOGRAPHY Kurtscheid, Historia luris Canonici, Vo). 1 (Rome, 1941), pp. 225-234. Loffler, "In­ vestitures," CE. Van Hove, “Investiture," CE. Irenaeus. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 301); Roman pontiff. 153 Jahweh. See Tetragrammaton. Jansenism. The heresy of Jansenius (Janssens, Ϋ 1638), a Dutchman who lived a long time at Louvain, where the memory and teaching of Baius (Bay) was still prevalent. Jansen­ ism is a development of Baianism {q.v.). It gained strength and was disseminated through politico-reli­ gious maneuvers and intrigues, in which Duvergier, Abbé de St. Cyran, and later the turbulent Arnauld played particularly important roles. Quesnel followed in their footsteps. From its inception the heresy took on a polemic tone, not always dignified, mainly against the Jesuits who, by affirming their Molinism (q.v.) at Louvain, had attacked Baius, and covertly against the Roman Curia and the Holy See by contesting their right to intervene in theological questions. From the doctrinal viewpoint, which alone is of interest here, Jansen­ ism may be synthesized as follows: (a) It holds in their entirety the fun­ damental principles of Baianism on original justice, on the sin of Adam and the consequent intrinsic corrup­ tion of human nature, etc. (b) In par­ ticular, Jansenius develops the rela­ tionship of grace with free will, by fol­ lowing, as he says, the footsteps of St. Augustine: Adam, before sin, was free and could sin because he had only sufficient grace, which St. Augustine called auxilium sine quo non; after sin, with freedom lost, man needs for every good act an efficacious grace (auxilium quo) which determines the will infallibly; this intrinsic determi­ nation is not opposed to freedom, (c) The twofold love of Baius is reduced in Jansenius’ thought to the twofold conquering delectation (delectatio victrix)·, one earthly, which deter­ mines to sin, the other heavenly (effi­ Jesus Christ cacious grace), which determines to good and therefore to eternal life. Man is a slave of one or the other of these delights, (d) In the actual state of man, sufficient grace is no longer granted, but only efficacious grace exists, and man cannot resist it. () it does not follow from the text of St. Paul, which Cath­ olic cxegetes explain adequately in this sense: The Word seemed to strip Himself of His divine glory when He lowered Himself to the point of tak­ ing on human nature (formam servi accipiens — “taking the form, i.e., the nature of a servant”) and of mingling as Man among men, and, further­ more, of living a life of privations and undergoing the humiliations of an opprobrious passion and death. This sound interpretation is the general one of the Fathers of the Church. BIBLIOGRAPHY Gaudei., “Kinose," DTC. Hall (non­ Catholic), The Kenotic Theory (New York, 1808). Harty, "The Modern Kcnotic Theory," Irish Theol. Quarterly, Vol. 1 (1906), nn. 1 Kingship of Christ and 2. Maas, “Kenosis,” CE. Prat, The The­ ology of St. Paul, trans. Stoddard, Vol. 1 (Westminster, 1927), pp. 456-465. kingdom of God. A central con­ cept for the understanding of the economy of salvation, constituting the primary object of Christ’s preaching. In the Old Testament God, as Creator, is the King of the universe and, in a particular way, of Israel, “His” people. The kingdom of God is extended into the future with the foundation of the Messianic kingdom — universal, spiritual, and eternal. A “kingdom of God” is frequently mentioned in the Gospel; St. Matthew calls it also “kingdom of heaven” — by obvious substitution of the name of “God,” according to the Hebrew fashion. The notion of the kingdom of God is complex. It expresses a present and a future reality; present and in continual becoming and prog­ ress, pending the future kingdom which will be in the total and perfect possession of beatitude in heaven. It is both internal-invisible, i.e., the kingdom of grace in the souls, and social-visible, inasmuch as it coincides with the Church founded by Jesus Christ on earth. BIBLIOGRAPHY De Grandmaison, Jesus Christ, 3 vols. (New York, 1930-1934), Index. Frey, “Royaume de Dieu,” DBV, cols. 1237-1257. Madebielle, “Eglise," DBVS. Maurice, The Gospels of the Kingdom of Heaven (London, 1888). Pope, “Kingdom of God,” CE. Vim, “La recente interpretazione del Regno di Dio ncl sistema escatologico," Scuola Cattolica, 60 (1932). Kingship of Christ. With the en­ cyclical of Pius XI Quas primas (1925), the Kingship of Christ was incorporated in the universal liturgy (Feast of Christ the King) and into the category of truths declared re­ vealed by the solemn magisterium of the Church. This truth, however, goes back to Old Testament times, in knowledge, divine 162 which the future Messias was proph­ esied as King (Psalms 2, 44, 71; Isa. 9:6 ff.; Dan. 2:44; 7:13 ff.). In the New Testament, the Archangel Gabriel says to Mary: “And of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:33; cf. John 18:37). St. Paul says: “For he hath put all things under his feet” (2 Cor. 15:26); St. John: “And he hath on his garment and on his thigh written: King of kings and Lord of lords” (Apoc. 19:16). St. Augus­ tine synthesizes patristic tradition (De Consensu Evangeliorum): “Christ as man has been constituted King and Priest.” Reasons: (a) Christ is King by birthright, because He is Son of God, even according to His humanity which subsists in the Person of the Word; (b~) by acquired right, because He has ransomed with His blood mankind from the slavery of sin, which weighed on all creatures, as St. Paul (Rom. 18:19) saYs> (f) Christ is King because He has the threefold power — legislative, judicial, and executive, as the Gospel attests (Matt. 5:21; 28:18; Mark 16:16; Acts 10:42, etc.). The kingdom of Christ is of a spiritual nature, but does not exclude extension, at least indirect, to temporal things; it is also social, not only individual. The royal powers of Christ have been communicated to the Church and to the Roman pontiff, who is her visible head: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you” (John 20:21). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, qq. 58-59. Chamblat, La Royauté du Christ selon la doctrine catholique (Paris, 1931). Michel, "Jesus Christ,” DTC, cols. 1355-1359. knowledge, divine. See science, divine. knowledge of Christ. See science of Christ. L latria. See cult. law. St. Thomas defines it: “An order of reason regarding the common good and promulgated by the one who is in charge of the community.” The essential concept of law is its moral obligatory force with respect to hu­ man action. Law is divine or human. The divine law is threefold: eternal, nat­ ural, and positive. The eternal law is in God’s essence and coincides with His wisdom and will, from which derives and on which depends the life of the universe (physical and moral world). The natural divine law is that impressed in creatures to direct them to their proper end; it is physical in irrational creatures, and moral in man, to whom it is promul­ gated through his own conscience (q.v.'). The positive divine law is that revealed in Holy Scripture (Old and New Testaments) or oral Tradition. Human law is divided into eccle­ siastical (emanating from the pope, the bishops, the councils) and civil (emanating from the competent authorities of the governments of nations). Human legislative power supposes jurisdiction or power of government. The object of law must be honest, just, and physically and morally pos­ sible. The subject of law is man, con stituted under the power of the legislator and having the use of reason. For a law to be effective it must be promulgated, i.e., formally pro posed and communicated to the col lectivity of the subjects. Obviously the divine law is sacred, because through conscience it obliges all rational créa tures under penalty of sanctions which transcend the limits of this life. The liberalism 163 ecclesiastical law is sacred, intimately connected as it is with the divine law;· sacred also is civil law, based on a power that derives from God: Non est potestas nisi a Deo (“There is no power but from God”; Rom. 13:1). Civil law is binding in conscience, according to the best opinions, pro­ vided it is not in conflict with divine or ecclesiastical law. Neither divine nor human law is violable deliberately without guilt, which is measured ac­ cording to the matter or content of the law itself and the will to oblige on the part of the legislator. How­ ever, if a law is merely penal, trans­ gression involves penalty but not guilt. The subject may be dispensed from the observance of the positive law by the superior who has power of jurisdiction over him. A privilege is a special favor granted against or outside the common law. Law, the remote rule of morality, must become the proximate rule of moral action, through the medium of conscience. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I-Π, qq. 90108. D’Alès, “Loi divine,” DA. Boudinhon, “Law (Canon),” CE. Cathrein, "Law,” CE. Faroes, La liberté et le devoir, fondements de la morale et critique des systèmes de morale contemporaine (Paris, 1902). NoldinSchmitt, Summa theologiae moralis, Vol. i (Oeniponte, 1927), p. H2ff. Slater, “Law (Divine)," CE. learning Church. See "Ecclesia discens." lectorate (Lat. lector — reader). The second of the four minor orders (see orders, holy), by which is conferred the power of reading the Holy Scrip­ ture aloud in Church, before the priest or bishop explains its content. From earliest antiquity mention is made of the lector or reader: St. Justin refers to him and Tertullian speaks explicitly of him. In the fourth century admission to the lectorate was the ordinary way of initiating young men into the ecclesiastical life. The lectorate is the only minor order of the Latin rite now in use in the Greek Church. BIBLIOGRAPHY Fortescue, “Lector,” CE. Leontius Byzantinus. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 302). Leo the Great. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 302); Eutychianism. liberalism. A doctrinal current, quite complex and changeable, which has had various interpretations and prac­ tical applications, not easily definable. The basic concept of liberalism is liberty, taken as emancipation and in­ dependence of man, society, and State, from God and His Church. Born of Encyclopedism, liberalism finds a philosophical justification in Kantianism (q.v.), and gains strength with naturalism and rationalism (qq.v.)·, with the French Revolution it enters the sociopolitical field and manifests itself as exaggerated democ­ racy (sovereign people), as separatism with respect to the relations between Church and State (“A free church in a free State”), as indifferentism in matters of religion and worship, and as abstentionism (noninterference) of the State in economics (“Leave every­ thing to private initiative”). In the first half of the past century this dangerous and erroneous current made great inroads among Catholic ranks, assuming a more moderate form and insisting especially on the separation of Church from State and on broad-mindedness with regard to a liberal spirit. Characteristic in this connection was the Catholic-Liberal movement in France, led by Félicité de Lamennais, and followed enthusi­ liberty 164 astically by Lacordaire, a Dominican, Montalembert, and others. These sought, with the best of intentions but to no avail, to Christianize liberal­ ism, fundamentally adverse to re­ vealed religion. The Church was forced to intervene, first warning, then condemning. The principal documents of the Church magisterium are: (i) The encyclical, Mirari vos, of Gregory XVI (1832). (2) The encyclical, Quanta cura, with the attached Syl­ labus, of Pius IX (1864). (3) The encyclicals, Immortale Dei and Ubertas, of Leo XIII (1885 and 1888). In the Syllabus {q.v.) is found the explicit and detailed condemnation of liberalism, whether philosophical, the­ ological, religious, or sociopolitical. Certain modern tendencies with a more attenuated liberal tinge are to be distinguished from this classic liberalism. Leo XIII, in his two famous en­ cyclicals, confirms the condemnation given by Pius IX in the Syllabus, maintaining vigorously the rights of God and of the Church with regard to the individual and the State, which cannot divest itself of interest in the religious problem or put the Catholic Church on a par with other cults. But, in consideration of contingent difficulties, he does not condemn the government which, for reasons of freedom of conscience, permits in its territory — even where the majority of citizens is Catholic — the free exercise of other religious forms. This is a tolerance, therefore, of practical necessity, similar to that with which God tolerates evil by the side of good in the world; but the principle re­ mains intact, namely: the truth and the right of the Catholic religion and Church in its relations with the in­ dividual, with society, and with the State. BIBLIOGRAPHY Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, Vol. 2 (Rome, 1922), pp. 15-58. Constantin, "Libéralisme,” DTC. De Pascal, “Libéralisme,” DA. Gib­ bons, Faith of Our Fathers (Baltimore, 1890). Gruber, “Liberalism," CE. Manning, “Liberty of the Press,” Essays, third series (London, 1892). Ming, Data of Modern Ethics Ex­ amined (New York, 1897). Weill, Histoire du catholicisme libéral en France 1828-1908 (Paris, 1909). liberty. See freedom. liberty of Christ. See will, divine; will of Christ. liberty of thought and inquiry. See free thought (free inquiry). Liebermann. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 3°3)· limbo (Lat. limbus — border, hem of a garment). According to the present teaching of the Church, it is a place adjoining hell, where the just who died in the grace of God before Christianity dwelled until they were liberated by Christ, and where babies who die without baptism dwell and remain forever. Holy Scripture speaks of Abraham’s bosom as sojourn of the just (Luke 16:22), but not of a place for babies who died without baptism. Tradition begins, especially with the Greek Fathers, to differentiate between adults who die in personal sin and infants who die with only original sin, who cannot enter the heaven of the blessed and yet cannot share the fate of the damned in hell. In re­ acting against Pelagianism, which denied the transmission of original sin and its consequences, St. Augus tine, endeavoring to defend this truth, held that babies who die without baptism will be subjected to the pain of fire, albeit very slight, on account 165 of original sin. This opinion later on influenced some theologians, but did not hinder the course of the other more correct and more benign opin­ ion, according to which babies who die without baptism will suffer only privation of the beatific vision. This opinion was defended and de­ veloped by St. Thomas, and from then on prevailed in the schools. We find it in a letter of Innocent III to the archbishop of Arles, and in the Con­ stitution Auctorem fidei with which Pius VI condemned the Synod of Pistoia {DB, 1526). The babies in limbo will not enjoy the vision of God, but will not be unhappy on this score, since the beatific vision is a supernatural good of which they have no knowledge. Some theologians (Billot) think that limbo is the eternal residence not only of babies and abnormal adults who did not have the use of reason, but also of certain classes of men of lowgrade civilization, who are comparable to babies in the lack of development of moral consciousness. A strange opinion has recently gained favor in the theologies of Protestants and Orthodox Schismatics who, by abusive interpretation of some gospel expressions (Matt. 12:32; I Pet. 3:18; 4:6), hold that all pagans are evangelized in limbo after their death and given the possibility of conversion and salvation. This opin­ ion is critically untenable. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, Suppl., q. 69, a. 4-7; Quaest. Disp. De Malo, q. 5. Billot, several articles published in Etudes (1920-1922). Caperan, Le problème du salut des infidèles (Toulouse, 1934). Gaudel, "Limbes,” DTC. Toner, “Limbo," CE. See under descent of Christ into hell. liturgy (Gr. λατουργία, from λεΐτον Ζργον — public office or ministry). The official worship the Church ren­ ders to God, or, to describe it more liturgy extensively, the complexus of the acts by which the Church, in union with Christ, her Plead, and externally represented by His ministers, offers to God the homage of adoration and of praise (ascendant mediation) and communicates to souls the divine gifts of grace (descendant mediation). According to this concept, the liturgy includes essentially the cele­ bration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with the attached official prayer (rec­ itation of the Breviary) and the ad­ ministration of the sacraments with the annexed use of the sacramentels (??·«'·)· Since the homage paid to God and the infusion of grace into souls must be perennial, in application of the merits acquired by Christ by the acts of religion emanating from Elim from the first instant of the Incarnation, the liturgy, on the one hand, renews daily the offering of the Mass and repeats the administration of the sacraments, and, on the other hand, establishes an annual cycle in which are repeated the mysteries of the birth, death, and glorious life of Jesus Christ, from which Christian worship draws all its value. “The Church renews each year her youth, like an eagle, because in the liturgical cycle she is visited by her Spouse in proportion to her necessities. Each year she receives Him, as a baby in the crib (Advent and Christmas period), as fasting on the mountain (Lent), as immolating Himself on the cross and as risen from the sepulcher (Paschal cycle), as founding the Church, instituting the sacraments, sitting at the right hand of the Father in the act of sending the Holy Spirit (period of Pentecost). The whole cycle is studded with saints; by contemplating them we know the way that leads to Christ. Above all shines Mary, offering herself as a mirror of justice wherein is reflected all holiness pos­ “loci theologici” 166 sible in a simple creature” (Guéranger, L'Année liturgique, Preface Générale). For twenty centuries the Church, like an industrious bee, has been working on her liturgical books, which may be divided into two classes: (i) The Missal and the Breviary, containing the formulas and the rites necessary for the celebration of the Mass and the recital of the Psalmody, the "sacrificium laudis” (books referring to ascendant media­ tion). (2) The Pontifical and the Ritual, containing the formulas and rites for the administration of the sacraments and the sacramentals (books referring to descendant mediation). The study of the origin, develop­ ment, and content of these books con­ stitutes liturgical science, while the learning of the ceremonies accompany­ ing the use of them is called liturgical practice. BIBLIOGRAPHY Callevaert, De sacra liturgia universim (Brugis, 1933). Caronti, The Spirit of the Liturgy, trans. Michel (Collegeville, 1926). Cours et conférences des Semaines Liturgiques (published at Louvain, Abbaye de Mont César). Fortescue, “Liturgy," CE. Lefebvre, Catholic Liturgy, trans, by a nun of Stanbrook (Edinburgh, 1923). Oppenheim, In­ stitutiones liturgicae (Turin-Rome), 1937 fif. Schuster, Liber Sacramentorum (Turin-Rome, 1941). “loci theologici” (theological sources). The expression has be­ come classic, following the work of Melchior Cano, O.P. (Ÿ 1560), en­ titled De locis theologicis, which, on the road of theology is likened to a milestone: the end of a long stretch and the beginning of a new journey faithfully traveled by posterity. Ac­ cording to Cano’s definition, which re-echoes ideas familiar to Aristotle (τόποι), to Cicero {sedes et domicilia), and to Rudolphus Agricola, skill­ fully adapted, however, to the alto­ gether particular nature of theology, the theological sources or loci are: tamquam domicilia omnium argu­ mentorum theologicorum, quibus, theologi omnes suas argumentationes sive ad confirmandum sive ad refel­ lendum inveniunt" (“the building or arsenal, as it were, of all theological arguments, in which theologians find all their argumentations either to prove or to refute”; M. Cano, De locis theologicis, 1. 1, c. 3). Since theology is founded on revealed truths contained in Holy Scripture and Tradition, the interpretation of which is entrusted to the living magisterium of the Church (q.vi) manifested through the definitions of the coun cils, the decisions of the popes, the common teaching of the Fathers ami the theologians, Cano distinguished seven loci theologici, in the strict 1. Scripture 2. Tradition proper J fundamental 3. Church 4. councils . 5. popes . efficaciously 6. Fathers l· probably 7. theologians loci theologici . not proper 8. human reason ■ 9. philosophy 10. history ■ declarative 167 sense of the wore}: Holy Scripture, Tradition, the magisterium of the Church, the councils, the decisions of the popes, the holy Fathers, and the theologians. He added three more, as not proper, or annexed, namely: human reason, philosophy, and history. BIBLIOGRAPHY Cano, De locis theologicis, cd. Cucchi (Rome, 1900). Gardeil, “Lieux théologiques," DTC. Lang, Die Loci Theologici des Melchior Cano und die Methode des dogmatischen Beiveises (München, 1925). Stolz, Introductio in S. Theologiam (Freiburg i.-Br., 1941), pp. 99-101. Wilhelm, “Loci Theologici,” CE. Logos (Gr. Aoyos — thought, word; Lat. verbum'). The term with which St. John designates the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity (Gospel, Prologue; Apoc. 19:13). In all die New Testament only St. John uses this designation in a personal sense. For this reason many rationalist critics have maintained, and some still maintain, the thesis of the deriva­ tion of the Prologue of St. John from Hellenistic philosophical teachings, flourishing in Alexandria at that time, and more precisely from the Jewish philosopher Philo, who was imbued with Hellenism. As a matter of fact, the word Logos and the doctrine relative thereto are found in Stoicism and Alexandrine Neoplatonism. The Stoics admitted a Logos immanent in the world as the rational principle of all things, which manifests itself as energy of cohesion and life, as thought and will. This Logos, divine principle and soul of the world, is well fitted in the pantheistic conception proper to Stoicism (q.v.). The Neoplatonists, on the other hand, developed the theory of the Logos from the concept of the Demiurge, which Plato placed as in­ termediate being between the tran­ scendent God and the material world. Thus the Logos of Plato was not God, Logos but something between God and men, a craftsman who molded pre­ existing matter into imitations of subsisting ideas. Philo adopted and merged together the two antithetic conceptions, formulating a hybrid doc­ trine of the Logos, which for him became now the divine wisdom, now the image of God, now one of His angels, or again the high priest, or a law and vital force of nature. It is quite difficult to draw a precise con­ cept from the Philonian writings, due in part to the fact that the author frequently makes use of symbolism and rhetoric. St. John’s Logos certainly had noth­ ing whatsoever to do with Philo’s, at least for these two obvious reasons: (a) while the gospel Logos is a living person, the historical Christ, Creator and Redeemer of the world, the Logos of Philo has no personal features, but is reducible to a vague allegory, variable as the mythological Proteus; (Z>) the gospel Logos is God, truly and properly, while that of Philo is called divine, at times called even God, but in a metaphorical sense, as the author himself declares. For these and other motives, serious criticism no longer speaks of derivation of one doctrine from the other. The true sources of St. John’s Logos are the sapiential books of the Old Testament and the Christological doctrines of St. Paul, who applies to Christ the vivid personifications and attributes of the divine Wisdom, which at times is called also Logos in those books of the Old Testament. See Word. BIBLIOGRAPHY Clarke, “Sources of St. John’s Logos Doc­ trine,” Irish Eccles. Record (1922-1923). Lebreton, Histoire du dogme de la Trinité, Vol. I (Paris, 1927), “Logos," CE. Newman, “Causes of the Rise and Successes of Arian­ ism,” Tracts theological and ecclesiastical (London, 1902). Peter Parente. “Il Verbo," Simbolo, Vol. 2 (Assisi, 1942). Pohi.e-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, II The Divine Trinity (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 88-95. VosTé, De Prologo loanneo et Logo (Rome, 1925). Lombard, Peter 168 Lombard, Peter. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 302). “lumen gloriae” (light of glory). A supernatural aid bestowed by God on the intellect of the blessed to render it capable of seeing intuitively the divine essence. In Holy Scripture there are only a few minor traces of this light, as in Psalm 35:10: “And in thy light we shall see light”; in Apocalypse 22:4 ff., it is said that the blessed will see the face of God with­ out need of light, because God Him­ self will illumine them. The Fathers, commenting on these texts, mention a divine help which makes the human intellect capable of seeing God. Thus Irenaeus, Adv. Haereses, 1. IV, c. 20; Epiphanius, Adv. Haereses, 70, 7. Toward the end of the thirteenth century the Beghards and the Beguines (see Beghards), a pseudospiritualistic sect, went around preach­ ing that man with his own powers can attain beatitude, even in this life, without any divine aid. The Council of Vienne (1311-1312) condemned, among other errors attributed to them, the following opinion: “that the soul does not need the light of glory to see God and enjoy beatitude” {DB, 475)· The Church magisterium thus de­ clares the existence of the “light of glory,” without entering into the ques­ tion of its essence. The theologians have developed a whole teaching about the lumen gloriae, based on those data: all agree, especially after the Council of Vienne, in admitting its existence, but all do not agree on determining its nature. Some, taking inspiration from nominalism, speak of the beatific vision as of an increated thing actuated by God’s power in the blessed soul which remains simply passive: thus the light of glory would be God Himself, inas­ much as He illumines the soul. This theory is antipsychological because it does not take into account that cogni­ tion, whether in the natural or the supernatural order, is a vital act and, therefore, must spring forth from the powers of the soul and remain in the soul as its own act. St. Thomas, coherent in his analysis of the beatific vision and the principles of human psychology, teaches that, since the created intellect is not proportionate to the immediate intuition of the divine essence, it must be disposed and prepared for it by an inherent and permanent force or energy. To put it more clearly, he reduces the lumen gloriae to a habitual quality (similar to a virtue) infused by God in the intellect of the blessed to elevate it operatively to the immediate vision of the divine essence. This in­ fused quality forms one sole opera five principle with the intellect, so that the vital act of the beatific vision proceeds in its entirety from both, the intellect and the lumen, under diverse aspects. This teaching has now become the common one. The lumen gloriae (id sub quo — that under which the vision pro ceeds) docs not exclude immediacy ol the vision, and it is more or less in tense according to the degree of sanc­ tifying grace in which the soul is found at the moment of death. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 12, .1. j| Summa Contra Gentiles, I. 3, c. 53—54. Chollet, La psychologie des élus (Pati», 1900), Ch. 6. Terrien, La grâce et la gloire (Paris, 1897). Lutheranism. This term can I»· taken: (1) as a religious sect, one of the many swarming from the so-called Reformation of Martin Luther; (2) ai a doctrinal system, created by Luther and propagated by him and by hit 169 first disciples in opposition to the Church and to the Catholic doctrine. This second acceptation of Lutheran­ ism is the one that interests the theologian. Luther (1483-1546) was born at Eisleben, but lived most of his life in Erfurt and Wittenberg in Ger­ many. His childhood was saddened by oppression of stern discipline at home and in school. He was ex­ traordinarily talented, but had exu­ berant emotions and violent passions, always in conflict with his religious education, which was not devoid of superstition. He became an Augus­ tinian friar, after experiencing a great fright during a thunderstorm. He studied in an environment dominated by the nominalism of Ockham (which played down human reason) and Augustinianism (which discounted human freedom and activity under the action of God). In the monastery he showed himself at first scrupulous in the observance of religious life, but gradually began to succumb to the concupiscence of the flesh, whence the violent drama of his spirit frightened by the thought of damnation. As professor of Holy Scripture at Wittenberg in 1515-1516, he expounded St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans, which speaks of original sin and the problem of justification. In St. Paul he believed he found the greatest principle of his system; namely, that frith without worths is sufficient to justify and sanctify man. The moral and intellectual shipwreck of his spirit was already accomplished when, in 1517, the occasion presented itself to make it evident; it was the preaching of the indulgences entrusted to the Dominicans, against which Luther vigorously protested (not with­ out motivation of jealousy), fastening his 95 theses against the doctrine of indulgences {q.v.) to the door of the Church of the Castle of Wittenberg. In 1520, Leo X issued against Luther Lutheranism and his errors the bull, Exsurge Domine. Thus began the Lutheran rebellion which was to sever so great a part of Europe from the true Church of Christ. Outline of the Lutheran doctrine: (1) Original justice {q.v.) was con­ natural to Adam, like sight to the eyes. (2) Original sin (loss of original justice) has, therefore, corrupted in­ trinsically human nature in such a way that man is no longer capable of doing any good at all. (3) By original sin human reason has degenerated and free will no longer exists. (4) Therefore, man is no longer respon­ sible for his acts, especially since he is tyrannically dominated by concupis­ cence, which is intrinsically sinful even in its instinctive movements. (5) Man, fallen through original sin, is incurable, so deeply that not even God can heal him any more. There­ fore the Redemption {q.v.) is entirely a work extrinsic to us, a work done by Christ, who substitutes Himself for us in order to pay the penalty of our sins to the divine justice {penal substitution). Human justification is done extrinsically — in a negative way, i.e., by covering up sin (not by removing it), and in a positive way, i.e., by attributing {imputatio) to us the holiness and the merits of Christ. (6) There is no habitual grace in us; actual grace is not a power or a quality of the soul, but is God Himself working in us. (7) The only good act man can do is the act of fiducial faith or abandonment of self to God, by which he confides in His mercy and trusts that his sins have been pardoned. (8) Consequently, the sacraments have no longer any raison d’être: Luther keeps baptism, penance (by which the remission of sins is declared but not effected), and the Supper (which is no longer the Mass). The bread and the wine in the Eucharist remain as they are, but Christ makes Himself present in Macedonians 170 them (companation), not through the consecration alone, but also by virtue of the faith of the faithful. (9) The monarchical Church with its hier­ archy is a human institution: there is no intermediary between the indi­ vidual and God. The only source from which man can and must draw divine truth is the Bible, interpreted indi­ vidually under the illumination of God (free thought and inquiry). Tradition has only a human value. The true Church of Christ is the in­ visible Church (influence of Wiclifje and Huss). (10) The denial of in­ dulgences, of purgatory, of the invo­ cation of the saints, of prayers for the dead. Lutheranism might be character­ ized as an individualistic pseudosupernaturalism . BIBLIOGRAPHY Deniflb, Luther et le luthéranisme, trans. Paquier (1910-1913). McHugh, “Lutheran­ ism," CE. Paquier, “Luther,” DTC. Schmid, Doct. Theol. of Evang. Luth. Church (Phila­ delphia, 1889). Wolf, The Lutherans in America (New York, 1889). M Macedonians. Name derived from Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople (a.d. 360), who, however, does not seem to have professed the erroneous doctrine of the so-called Macedonians. This teaching, already proposed by Arius and Eunomius, consisted in the denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, who was held to be a creature of the Son. Therefore, these heretics are more properly called Pneumatomachists (enemies of the Spirit) or Marathonians, from the name of one of their leaders, Marathonius, bishop of Nicomedia. Informed of this new error, the last one influenced by Arianism, St. Athanasius, from his retreat in the Egyptian desert, wrote three letters to Bishop Serapion to refute it. The heresy was condemned by the I Council of Constantinople (a.d. 381); Pope Damasus ratified its decisions in the Council of Rome in 382. BIBLIOGRAPHY Cayré, Manual of Patrology, trans. Howitt, Vol. 1 (Paris, Tournai, Rome, 1936), pp. 295, 318. Tireront, History of Dogmas, trans. H.L.B., Vol. 2 (St. Louis, 1914), pp. 58-66. “magisterium” of the Church. The power conferred by Christ upon His Church and strengthened with the charism of infallibility, by which the teaching Church (Ecclesia docens) is constituted as the unique depositary and authentic interpreter of divine revelation to be proposed authorita­ tively to men as the object of faith for their eternal salvation. That this teaching power is of divine institution can be perceived clearly from the words with which Christ, on the point of leaving this earth, entrusts to the Apostles the mission of evangelizing the world: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations” (Matt. 28:19); “Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). The means, therefore, estab­ lished by Christ for the propagation of His teaching is not writing, but oral preaching, living magisterium, to which He assures His personal assistance to the end of the world, saying in the sequence of the text quoted from St. Matthew: “Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” These words prove also that the magisterium founded by Christ is perpetual and infallible (see infallibility). Entrusted to the Apostolic College (Apostles as a body) after the constitution ol Peter’s primacy, foundation, and su­ preme pastor of the Church (Mail 16:18; John 21:15 ff.), this teaching authority resides primarily in Peter and his successors as in its source, 171 and then in the Apostles and their successors, the bishops, subordinate^ to the Vicar of Jesus Christ. Tradition, from St. Ignatius to St. Irenaeus and St. Augustine, recognizes this hierarchical constitution, and against doctrinal and moral aberra­ tions makes constant appeal to the teaching of the Roman Church and its bishop, in whom St. Peter lives along with his primacy (see primacy of St. Peter). St. Augustine, picking up the voice of Tradition, goes so far as to say that he would not even believe the Gospel if the Church magisterium did not propose it to him to believe {Contra ep. fundam., c. 5, PL, 42, 176). According to Catholic doctrine, therefore, Holy Scripture and Tradi­ tion are only the remote rule of faith, while the proximate rule is the living magisterium of the Church, which resides in the Roman pontiff and in the bishops, inasmuch as they are subject to and united with him. The Vatican Council (sess. 4, c. 4, DB, 1832) has sealed this truth by de­ fining that in the primacy of Peter and his successors is included the supreme power of teaching, which is veritatis et fidei numquam deficientis charisma (“the charism of never fail­ ing truth and faith”). Luther dared to impugn this truth that had been lived by fifteen centuries of Christian­ ity and, denying the magisterium of the Church, proclaimed in its stead Holy Scripture, entrusted to the in­ dividual interpretation of the faithful, as the one sole rule of faith. But even to prescind from its open contradiction to revelation, this theory shows itself false by its own fruits matured over a period of four centuries: the in­ numerable Protestant sects with their characteristic doctrinal confusion and degeneration are an evident proof of the failure of that principle and its falsity (see Protestantism; articles, fundamental). Reason itself secs the man necessity of an easy and sure guide for the life of faith, considering the difficulty, for a great part of mankind, of the study and interpretation of Holy Scripture. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bainvel, De magisterio vivo et traditione (Paris, 1905). Billot, De Ecclesia Christi (Rome, 1927), p. 356 ff. Various treatises De Ecclesia. Mai donatus. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 3°3>· man. In the light of Christian doc­ trine the concept of man reposes on principles which have to do with the natural sciences, philosophy, and the­ ology. Supposing the scientific and philosophical treatment, we set forth the statements of revelation and of the ecclesiastical magisterium on the nature, dignity, and end of man. 1. Man is a living being, composed of matter and spirit. This truth is guaranteed by the account of Genesis and by the whole traditional teaching of the Church, which defends the grandeur and immortality of the soul (IV Lateran Council, Council of Vienne, V Lateran Council, Vatican Council), and with it the dignity of the body (cf. the sacramental liturgy, the matrimonial legislation, the fu­ neral rite, the dogma of the resurrec­ tion of the flesh). 2. The soul, superior to the body because of its intelligence and free will (image of God), is not, however, in conflict with it, but is its sub­ stantial form (Council of Vienne), so that soul and body constitute one sole being, or individual, or person. 3. Man’s personality is sacred: through it we conceive human rights and duties, through it we understand equality and fraternity, above all differences of sex, of race, of social and cultural position. For the Church there are no castes, but only persons, Manichaeism 172 issued from the hands of the Creator and destined to the same supreme end, the possession of God. Every man has been redeemed by the same divine blood of Jesus Christ. 4. The individual, considered in himself and in his relations with God, ranks first; then the family, society, the State. Civil society and even re­ ligious society, like the Church, are for the human person. But this in­ dividualistic statement does not in­ volve isolation, because Christian doc­ trine presents all humanity as one big family, of which God is the Father. Moreover, it teaches that man adheres to Christ through faith, becomes a member of His Mystical Body {q.v.), in which are fused and harmonized, without destruction, hu­ man personalities in one sole palpita­ tion of supernatural life. 5. Man is a creature of God, nat­ urally limited and dependent; he is, in addition, fallen from his primitive perfection through original sin {q.v.). Thus are explained the suffering and anguish of the present life which, after the example of Christ and by virtue of His merits and redeeming grace, is transformed into a conflict in which man must co-operate freely with God in order to win his own salvation. Philosophical and religious systems have made man either a conglomera­ tion of matter, or a pure spirit, or a disintegrated being with his soul in conflict with his body; now they have debased his dignity, again they have elevated him to the rank of a god; often, they have rejected intelligence, more often free will, or they have ab­ sorbed man in the organism of society and of the State. But no one, except the Church, has been able to avoid the many shoals and to present so har­ monious a doctrine on man and his destiny as the one we have sketched in this article. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aveling, “Man," CE. Pohle-Preuss, Dog­ matic Theology, III God: Author of Nature and the Supernatural (St. Louis, 1945), pp124-178. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), PP· 286-311. Teilard De Chardin, “Homme,” DA. Zacchi, L’uomo (Rome, 1944). Manichaeism. A religious doctrinal system founded and diffused in the second century by Manes or Manet {Mana — spirit of the luminous world), a philosopher of Persian de­ scent, born in the Babylonian region. The childhood of Manes is rich with legend. Many sources are lost and, therefore, it is difficult to reconstruct the history of Manichaeism and its founder. Certainly, the new sect spread with surprising rapidity in Europe, in the Near and even the Far East, despite persecutions and hostil­ ity of all kinds. In those times Chaldea was a concentration point for nearly all the religions of the West and the East; thus, it was easy for Manes to elaborate a syncrisis of various elements. From the fragments of Manichaean writings and still more from indirect sources, first of which is St. Augus­ tine, a Manichaean before being con­ verted to Christianity, we can re­ construct in synthesis the doctrine of Manichaeism, which, moreover, hail its liturgy and its ascetics. The funda­ mental principle of Manichaeism is dualism between spirit and matter, light and darkness, good and evil. The principle of good is God, iden­ tified with the light; the principle of evil is Hyle (matter), which the people identify with the devil (Satan). The origin of the world and of man is complicated with mythology, which reminds us of Gnosticism {q.v.). There is talk of original sin, of the slavery of the soul which Jesus comes to liberate (Redemption). Man, like 173 the world, is a mixture of good and evil; to be saved, he must observe strict mortification in words and in worlds, especially in the struggle against sensuality. Fasts, vegetarian diet, abstinence from marriage and from sensual pleasures form the austere moral code, at least of the Elect (the real faithful). Greater liberty is granted to the Auditors. Manichaean eschatology draws from the Christian teaching and other sources. A Manichaean Church with its hierarchy was founded, which ad­ ministered two sacraments: baptism and eucharist (bread and water, consecrated). St. Augustine refuted the various aspects of Manichaeism in a series of works. However, it was not com­ pletely disbanded, but continued to exist more or less subreptitiously here and there. It reappeared strong and threatening after the eleventh century with rejuvenated form in the heresy of the Cathars (Albigenses in South­ ern France), against whom Innocent III had to promote a crusade, such was the audacity and profound cor­ ruption of this sect (see Albigenses). The IV Lateran Council (1215) in its definitions aims at the Albigenses together with other religious sects (DB, 428 ff.). BIBLIOGRAPHY Arendzen, "Manichaeism,” CE. Bardy, “Manichéisme,” DTC. Cumont, Recherches sur le manichéisme (Bruxelles, 1912). Tonoelli, Mani (Milan, 1932). ■nanism. See animism. Marathonians. See Macedonians. Marcionism. A heresy of the second century, headed by Marcion, against whom Tertullian wrote his work Adversus Marcionem, which informs us about the man and his doctrine. Marcion had some contacts with the Marcionism Gnostics (see Gnosticism), but was not a Gnostic. He took, on the con­ trary, an anti-Gnostic position, be­ cause he preferred to the proud science (gnosis) a rigorous and prac­ tical asceticism, proposed as the one means of salvation. In considering the differences between the Old and the New Testaments, Marcion came to the conclusion that the Gospel is the antithesis and the indictment of the Old Testament. The Apostles failed to understand Christ and, what is more, they adulterated His thought. Only St. Paul understood thoroughly the divine Master when He con­ demned Judaism. In the Old Testa­ ment God is the God of justice and severity, sowing sorrows and tribula­ tions in mankind; the God of the New Testament, on the other hand, is the God of goodness and love who manifests Himself in Jesus Christ, Saving Spirit, man only in appear­ ance, who dies for us to free us from the tyranny of the Demiurge (God of the Old Testament). We adhere to the Saviour by mortification of the flesh, by abstaining from pleasures and luxury, and by suffering willing­ ly, even martyrdom. Expelled from the Christian com­ munities, Marcion established an ec­ clesiastical organization and hierarchy of his own. He attracted many fol­ lowers, especially by the example of his austere life. His immediate fol­ lower, Apelles, however introduced some real changes in the master’s system. The Encratites (q.v.), who condemned marriage, hark back to Marcion. It cannot be denied that Marcion was animated by a sincere desire of ascetical perfection for him­ self and others, but he committed the grave error of repudiating the doc­ trinal wealth of Christianity and the genuineness of the apostolic Church, the work not only of the other Apostles but of Paul as well, whom marks of the Church 174 Marcion arbitrarily set against the others. The opinion of some scholars (cf. E. Buonaiuti, Sioria del Cristianesimo, I), who love to see in Marcion a providential reformer and even a martyr to the official church, is an evident exaggeration and error in the evaluation of historical data. In the bosom of the true Church Marcion would have found satisfac­ tion for his ascetic tendencies, coupled with a providential check on his aberrations. BIBLIOGRAPHY Amann, “Marcion," DTC. Arendzen, “Mar­ cionites,” CE. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, trans. Howitt, Vol. x (St. Louis, 19x0), pp. 183-189. marks of the Church. The char­ acteristic signs which distinguish the Church, as the real and true institu­ tion of Christ, from the many re­ ligious societies which claim that honor. According to the common teaching, confirmed in great part by the Vatican Council {DB, 1794), the marks {notae — notes) of the Church are the four qualities or endowments which the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol attributes to the religious so­ ciety founded by Jesus Christ: unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity {qq.vi). It should be noted, however, that these properties constitute the identification and individual marks of the true Church, not in that they have their origin in the supernatural and hidden principle that rules the ecclesiastical organism, but inasmuch as they are manifest externally and visibly to the eyes of all as the effect of that mysterious force. For example, unity is a mark of the Church not be­ cause the souls are spiritually united through faith, grace, and the Holy Spirit, to the one Head, Christ, but because from this invisible and real communion of spirits there results, externally and experimentally, con­ cord in dogma, in liturgy, in hier­ archy; the unity of millions of men, professing the same faith, frequenting the same sacraments, obeying the same pastors. Those who can be classed as Chris­ tians are divided into three large groups: Protestants, Schismatics, Catholics. It is clear that Protestantism {q.v.), considered in its various sects, lacks unity, since each sect is independent; it lacks sanctity, because in five cen­ turies of existence it has not produced any masterpiece of grace, like the canonized saints of the Roman Church; it lacks catholicity, because none of its sects is present in a really conspicuous way and at one time in all the world; it lacks apostolicity, be­ cause it has rejected the power of orders (in Protestantism all are priests!) and the power of jurisdic­ tion, by detaching itself from the apostolic stock. Analogous observations hold for the Schismatic Churches, which surely lack unity, by constituting independ­ ent and national patriarchates {auto­ cephalous), and catholicity, because they are limited to definite Eastern localities. The Roman Church, on the other hand, appears as clearly individual­ ized by these four marks, which arc like four refulgent jewels, attracting upon her the eyes of the infidels and assuring Catholics of her divine mis sion (cf. Vatican Council, DB, 1794). The unity of this Church is evident, completely centered in the pope, that very vigilant custodian of dogmatic, liturgical, and disciplinary unity. Virtue visibly flourished in her and the fruits of sanctity are seen ma­ turing so conspicuously and in such great numbers as to require, to record them, a society of scholars, the Bollandists. Evident, too, is the fact of the original, simultaneous, pro gressivc universality of this Church, 175 which unfolds her tents from one pole to the other. Finally, the apostolicity of her origin is proved visibly in the uninterrupted succession of popes in the Apostolic See, to which all the others are united. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, In Symbolum Apostolorum Expositio, a. 7-8. The Teaching of the Catho­ lic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), PP· 701-706. Thils, Les notes de I’Eglise (Gembloux, 1932). Zapelena, De Ecclesia, Vol. 1 (Rome, 1941). martyrdom (Gr. μαρτύριαν, from μάρτνς — witness). The testimony one renders to Christ and His doctrine by voluntarily undergoing death or at least sufferings inflicted on him pre­ cisely out of hatred toward Christ and His religion. This concept is already in the Gos­ pel: Jesus Himself prophetically ex­ horts His disciples to be the witnesses of His life and His words (John 15:27; Luke 24:26). He even predicts in detail their lot: they will be chased from the Synagogue, betrayed by their own relatives, accused and hauled be­ fore kings and governors, and put to death for His name (Matt. 10:17, 24; Luke 21:12). The Apostles pro­ test before the whole world that they are the martyrs, the witnesses of Christ, and serenely go forth to meet death (Acts 2:32; 1 Pet. 5:1). The martyrdom of the Apostles and of their earliest associates is a bloody seal of the historical reality of the Gospel, considered as a fact, and of its truth, considered as the teaching of our Saviour. Those martyrs attested with their blood what they had seen, had heard, and what they believed, whereas the martyrdom of the martyrs of the following centuries, who died because they believed, has rather a moral than a historical value. Martyrdom, taken as a whole, con­ stitutes an apologetic argument, or motive of credibility, for the truth of Mary the Christian faith. The sacred name of martyr belongs only to one who renders testimony to the divine truth, which is only in Christ and His Church; this generous testimony of blood, founded on the faith, is such, according to Christian doctrine, that it substitutes for baptism and renders the soul of the martyr worthy of im­ mediate entrance into heaven. The Church prays to the martyrs, but has never prayed for the martyrs. Outside the Church there is no true and proper martyrdom: a heretic in good faith, who dies for Christ, per­ haps may be counted among the martyrs; but a contumacious heretic who dies for his sect is not a martyr because he does not testify to the divine truth but to a human teaching. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Π-Π, q. 124. Allard, “Martyre,” DA; Ten Lectures on the Martyrs (New York, 1907). Doronzo, De Baptismo et Confirmatione (Milwaukee, 1947), Index Analyticus: “Martyrium.” Hassatt, “Martyr," CE. Hedde, “Martyre,” DTC. Mary (Hebr. Miriam, of doubtful etymology, probably meaning lady). The scarcity of prophetic texts and historical gospel data on the Mother of Jesus embarrasses only a superficial and overcurious reader; actually, we have at our disposal all the essential elements for a complete judgment on the personality, greatness, and mission of Mary. She is in the foreground of the divine plan of salvation as out­ lined in the Old Testament and realized in the New. In the tragedy of the first sin, in contrast with Eve, the Mother of the Messias takes her stand beside Him in the definitive victory over Satan (see protoevangelium). There is a consciousness of her presence in the successive cen­ turies of Messianic expectation. In 734 b.c. the striking announcement of Isaias (7:34; cf. Matt. 1:22) re­ veals her as Mother-Virgin of the Mary 176 Emmanuel (see virginity of Mary), and the contemporary Micheas (5:1-2) shows her giving birth at Bethlehem. In the sixth century B.C., the prophet of Israel’s tragedy sees in her “the new prodigy” and “the woman who protects the hero” (Jer. 31:22). In the gospel story Mary dominates the accounts of the infancy of Jesus, which, as even non-Catholic critics recognize, go back through Luke to her own testimony. The mention of her name, her descent from David (Luke 1:26-27, 32> 69), her condition of fiancée about to conclude mar­ riage with Joseph, of the House of David, provide us with the framework for the narrative of the annunciation of the divine maternity, which is the key for the perfect understanding of the psychology and personality of Mary. Conscious of the gravity of the angelic proposition, she accepts only after asking explanations on the cir­ cumstances of the event (Luke 1:2638). The tumult of thoughts and feelings that wells up in her heart gushes forth in the Magnificat, which shows how very familiar Mary was with the sacred texts and how very much in harmony her Messianic ex­ pectation was with the most authentic prophetic tradition (Luke 1:39—56). From then on Mary appears as an instrument of choice graces. At her voice the precursor in Elizabeth’s womb becomes aware of the presence of the Lord. The intimate tragedy of Joseph, confronted with the mysteri­ ous maternal condition of his wife, is resolved by the revelation of the great mysteries fulfilled in her (Matt. 1:18-24). The account of Jesus’ birth gives Mary the leading role (Luke 2:16), while the Magi, first fruits of paganism around the Messias’ crib, find Jesus in her arms (Matt. 2:11). The troubles following Bethlehem’s joys outline for Mary a path of per­ secution and sorrow, which is ex­ plicitly revealed to her in the pro­ phetic words of old Simeon (Luke 2:22-38); the future awaiting her during the whole life of Jesus. The long interlude of the calm life at Nazareth is broken by the episode of Jesus missing and found in the Temple, which gives us an insight into both Mary’s delicacy of heart, anxiously looking for her Child and the silent faith with which she ac­ cepts the mysterious remark, made by Him, that His mission is inde­ pendent of any human bond (Luke 2:41-52). The thirty years Mary lived intimately with her Son, whom she knows is the Son of God, in an al­ together normal life and without any extraordinary event to reveal to her eyes or to the people of Nazareth (cf. Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3) the divine nature and the power of Jesus, con­ stitute the exact measure of the depth of her faith and virtue. Mary may be considered materially absent during the public ministry of Jesus; however, at Cana of Galilee, the first miracle of Christ is exhibited as an exception made through His mother’s intercession. This incident shows how well she knows her Son and how sure she is of His omnipo­ tence. The discretion and the decision of Mary’s intervention with her Son are matched with the respect Jesus shows her before men, addressing her with the solemn title, Mulier — “Woman” (John 2:1-11; cf. 10:26). Twice Mary meets her Son in Hi·, apostolic journeys (John 2:12; Matt. 12:46, and parallel texts), but her presence is not stressed. Twice Jesus speaks of His Mother (Matt. 12:49 50, and parallel texts; Luke 11:27) and His words, while apparently hard, are nevertheless the best praise of her. Jesus says: “Whosoever shall do the will of my Father that is in heaven, he is my mother”; and, in answer to the woman who had exalted the Master’s mother, calling hei 177 Mass “blessed,” He affirms: “Rather, blessed Theology and Devotion (London, 1922). are they who hear the word of God Vim, "Maria negli splendori della Theologia ” Civilitd Cattolica (1942), HI, pp. and keep it.” In both cases, far from biblica, 193-201. refusing praise to Mary, He holds See also under the above-mentioned entries. her up as a perfect model, for He means that men ought to know that Masoretic. The name given to the Mary was great not only as the original Hebrew text of the Old Mother of Jesus, but also because she Testament, provided with the pho­ reacted to that gratuitous privilege netic signs and the critical annotations with all her capacity of love, obedi­ of the Masora (Tradition). ence, and sacrifice. The Masora, which had its begin­ Mary reappears during Jesus’ pas­ ning in the age of the Scribes (five sion: sorrowing Mother under her to four centuries, B.C.), was codified Son’s cross, who entrusts her to His by the Hebrew doctors of the Acad­ beloved apostle (John 19:25-27) as emy of Tiberias between the sixth to the sign and pledge of a wider the tenth centuries, A.D. It aims at the maternity. best conservation and understanding The historian of the primitive of the Hebrew text. Currently Old Church shows Mary at the head of Testament scholars use the Masoretic the disciples assembled in expectation edition. of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:14), BIBLIOGRAPHY Mother and Mistress of the Church. bbot, Essays chiefly on the Original Texts In an absolutely normal, exterior of Athe Old and New Testaments (London, life Mary was able to keep closed up 1891). Drum, “Massorah,” CE. Ginsburg, in her heart the most secret mysteries Introduction to the Massoretico-critical edition of God. At the time of the annuncia­ of the Hebrew Bible (1897). Kittel, Kahle, tion she was about twelve years old. have recently published (Stuttgart, 1937) a critical edition of the Massorctic text. Lesêtre, We do not know how old she was at “Massore,” DBV. Vandervorst, Introduction the time of her glorious passage, but aux textes hebreu et grec de l'Ancien Testa­ we can say that she lived a full life. ment (Malines, 1935). Zarb, Il testo biblico (See Assumption of the Blessed (Rome, 1939). Virgin; Co-Redemptrix; Immaculate Conception; maternity, divine; ma­ Mass (Lat. missio — dismissal; from ternity, spiritual; virginity of Mary.) the fourth century the whole body of the ceremonies of the Eucharistic BIBLIOGRAPHY Sacrifice received its name from the De la Broise, La Sainte Vierge (Paris, ceremony of dismissing the catechu­ 1924). Dublanchy, “Marie,” DTC. Garofalo, Le parole di Maria (Turin, 1943). Gibbons, mens before the Offertory of the “The Position of the Blessed Virgin in Catho­ Mass). The Mass is the Sacrifice of lic Theology,” Am. Cath. Quarterly Review, the New Law. The supreme act of Vol. 3, n. 12. Landucci, Maria SS. nel cult could not be lacking to Chris­ Vangelo (Roma, 1945). Lesêtre, "Marie," tianity, which is the perfect religion, DBV. Livius, The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries (London, and therefore Christ enriched His 1893). Maas, "Virgin Mary (The Blessed),” Church with the unbloody sacrifice CE. O’Shea, Mary and Joseph (Milwaukee, so that it might be the perpetual 1949). Otten, A Manual of History of commemoration and perennial ap­ Dogmas, Vol. 2 (St. Louis, 1915), pp. 397417. Scheeben, Mariology, trans. Geukcrs, plication of the merits acquired in the 2 vols. (St. Louis, 1946-1947). Stewart, bloody sacrifice of the cross. Indeed, The Greater Eve (London, 1912). The Teach­ the Mass is the repetition of the Last ing of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. Supper, according to the Lord’s com­ (New York, 1949), pp. 513-548. Vassallmand: “Do this for a commemoration Phili.ips, The Mother of Christ in Tradition, Mass 178 of me.” Now, the Last Supper was a true sacrifice because the expressions used by Christ: “This is my Body, which is given for you” (Luke 22:19), “This is my blood of the new testa­ ment, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28), according to biblical style, are properly sacrificial terms (cf. Gal. 1:4; Eph. 5:2; Lev. 1:5, 15; i Pet. 1:19). This conclusion is efficaciously confirmed by the prophecy of Malachias (1:1011), which predicts a sacrifice whose characteristics of holiness and uni­ versality are verified only in the Mass, and by Tradition which, by its liturgical praxis and open testimonies of the Fathers, assures us of the will of Christ to institute a real and proper sacrifice to endure to the end of the world (1 Cor. 11:26). From these data of revelation the Church has an excessive store of reasons to oppose, in the Council of Trent (sess. 22), the Protestants who absolutely ostracize the sacrifice of the altar. Theologians questioned for a long time how the liturgy of the Mass, which is accomplished in the three great acts of Offertory, Consecration, and Communion, realizes in itself the true essence of sacrifice. In all real sacrifices, offerer, victim, and sacri­ ficial act are to be considered. This act includes two elements: the one material, i.e., oblation, the other formal, i.e., immolation. All are in agreement, after the dec­ laration of the Council of Trent, in recognizing that Christ is the Priest and the principal Victim that is offered and immolated in the act of the double consecration of bread and wine. But the agreement is sharply split when it comes to explaining in just what the sacrificial aspect of the double consecration essentially consists. Leaving aside the opinion of Bellarmine, Suarez, and Franzelin, who affirm a physical immolation in the Mass, which seems excessive, as well as that of De la Taille and Lepin, who are satisfied with the oblation alone and, therefore, err on the short side, it would seem best to hold to the traditional teaching that repre­ sents the sacrifice of the Mass as a real oblation and immolation of a mystical and sacramental order. This teaching begins, as it were, from the original datum of the double conse­ cration: the body alone being under the species of bread by virtue of the words (w verborum'), and only the blood being in the same manner under the species of wine, it follows that the body of Christ, not in itself but only as contained under the appear­ ances of bread, is separated from the blood as contained under the distinct appearances of wine; thus we have a true, but mystic, immolation, such as is realizable now, given the impas­ sibility of the glorious body of the Redeemer. This teaching, which is in perfect alignment with the Council of Trent (DB, 938, 940), is supported by the most beautiful testimonies of Tradition, from the Nazianzen to St. Augustine, and by the authority of great theologians, from St. Thomas to Billot. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 83. Billot, De sacramentis (Rome, 1932). Bo­ land, Of Mass (London, New York, 1923). Clarke, Handbook, of Divine Liturgy. A Brief Study of the Historical Development of the Mass (London, 1910). Connell, De sacramentis (Brugis, 1933), pp. 258-287. Doronzo, De Eucharistia, Vol. 2, De Sacri­ ficio (Milwaukee, 1948). Fortescue, The Mass (London, 1913). Gihr, The Holy Sacri­ fice of the Mass, trans, from the German (St. Louis, 1914). Lebreton, “Eucharistie," DA, col. 1563 ff. Lepin, L'idée du sacrifice de la Messe (Paris, 1926). Lucas, Holy Mass (London, 1914). MacDonald, The Sacrifice of the Mass (London, St. Louis, 1924); “Tile Sacrifice of the New Law,” The Ecclesiastical Review (Dec., 1905). Mortimer, Eucharistic Sacrifice (London, 1901). Pihrse, The Mass in the Infant Church (Dublin, 1909). Pio· i.ANTi, De sacramentis, Vol. 2 (Rome, 1945). Pohle, “Mass (Sacrifice of the)," CE. Pohlk- 179 Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, IX The Sacra­ ments, Vol. 2, The Holy Eucharist (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 272-400, 349-370. Rock, Hierurgia; or, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, revised by Weale, 2 vols. (London, 1907). Roschini, L'essenza del sacrificio eucaristico (Rome, 1936). Ruch, Gaudel, Rivière, Mi­ chel, Jugie, Cabrol, "Messe,” DTC. De la Taille, Esquisse du Mystère de la Foi (Paris, 1924); Mysterium Fidei (Paris, 1931). The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 880-918. Vaughan, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (St. Louis, 1900). Vonier, A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist (Westminster, 1946), pp. 86-157, 223-269. Mastrius. See “Outline of the His­ tory of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 303). materialism. See pantheism. maternity, divine (of the Blessed Virgin). The foundation of all the greatness and the privileges of Mary. The title, θίοτόκος (Dei Genitrix, Deipara: Mother of God, God-bear­ ing), expressed this truth in the com­ mon language of the faithful from the first centuries. Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius (fifth cen­ tury; see Nestorianisrn) were the first to impugn that title, maintaining co­ herently with their Christological error that Mary gave birth to the man Jesus of Nazareth, in which the divine Word dwelt. Mary, therefore, accord­ ing to the Nestorians, is mother of Christ (man), not mother of God; and that is also evident from the fact that the eternal God cannot be born in time. St. Cyril of Alexandria op­ posed this heresy with the weight of centuries of Tradition as well as the force of theological reasoning based on the mystery of the hypostatic union (.). The Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorianism (a. 431), affirming, together with the true divinity of Christ, the divine ma­ ternity of Mary; it was called, for this reason, “Mary’s Council.” Holy Scripture several times calls maternity, divine Mary Mother of Jesus in the proper sense of the word (Matt. 1:18; John 19:25). Elizabeth even greets her as mater Domini mei (“Mother of my Lord”). In order to prove theolog­ ically this truth of faith, a simple reasoning will suffice: Christ is the incarnate Word, i.e., a divine Person subsisting in both the divine nature and the assumed human nature. Now Mary gave birth to Christ in His personal integrity, although through the line of human nature; therefore, she is truly mother of the Word, i.e., of God. It would be impertinent to object to the fact that the Word with its divine nature does not derive from Mary, before whom it existed: St. Cyril answered this by saying that our hu­ man soul is infused by God and does not derive from our parents; neverthe­ less none of us hesitates to call himself son of his own mother as to his whole being. We should remember that the Word is the term of an eternal gen­ eration from the Father and of a temporal generation from His Moth­ er; two generations, two births, but not two filiations (relationships of son). Christ is the Son of God and remains such even when He assumes human nature: no change, no new relationship in the immutable Him. He is also truly the Son of Mary, but the mutual relationship is real (i.e., is a relatio realis in the philosophical meaning) only in the direction Mother to Son, not in the direction Son to Mother. Finally, no son is so much his mother’s as Jesus is Mary’s, since she conceived Him without in­ semination from man. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 35. Campana, Maria nel dogma cattolico (Turin, 1936). Mekkelbach, Mariologia (Paris, 1939). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, VI Man­ alogy (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 4-23. Roschini, Mariologia, 4 vols. (Milan, 1940-1949). Scheeben, Mariology, trans. Geukers, Vol. 1 (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 132-195. Terrien, La Mere de Dieu et la Mere des hommes maternity, spiritual 180 (Paris, 1902). The Teaching of the Catholic Church, cd. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), PP· 5t3~5>7· Vassall-Phillips, The Mother of God (London, 1920). maternity, spiritual (of Blessed Virgin). Mary, the true Mother of the Son of God (see ma­ ternity divine), is the spiritual mother of the whole human race, in whose salvation she co-operated with the Redeemer. This truth is foreshadowed on Calvary when the dying Christ entrusted the Blessed Virgin to John, and John to her: “ ‘Woman, behold thy son!’ Then he says to the dis­ ciple: ‘Behold thy mother’ ” (John 19:26-27). Origen commented that Christ lives in every perfect Christian, who, therefore, is called son of Mary. The Fathers draw a parallel between Eve, mother of sinners (the dead), and Mary, mother of those vivified by divine grace (cf. Justin, Irenaeus). Be­ sides the testimony of the dying Jesus, there is a profound theological reason touched on by St. Augustine (De Virginitate, 5, 6) : Mary is the Mother of all men because she is the Mother of Christ, of whom men are mystical members. Pius X: “In the most chaste womb of His Mother, Christ took His flesh and with it a spiritual body, com­ posed of the future faithful.... There­ fore, in a spiritual and mystical way we are called sons of Mary and she is the Mother of us all” (encycl., Ad diem ilium). BIBLIOGRAPHY Albert the Great, Mariale, q. 29, § 3. O’Connell, Our Lady Mediatrix of All Graces (Baltimore, 1926), pp. 33-60. Hogan, Mother of Divine Grace (London, 1921). Merkelbach, Mariologia (Paris, 1939), p. 296 ff. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 2 (Milan, 1942), p. 481 ff. matrimony (Lat. matris munus — office of mother). The sacrament which prepares new candidates for the kingdom of God. In the first pages of Holy Scripture (Gen. 2:23 ff.; cf. Matt. 19:45.) the struc­ ture of matrimony is sketched as a natural contract (officium naturae). Its elements are: (1) It is instituted indirectly in the constitution of the two sexes, which attract each other by natural instinct, and directly by the positive intervention of the Creator, narrated in Genesis. (2) It is con­ stituted, in each instance, by the mutual consent by which a man and a woman unite for the purposes in­ tended by God. (3) It is characterized by two basic qualities, i.e., unity and indissolubility: “two in one flesh.” (4) It is ordered to procreation, as its principal end: “increase and multi­ ply” (Gen. 1:27-28); to mutual help, as its secondary end: adiutorium simile sibi (“a helper like himself,” Gen. 2:18); and to the discipline of the disorderly instinct of the flesh, as an accessory end. (5) It has a sacred character, recognized by all peoples in the religious ceremonies with which it is surrounded, and openly revealed by God in the New Testa­ ment when he called matrimony the symbol of the future union of Christ with the Church (Eph. 5:32). From the fall of Adam to the time of the Redemption this primitive unity and indissolubility was not always ob­ served. Not only were the pagans hardened to divorce and polygamy, but even the chosen people, on ac­ count of their hardheadedness, wrung, so to speak, a sort of dispensation from God Himself, and very quickly degenerated to that low moral level from which Christ came to free the world. First of all, Christ restored marriage to its primitive purity, putting back into effect the law of unity (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18), sanc­ tioning that of indissolubility with the well-known Quod Deus coniunxit homo non separet (“Let no man sevci what God has joined together,” Matt. 19:6). He then elevated the matter and form 181 institution of matrimony to the dignity of a sacrament. This eleva­ tion, foreshadowed in Christ’s manner of acting, suggested more clearly by St. Paul (Eph. 5:20-32), and openly taught by Tradition, transferred the officium naturae into the supernatural order and put it in the light of the union of Christ with the Church, from which it receives its proper physiognomy. Indeed, as the union of Christ with the Church (1) is born of that generous self-giving, (2) through which Jesus Christ in the effusion of His purest love gives Him­ self forever (indissolubility) to one Spouse alone (unity), (3) to make her spiritually fruitful, till His Mys­ tical Body is completed: so Christian marriage, (a) finds its genesis in mutual self-giving expressed exter­ nally in the words of the contract (the sensible rite of the sacrament), (Z>) which produces between the man and woman a bond which is one, because exclusive of a third party, and indis­ soluble, because lasting till death, (c) for the principal end of fecundity, that is of multiplying citizens in the kingdom of God, to which is added the secondary purpose of mutual help and comfort and the accessory end of moderating the movements of concupiscence. For the attainment of these ends matrimony asks God for and produces ex opere operato sanctifying and sacra­ mental grace, which establishes a particular and constant orientation of the supernatural organism of the husband and the wife, to which is annexed a spirit of uprightness in the procreation of the offspring, of re­ ciprocal justice and charity in bearing the family burdens, and in carrying out the difficult task of raising the children in a Christian way. By reason of its supernatural elevation, matri­ mony is withdrawn from civil inter­ ference and put under the vigilance of the Church, which determines the conditions of validity of the marriage contract, establishes the impediments thereto, and judges all matrimonial cases referring to the sacramental bond (cf. Council of Trent, sess. 24). Pius XI issued his splendid encyclical, Casti Connubii (1930), on the dignity of Christian marriage and the rem­ edies against modern abuses. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, Suppl.. qq. 41-68. Boyer, Synopsis praelectionum de Matrimonio (Rome, 1942). Divine, The Law of Christian Marriage (New York, 1908); The Sacraments Explained (London, 1905), pp. 431-515. Doronzo, De sacramentis in genere (Milwaukee, 1946), Index Analyticus: “Matrimonium.” Gannon, Holy Matrimony (London, 1928). Gasparri, Tractatus canon­ icus de matrimonio (Vatican City, 1932). Godefroy, Le Bras, Jucie, “Marriage,” DTC. Lavaud, Mariage, nature humaine et grâce divine (Fribourg en Suisse, 1942). Palmieri, De Matrimonio christiano (Rome, 1897). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, XI The Sacraments, Vol. 4, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, Matrimony (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 140-242. Ryan, “Marriage (History of),” CE. Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, trans. Vollert (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 593-610. Selinger, “Marriage (Moral and Canonical Aspect of),” CE. The Teaching of the Catho­ lic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949). pp. 1062-1100. matter and form (of the sacra­ ments). Whenever Scripture speaks of a sacrament, it represents it as a rite composed of things and of words: thus baptism is accomplished by a washing with water together with the Trinitarian formula is pronounced (Matt. 28:19; for the other sacra­ ments, cf. Acts 8:15-17; Matt. 26:2628; James 5:14; Acts 6:6, etc.). But Holy Scripture does not assign greater value to the words than to the things done, nor does it join up the sensible rite with its meaning (cf. Matt. 28:19; Rom. 6:3-11); it shows, finally, only concretely that all the sacraments are composed of things and words. These three indéterminations of Holy Scrip­ ture, like small clouds, are dissipated gradually as the Fathers and the- Maximus, Confessor 182 ologians penetrate further in their analysis of the sacramental composite. In the twelfth and thirteenth cen­ turies, having exactly determined the sacramental septenary (see sacra­ ments, number of), the theologians were able to state in the abstract that all the sacraments are composed, in their sensible sign, of things {res) and words {verba)·, however, spurred on by a profound spirit for systemization, they were not only content to state the fact, but also endeavored to illustrate the manner in which this is accomplished by adapting to the sacramental world the hylomorphic theory (Gr. νλη— matter, and μορφή — form), which, following in the steps of Aristotle, they had very suc­ cessfully applied to the physical world. The simple reasoning that motivated them is: if in the physical composite the potential and indetermined ele­ ment is called matter and the deter­ mining and actual element is called form, in the same way, in the sacra­ mental composite the indetermined element may be called matter and the determining one, form; now, it ap­ pears that in the rite of the sacrament, e.g., of baptism, the thing, i.e., the water, being indifferent as to indica­ tion of cooling or of purification, is determined to signify purification by the words which clearly express it: “I baptize thee, i.e., I tvash thee in the name of the Father, etc.” It is, therefore, fitting that the water be called matter and the words, form. Certain non-Catholic writers (Har­ nack, Turmel) have been scandalized by such doctrine, as if theology had been made the slave of Aristotelian philosophy. The reason given above shows suffi­ ciently the opportuneness of the hylomorphic terminology applied to the sacraments; it is, indeed, the proper function of the theologian, according to the teaching of the Vatican Council, to illustrate dogma ex eorum quae naturaliter cognoscit [ratio] analogia (“through the analogy of those things that it naturally knows” DB, 1796). Moreover, the Church, to which Christ not only committed the duty of guarding the deposit of revelation but also the power of formulating and adapting it to the capacity of the faithful, has for seven centuries been using such terminology in several documents of her solemn magisterium (cf. DB, 672, 695, 914, 1963). There­ fore, the Catholic theologian has every right to use a formula which, besides being consecrated by many centuries of ecclesiastical use, helps him to clear up many obscure points of sacramental doctrine. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 60. Doronzo, De sacramentis in genere (Mil­ waukee, 1946), Index Analyticus: ‘‘Forma”; "Materia.” Michel, “Matière et forme dans les Sacraments," DTC. Umberg, Systema Sacramentarium (Oeniponte, 1930). Maximus, Confessor. See “Out­ line of the History of Dogmatic The­ ology” (p. 302). Mazzella. See “Outline of the His­ tory of Dogmatic Theology” 303)· (p. mediation. Physically, it is the condi­ tion of one who finds himself between two extremes from which he is dis­ tinguished, although having some­ thing in common with them. Morally, it is the action of one who endeavors to unite and conciliate the extremes between which he finds himself. It is a truth of faith that Christ is the perfect Mediator between God and men. St. Paul, in 1 Timothy 2:5, says: “For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Jesufr Christ.” Thus also the Fathers and the Church magisterium (cf. Council of Trent, scss. 51, DB, 790). 183 Reason: Christ, as God-Man, finds Himself in the conditions required for physical mediation between the Divinity and humanity. Also the per­ fection of moral mediation is to be attributed to Him, because the Word became Incarnate precisely to recon­ cile mankind with God (see Incarna­ tion). The Word, as God, is equal to the Father, and so cannot be mediator: He is mediator, however, as Man, according to His human nature, which made it possible for Him to suffer and die and make reparation for us. His human actions and sufferings have a redemptive value in that they are proper to the Word, who sustains and directs the assumed nature. Christ, therefore, is Mediator according to His human nature, but not independently of the Divinity. St. Augustine (Sermo XU, 2i ): “Behold the Mediator: the Divinity without the humanity is not mediator; the humanity without the Divinity is not mediator; but between the Divinity alone and the humanity alone, the human Divinity and the Divine humanity is mediator” (RJ, 1500). Mary, as Mother of the Word In­ carnate, participates subordinately in the mediation of Christ with God, and is also Mediatrix between Christ and men. Her mediation consists prin­ cipally in praying in order to obtain for us the application of the fruits of the Redemption, but it cannot be restricted to this office, because the Blessed Virgin, associated with Christ, co-operated with Him in the great work of the Redemption, contributing to the acquisition of the fruits of salvation (see Co-Redemptrix). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 26. BrrrREMiEUX, De Mediatione Universali B. Μ. Virginis quoad gratias (Brugis, 1926). Hum­ phrey, The One Mediator (London). O’Con­ nell, Our Lady Mediatrix of All Graces (Baltimore, 1926), pp. 61-100. Roschini, Mariologia, Vol. 2 (Milan, 19.12), p. 272 ff. members of the Church Scheeben, Mariology, trans. Geukcrs, Vol. 2 (St. Louis, 1947), pp. 185-273. Wilhelm, “Mediator (Christ as),” CE. Mediatrix. See Co-Redemptrix; mediation. Medina. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 303). members of the Church. The Church is an organism socially and hierarchically constituted in which circulates supernatural life. As a mem­ ber can share in the life of the organ­ ism in a perfect way, or can be stricken with paralysis or even torn from the organism itself, so men, in their relations with the Church, can find themselves in the following dis­ similar conditions: 1. Either they are perfectly united to the organism both through the in­ ternal bond of grace and charity, and through the external bond of faith, cult, and hierarchy (see unity, mar\ of the Church)·, these are the living members of the Church, in which divine life is diffused throughout. 2. Or, having broken the internal bond through sin, they still conserve the external bonds by professing the same faith, communicating in the same sacraments, and obeying the same pastors: these are the dead or paralyzed members of the Church, in whom the vital sap no longer flows, as in dead branches. But it is profit­ able to them that they remain ma­ terially united to the organism, be­ cause it is easier for them to be revived and receive again its bene­ ficial influxes. 3. Or, having once adhered to the Church, by at least external acceptance of all the juridical bonds (included in the reception of baptism), they have afterward repudiated these bonds. Such are: the heretics, who tenaciously deny some truth to be believed on divine Catholic faith, or Mennonites 184 who nurture doubts on such a truth; the apostates, who reject as a whole the truths of the Christian faith; the schismatics, who refuse submission to the Roman pontiff and do not have relations (communio) with the other members of the Church (CIC, Can. 1325, §2). These are the mem­ bers separated and wrenched from the organism of the Church. 4. The Catechumens who accept the Christian faith and are disposed to obey its pastors, although spirit­ ually belonging to the Church, jurid­ ically cannot be called members of it, because they have not yet received baptism which is the act by which a man enters the ecclesiastical society as a member (CIC, Can. 87). The infidels belong to the Church only in potency. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 8, a. 3; Comment. In 3 Sent., dist. 13, q. 2, a. 2. Bellarmine, De Ecclesia militante, I. 3, c. 3. Franchi, De membris Ecclesiae (Rome, 1938). Mazzella, De Ecclesia, n. 590. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 706-710. Vellico, De Ecclesia Christi (Rome, 1940), pp. 533547· Mennonites. See Anabaptists. merit. The right to a reward due for a morally good action. Merit can be de condigno (condign; adequate), if there is an equal proportion between the good act and its reward, and de congruo (congruous; of convenience) if, in the lack of such proportion, there intervenes some reason of con­ venience or of benevolence that moves the rewarder. Supernatural merit is that which arises from an action performed under the influence of divine grace, and thus in relationship with the super­ natural end: the beatific vision. Five conditions are required for super­ natural merit: (1) state of mortal life (status viatoris — state of the wayfarer), because death is the end of the test (see death)·, (2) state of sanctifying grace, because sin renders relationship impossible with God; (3) free will, without which there is no responsibility and, therefore, no reason for reward or punishment; (4) good worp, since evil deserves punishment; (5) divine agreement or consent (ac­ cepting and ordering the good work to its reward), because the super­ natural order is absolutely gratuitous and no creature can acquire a true and proper right with reference to God, without His own divine disposi­ tion in this regard. Man, fulfilling these conditions, can merit, even condignly (de condigno), the in­ crease of grace and life eternal, called a “crown of justice” by St. Paul. Christ, during His mortal life, merited for Himself the glorification of His human body (His soul already enjoyed the beatific vision), and for the whole human race He merited, especially by His passion and death, all supernatural gifts and life eternal. His merit, like His satisfaction, has an infinite value, and this value is, more probably, according to the rigor of justice (i.e., implies the proper and full concept of justice), because it is the merit of the Word of God Him­ self, who is the operating subject in His assumed nature. Mary has merited de congruo for us all that Jesus merited de condigno. Lutheranism, holding human na­ ture intrinsically corrupted by original sin to the point of the loss of free will, denied all possibility of merit in man. The Council of Trent con demned this error, asserting both free will and, under the influence of grace, merit (DB, 809 and 842). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I-II, q. 114. Doronzo. De Poenitentia, Vol. 3 (Milwaukee, 1951). Hucon, Le mystère de la Rédemption (Paris, 1927), Ch. 7. Joyce, The Catholic Doctrine of Grace (New York, 1920). pp. 158 ff., 245 ff. Peter Parente, De Verbo 185 Incarnato (Rome, 1939), p. 331 ff. Pohle, “Merit," CE. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic The­ ology, VII Grace (Actual and Habitual) (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 397-436. Rivière, “Mérite," DTC. Messias (Hebr. Maschiach — Anoint­ ed; Gr. Χριστός — Christ). The name is derived from the anointing with which the kings were consecrated in the Jewish theocracy. The title at one time was common to all the kings of the Jews, but afterward was re­ served for the supreme King who was to bring eternal salvation to the people. Messianism is the body of the Old Testament prophecies relative to the person, origin, and qualities of the Messias, and the spiritual kingdom He would come to found. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ceuppens, De Prophetiis messianicis in A.T. (Rome, 1935). Dennefeld, “Messianisme,” DTC. Geddes, “Messias,” CE. Lesêtre, “Messie," DBV. The Life of Christ in Recent Research (Oxford, 1907). Touzard, “Juif (Peuple),” DA, cols. 1614-1654. (Gr. μ,ΐτά— be­ tween, after, and ψυχή— soul). The theory of the transmigration of the human soul from one body to another (of man or of animal) for the purpose of purification from guilt. Modern spiritists and theosophists prefer the term reincarnation (restricted to hu­ man bodies only). Traces of metempsychosis are found among primitive peoples under the influence of animism {q.v.). India, however, is the classical borne of metempsychosis. It was Buddha who adopted and spread it as an element in the solution of the problem of evil and of suffering. The guilty soul must free itself from the stain of sin by an equal compensation of virtuous ac­ tions for tbe sinful ones: this is the famous law of the Karma, which regulates mechanically the expiation of guilt. After a series of transmigra­ metempsychosis Methodists tions the soul is finally purified and passes into the Nirvana, absolute calm without desires or activity (according to other sects it is an absorption of the individual soul in Brahma). Metempsychosis is found also in Egypt and in Greece, where it pre­ vailed in Orphism and in the fol­ lowers of Pythagoras. Plato drew it from these sources (cf. the dialogue Phaedon); Plotinus, too, spoke of metempsychosis. In modern times spiritism {q.v.) has rehabilitated metempsychosis. The theory of metempsychosis is absurd: (a) psychologically, because it neglects or destroys the unity of the human individual and his personality, based on the substantial union of this soul with this body; and also because it fails to keep the due proportion between form and matter; {b) morally, because it per­ verts the sense of expiation, which de­ mands of the individual recognition of the guilt to be expiated. The soul which passes from body to body, ac­ cording to that theory, has no mem­ ories of its preceding existences. This amnesia, too, is inexplicable. Metem­ psychosis is not compatible with Cath­ olic doctrine, which teaches the sub­ stantial and personal unity of man and, immediately after death, the appearance of the soul before God’s tribunal to receive immediately the reward or the penalty merited (see death; judgment, divine). BIBLIOGRAPHY Alger, Doctrine of a Future Life (New York, 1866). De la Vallée-Poussin, Bouddh­ isme (Paris, 1925). Hedde, “Métempsycose," DTC. Lyall, Asiatic Studies (London, 1882). Maher, "Metempsychosis,” CE. McDonnell, "The Ancient Indian Conception of the Soul,” Journal of Theological Studies (1900). Tylor, Primitive Culture (London, 1871). Methodists. A Protestant sect widely diffused, which numbers today more than eleven million members. Meth­ odism (from method, to which much 186 millenarianism attention is given by this sect) was founded in the eighteenth century by John Wesley, an Anglican priest disgusted with dissipation and spir­ itual aridity of Anglicanism who, following upon his reading of the Imitation of Christ, first dedicated himself to a life of intense piety, and then to a fervent apostolate of preach­ ing and works of charity that took him from one end of the globe to the other. Wesley drew up a set of gen­ eral rules to assure the duration of his renewal movement, trying to keep it within the Anglican Church; but Methodism was bound to drift away and organize itself into a separate community, with its own statutes, ministers and assemblies. Francis Asbury and Thomas Coke, sent by Wesley to America, became the first bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church organized in 1784. The Methodist doctrine is sub­ stantially Protestant, based on the 39 Anglican articles: but Methodism is characterized by a lively piety, mortification (with systematic fasts), struggle against evil and sin, and zeal for the salvation of souls. Like all Protestant movements, Methodism split into various sects: Methodist Episcopal Church, Methodist Prot­ estant Church (which denies the episcopate), etc. BIBLIOGRAPHY Buckley, "History of Methodists in the U. S.,” Amer. Church Hist., Series V (New York, 1907). Hedde, “Méthodisme,” DTC. Piette, La réaction wésléyenne, in L’évolu­ tion protestante. Etude d'histoire religieuse (Bruxelles, 1925). Smith, History of Wesleyan Methodism (London, 1857-1862). Stevens, History of Methodism (New York, 18581861); History of the Meth. Episc. Church (N. Y., 1864). Weber, “Methodism,” CE. millenarianism (or chiliasm) (Gr. χίλιάν — a thousand). A theory of Jewish origin developed on the stock of the Messianic traditions. The prophets preached a kingdom of the future Messias as a golden age rich in glory and happiness. Enlarging on this concept, the Rabbis delighted in describing that kingdom in vivid colors, stressing its material character and fixing its duration at 1000 years, after which will come the universal judgment and the end of the world. St. John, in the Apocalypse (Chap. 20), used the images and the lan­ guage employed at that time in Jewish circles to express Christian thoughts and mysteries on the future of hu­ manity and of the Church of Christ. Literally, the sacred text speaks of a defeat of Satan, relegated to the abyss, and hence of a triumphal reign in which the souls of the martyrs and the saints, priests of Christ, will rule with Him 1000 years. This glorification of the saints is called the first resurrec­ tion. After that period, Satan will be freed for a short time and will put up a great fight once more to seduce men, but in the end he will be conquered, together with his minister, the Anti­ christ, and then the end of the world will come with the universal resur­ rection and judgment. Some Fathers (St. Irenaeus, St. Justin, Tertullian), interpreting this text literally, admitted two resurrec­ tions (that of the saints and the universal one) and between them the millenary reign of Christ on earth. Other writers (Cerinthus, Apollinaris) perverted the concept of that reign, representing it as a period of frenzied sexual extravagances. Protests im­ mediately followed (Caius, a Roman priest, and Origen) and finally St. Augustine interpreted the Apocalypse in the symbolic and allegoric senses, eliminating, once and for all, mil­ lenarianism from the field of ortho­ doxy. The millenary kingdom, St. Augustine explains, is but the Chris­ tian era in which Satan is relatively defeated under the sanctifying action of the Redeemer and His Church. He will be definitively conquered al 187 the end of the world after a brief struggle. That first resurrection of which St. John speaks is but the glorification of the holy souls who reign in heaven with Christ, and, in a way, even on earth by the light of their example. The Church has tacitly remained on the line traced by St. Augustine, adopting his teaching and never look­ ing with favor on the opposite opin­ ions. In July, 1944, the Holy Office declared that millenarianism may not be sustained, even in its mild form (AAS, 1944, ser. II, Vol. XI, n. 7). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, 20, 7. Bardy, “Millénarisme,” DTC. Gry, Le millén­ arisme dans ses origines et son développement (Paris, 1904). Kirsch, “Millennium and Millenarianism," CE. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, XII Eschatology (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 155-160. Schneider, The Other Life (New York, 1920), p. 298 ff. Tackson, The Millennial Hope (Chicago, 1919). minister (Lat. minister — helper, servant, etc.). The person legitimately appointed (see orders, holy) to dis­ tribute grace by means of the sacra­ ments and to offer the Sacrifice of the New Law. Jesus Christ, having de­ termined the Sacrifice and instituted the sacraments, did not choose to assist, like an ordinary spectator, at the carrying out of His work, but remained at the center of His sacra­ mental and sacrificial economy, in­ visibly but eternally operating; it is He who offers the sacrificial oblation and sanctifies through the sacred symbols. Therefore, having established a plan of redemption in which the invisible always manifests itself in the visible, consistency and harmony demanded that His activity, veiled under the sacrificial rite and the sacra­ mental symbols, should in some way be rendered perceptible to the senses through a human minister. In fact, Christ did choose among His disciples (cf. Luke 27:19; John 20:21-23; 1 minister Cor. 1:4; 2 Cor. 5:18-20) visible ministers to whom, in imitation of His Father who really communicates to creatures the dignity of efficient causes, He transmitted a real par­ ticipation of His sanctifying power. This power, however, is connected with and subordinated to Christ’s own action of principal cause, so that the ministers are but an irradiation of His priesthood and an exterior mani­ festation of His activity of eternal Pontiff, the “long hand,” as it were, through which He operates. In an economy in which the efficacy of the sacraments depends totally on the sanctity and the mysterious action of Christ, it is easily understood that neither faith nor state of grace is re­ quired in the minister for their validity and efficacy. In the first Christian centuries lively polemics were waged between Cath­ olics (St. Cyprian Martyr against Pope St. Stephen), and later (fifth century) between St. Augustine and the Donatists who obstinately main­ tained that sacraments administered by heretics and sinners are not valid because nemo dat quod non habet (“no one can give what he does not have”). The ability and holiness of the Bishop of Hippo succeeded in weakening the age-old schism and in clarifying the Catholic teaching, ac­ cording to which, sacramenta sancta per se, non per homines (“the sacra­ ments are holy of themselves, not by the virtue of men”), because Christ is the principal Distributor of their graces, while the ministers are only instruments channeling the waters flowing for the enrichment and fruit­ fulness of the field of souls; it does not matter whether a pipe be of gold or silver, of iron or lead, provided it conveys the water. However, for valid administration, the ministers must have the intention of doing what the Church docs (see intention of the minister of the sacraments'). miracle 188 The minister, ordinarily, is a homo viator (wayfarer or pilgrim, in re­ gard to the beatific vision), and is, generally, one marked with the char­ acter of the priesthood (see orders, holy). He is distinct from the sub­ ject or receiver of the sacrament, ex­ cept in the Eucharist, when the priest administers communion to himself, and in matrimony, in which man or woman is at once partial minister and subject of the sacrament. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 64, a. 4-10. Batiffol, Le catholicisme de St. Augustin (Paris, 1920), pp. 77-348. Doronzo, De sacramentis in genere (Milwaukee, 1946), Ch. 5. Piolanti, De sacramentis, Vol. 1 (Rome, 1945). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic The­ ology, VIII The Sacraments, Vol. I, The Sacraments in General, Baptism, Confirma­ tion (St. Louis, 1945), pp. 162-187. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, trans. H.L.B., Vol. 2 (St. Louis, 1914), pp. 393-4θ7· miracle (Lat. miror — I wonder). In a broad sense, it is an extraordi­ nary thing which calls attention and excites wonder. St. Augustine, speak­ ing from a subjective viewpoint, calls the miracle a difficult and unusual happening, above the power and the expectation of the observer, whose possibility and realization has been prepared by God. St. Thomas rightly adds the objective notion of an ex­ traordinary intervention of God, and defines (Summa Theol., I, q. no, a. 4): “A miracle is that which is done by God outside the order of all created nature.” The theologians ex­ plain and specify this definition: (a) done by God as principal cause — He may use any creature as instrumental cause; (b) done in the world; (c) outside or above the natural order, i.e., in a way superior to the forces of all nature; (d) outside or above, but not against the natural order, because the miracle is not a violation of the laws of nature but an excep­ tional happening brought about by a special, divine power that intervenes in created things, producing an effect superior to their natural power. The possibility of the miracle rests chiefly on the absolute dominion of God as first and free cause of the universe, whose laws are subordinate to Him and cannot limit either His freedom of action or His power. Only the absurd and the sinful are impos­ sible to God. A miracle may surpass the power of nature’s forces (a) as regards the sub­ stance of the event, e.g., the resurrec­ tion of the flesh; (Z>) as to manner, e.g., certain instantaneous cures. Fi­ nally, some miracles are the object of faith and thus are outside the order of sense experience; others are ex­ ternal happenings or facts, tangibly evident, and are intended by God to prove a truth of faith. It is these last that the Vatican Council (sess. Ill, c. 3, DB, 1790) calls: “Most certain signs of divine revelation — signs adapted to the intelligence of everyone.” BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. no, a. 4. Callan, “Nature and Possibility of Miracles," Irish Theol. Quart. (Oct., 1910). Cotter, Theologia fundamentalis (Weston, 1940), pp. 63-79. De Grandmaison, "Jesus Christ," DA, cols. 1412-1417. Driscoll, “Miracle,” CE. Fenton, We Stand With Christ (Milwaukee, 1942), pp. 291-318. Garricou-Lagrange, De Revelatione (Paris, 1926). Hay, The Doctrine of Miracles Explained (New York, 1873). Hogan, “The Miraculous in Church History," Amer. Cath. Quart. (April, 1898). Marsh. Miracles (London, 1906). Michel, “Miracle," DTC. Newman, Essays in Miracles (New York, London, 1890). Wallace, Miracles and Modern Spiritualism (London, 1897). missal. See liturgy. mission, divine (Lat. mittere —1<· send). The procession of one divine Person from another with respect tn a particular effect produced in a creature, in which the Person become» present in a certain new manner missionology 189 Divine mission includes two essential characteristics: (a) that the Person sent proceed from the Person sending Him; (/>) that a new effect be pro­ duced in the creature. The mission may be visible or invisible. 1. Visible mission. The Son sent by the Father to take on human nature (Incarnation): “When the ful­ ness of the time was come, God sent his Son” (Gal. 4:4). The Incarnation of the Word is a new effect, which, as an action ad extra (see operation, divine), is common to the three Per­ sons, but terminatively (as regards its term) is exclusively of the Word, who alone becomes incarnate. The re­ lationship, however, between the Word and the assumed nature (see Incarnation) does not add anything to the Person assuming, who remains unchanged; this relation is a real one {relatio realis) on the part of the as­ sumed nature to the Person, but only a relation of the mind {relatio ra­ tionis) in the direction from the Per­ son to the assumed nature. Another visible mission is that of the Holy Spirit under the form of a dove (in the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan) and of tongues of fire (in the Cen­ acle). These figures or forms were signs indicating the presence and the action of the Holy Spirit; as extrinsic effects they are attributed to the three Persons together, but as signs they have reference only to the Holy Spirit. There is evidently a great difference between the visible mission of the Son, who makes a human nature His own, and the mission of the Spirit, who only uses signs to manifest Himself. 2. Invisible mission. .This is more difficult and complex. It is actuated only in the infusion of sanctifying grace, by which God communicates Himself, gives Himself to the human soul, which becomes His living tem­ ple, according to the Gospel: “We will come to him, and will make our abode with him” (John 14:23). Strictly, this invisible mission is of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, to whom grace has reference as light or as love; but in a wider sense this mis­ sion is also of the Father, inasmuch as He gives Himself together with the other two Persons. Some wish to attribute this divine indwelling in the sanctified soul to the Holy Spirit in a very special way (see indwelling of the Holy Trinity). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 43. Hugon, Le mystère de la très Sainte Trinité (Paris. 1930), p. 262 S. Klein, The Doctrine 0/ the Trinity, trans. Sullivan (New York, 1940), pp. 211-241. Michel, “Trinité (Mis­ sions et Habitation des Personnes de la Trin­ ité),” DTC, cols. 1830-1855. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, Il The Divine Trinity (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 248-252. Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, trans. Vollert (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 149-180. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 139-142. missionology (or missiology). The science of Missions for the conversion of the infidels. The missionary prob­ lem, always alive in the Catholic Church, has in recent times had an extraordinary development under the impulse given to it, especially by Benedict XV and Pius XI, who, in their respective encyclicals Maximum illud (1919) and Rerum Ecclesiae (1926), traced the lines of a new mis­ sionary program. In order to stress progressively the great importance of the missionary problem and ade­ quately to prepare the souls called by God for this great undertaking, Pius XI decided to establish missionological institutes, of the university type, with an organic program of studies. Mis­ sionology includes a theoretic sec­ tion, divided into doctrinal (dogma, moral theology, canon law, biblical and patristic theology) and descrip­ tive (historical, geographic); and a technical section (pastoral, medicine, languages). Many auxiliary studies modalism 190 complete the program. Pius XII in his encyclical Euangelii praecones (June ii, 1950) outlines the directive norms for the future missionological devel­ opment. BIBLIOGRAPHY Barbero, Le Missioni — Compendio di Missionologia doctrinale, descrittiva e operative (Rome, 1939). De Mondragones y G. Es­ calante, Manual de Missionologia (Vitoria, 1933)· modalism. A complex Trinitarian heresy which arose in the East at the end of the second century and after­ ward was spread widely in the West­ ern Church. It defends monotheism rigidly up to the point of conceiving the Trinity of the divine Persons as three modes of being and of self­ manifestation of the one God: The same divine Person, in so far as it creates and generates, is Father; in so far as it is generated and redeems men, is Son (Christ); in so far as it sanctifies, is Holy Spirit. There is, therefore, no real distinction of divine Persons, but only one Principle of everything, i.e., the Father, who has created, has become incarnate, has died, has risen. Hence the names of monarchianism (one sole Principle) and Patripassianism (passion of the Father) given to the modalistic heresy. Its first author was Noetus, who was condemned by the Presbytery of Smyrna, where he preached his false doctrine; his disciples, Epigon and Cleomenes, came to Rome to spread their master’s teaching. Hippolytus wrote against Noetus. A similar doc­ trine was held at Rome by a certain Praxeas, who was vigorously opposed by Tertullian. Later on, at the begin­ ning of the third century, another Easterner came to Rome, Sabellius (hence the other name, Sabellianism), who refined monarchianism by reduc­ ing the divine Persons to simple tran­ sitory modalities: God is now Father, now Son, now Holy Spirit, according to His mode of acting. Thus the Trinitarian dogma was radically elim­ inated. Pope Callixtus excommuni­ cated Sabellius. Paul of Samosata professed also Sabellianism, together with adoptionism (q.v.). Later Sabel­ lianism underwent considerable de­ velopment and modification. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bardy, “Monarchianisme,” DTC. Cayré, Manual of Patrology, trans. Howitt, Vol. 1 (Paris, Tournai, Rome, 1936), pp. 173-176. Chapman, “Monarchians,” CE. Tixeront, His­ tory of Dogmas, trans. H.L.B., Vol. 1 (St. Louis, 1910), pp. 286, 379 ff., 421. modernism. A heresy, or rather a group of heresies, which have arisen in the very bosom of the Church at the beginning of this century under the influence of modern philosophy and criticism, with the pretense of ele­ vating and saving the Christian re­ ligion and the Catholic Church by means of a radical renovation. Lead­ ers of the movement: in France, Le Roy and Loisy; in England, Tyrrel; in Germany, Schell; in Italy, the authors (anonymous) of The Pro­ gram of the Modernists, who have no originality, but repeat the ideas of others; E. Buonaiuti is another ob­ stinate follower and defender of mod­ ernism in Italy. Pope Pius X issued two documents against modernism: The Decree of the Holy Office, Lamentabili (July 3, 1907, DB, 2001 ff.), and the encyclical, Pascendi (Sept. 8, 1907). The decree consists of a list of 65 condemned proposi­ tions; the encyclical is a lucid and deep analysis of these modern theories in conflict with sound philosophy and the patrimony of the entire Christian doctrine. To get an exact idea of modernism it suffices to read this pon­ tifical document which, despite the protests of the modernists, has, with the passing years, progressively shown itself to be objective and efficacious. In brief outline, the encyclical de­ clares modernism to be a hybrid Molinism 191 amalgamation of verbal Catholicism with real naturalistic rationalism, based on three philosophical systems: (i) agnosticism (from Kantianism), which combines subjectivism, phe­ nomenalism, and relativism, depre­ ciating rational knowledge; (2) immanentism, according to which human consciousness bears in itself, virtually, every truth, even divine, which is developed under the stimulus of the religious sense (from the doc­ trine of Kant and Schleiermacher); (3) radical evolutionism, according to which true reality is not being, but becoming, both within and outside man (from Hegel and, still more, from Bergson). Consequences of a religious char­ acter: («) Impossibility of demon­ strating the existence of a personal God, distinct from the world. (/>) Religion and revelation are natural products of our subconsciousness, dogma being its provisional expres­ sion, subject to continual evolution, (c) The Bible is not a divinely in­ spired book and, therefore, must be studied critically like any human book, subject to errors, (d) Science has nothing to do with faith: the critic, as such, can deny things he admits as a believer, (e) The divinity of Christ does not derive from the Gospels, but is the result of Christian consciousness. (/) The expiatory and redemptive value of Christ’s death is merely the opinion of St. Paul, (g) Christ did not institute the Church or the primacy of Peter, passed down later to the Roman pontiffs: the eccle­ siastical organization of today is the result of human circumstances and is subject to continual change. (Λ) The sacraments were instituted by the Apostles, who believed they were thus interpreting the instructions of the Master. These sacraments are useful only for keeping alive in men the thought of the ever beneficent pres­ ence of the Creator. (/) The rigid dogmatism of the Roman Church is irreconcilable with real science, which is bound up with universal evolution and follows its conditions. Pius X rightly concludes that modernism, by virtue of these delete­ rious principles, leads to the suppres­ sion of all religion and, therefore, to atheism (see immanentism; pragma­ tism; sentiment, religious; sub­ consciousness) . BIBLIOGRAPHY Faroes, Lebreton, “Modernisme,” DA. Gaudeau, Les erreurs du Modernisme (Paris, 1908). Godryez, The Doctrine of Modernism and Its Refutation (Philadelphia, 1908). Otten, Manual of History of Dogmas, Vol. 2 (St. Louis, 1925), pp. 530-533. Rickaby, The Modernist (London, 1908). Riviere, Le Modernisme dans TEglise (Paris, 1929); "Mo­ dernisme.” DTC. Rosa, L'Enciclica Pascendi cd il Modernismo (Rome, 1909). Vermeersch, “Modernism," CE. Molina. See Molinism. Molinism. A theological system linked with the name of Louis Molina, a Spanish Jesuit and theolo­ gian of the sixteenth century. Taking occasion from a dispute which arose in the University of Salamanca since 1582, regarding a thesis of the Jesuit Prudencio de Montemayor on the freedom of Christ, Molina endeavored to delve into the question of the re­ lationship between human freedom' and divine knowledge, predestination and grace. He published, therefore, a book entitled Concordia, in 1588, with the purpose also of fighting Lutheranism and Calvinism which denied man’s freedom. The Domin­ ican Basiez (see Bannesianism) cen­ sured several propositions in the book, thus inciting the famous controversy between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, which is still unsettled. Fundamental principles of Molin­ ism: (a) God concurs in the action of every creature, even in the free, human act, with a general and in­ Molinosism 192 different movement, which acts not on but with the creature (two co­ ordinate agents) with reference to the same effect. It is a simultaneous con­ currence, which our will may use as it pleases. (Z>) There is, in addition, a special concurrence for supernatural acts, and this is prevenient grace which, together with the free will, constitutes a system of two causes co­ ordinated for the same effect, i.e., the salutary act, which from the will draws its vitality and from grace its supernaturality. (f) Actual grace is reduced to the very vital act of the will, in so far as it is supernatural, {d) Three knowledges may be distin­ guished in God: knowledge of simple intelligence, whose object is every possible thing; knowledge of vision, whose object is every real thing (in­ cluding the future); and middle knowledge {scientia media) whose object is the hypothetical or condi­ tioned future. The first two sciences are admitted by the Thomists also, while the third is proper to Molinism; by virtue of the middle knowledge, God, even before willing, foresees in His essence what a free man would do if he were put in one or other pos­ sible order of things. (l 207 the pope, the so-called “Orthodox” Church does not present real dogmatic divergencies from the Roman Cath­ olic Church, especially in the begin­ ning. In the course of centuries, how­ ever, certain doctrinal or liturgical disagreements have been stressed, or even created, by reaction against the definitions of the popes or of the ecumenical councils. But the true and fundamental reason of the Eastern Schism and, therefore, its principal error is the negation of the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, as successor of St. Peter. BIBLIOGRAPHY Callan, “Orthodoxy,” CE. Fortescue, "Orthodox Church," CE; The Orthodox East­ ern Church (London, 1929). Janin, Les Eglises séparées d'Orient (Paris, 1930). Jugie, “Grecque (Eglise),” DA; Theologia Dogma­ tica Christianorum Orientalium, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1931). Perrin, Les Eglises Orientales (Rome, 1929). Zankov, The Eastern Orthodox Church, trans. Lourie (London, 1929). ostiariate (Lat. ostiarius — porter). The lowest of the four minor orders (see orders, holy). The office of the porter or ostiarius is indicated in the exhortation of the ordination: “He is to ring the bells, open the doors of the church and the sacristy, prepare the book for the preacher” {Roman Pontifical). Its origin is explained by the ancient practice of putting some person in charge of guarding the sacred edifices. The Church adopted this practice from the earliest days of the persecu­ tions, because, occupying buildings dedicated to worship, it felt the need of guarding them and of anticipating, inasmuch as possible, enemy attack. The first mention of this order goes back to the third century. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., HI, Suppl., '1· 37· a· z- Kirsch, “Porter,” CE. Kurt­ scheid, Historia luris Canonici, Vol. I (Rome, 1941). Tixeront, Holy Orders and Ordina­ tions. trans. Raemers (St. Louis). pantheism P pagans. See infidels. pain. See penalty; suffering. Palamites. See vision, beatific. Palmieri. See “Oudine of the His­ tory of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 303). pantheism (Gr. παν— all, and tfeos — God). A doctrine which consists essentially in drawing together the world and God up to the point of identifying them. There is a crude form of pantheism which holds the cosmic elements or brute matter to be the Divinity; hence idolatry, fetishism {qq.v.). But there also is a scientific pantheism, deserving closer attention, which offers an organic and scientific conception of al! reality, the world and God together. In other words, this systematic pantheism presents itself as an absolute monism (unitarian concept of reality), and monism is either materialistic, like Haeckel’s (•f 1910), or spiritualistic, like that of Spinoza or of Gentile. Materialistic monism, which denies spirit and spiritual values, thus re­ ducing everything to matter, closely approaches crude pantheism. It is contradictory in itself and deserves little consideration. Spiritualistic mon­ ism is at once more elegant and in­ sidious, reducing all reality, even ma­ terial, to spirit and its activity. It first came to life with Spinoza as a substantialism (reality is one, sole substance manifesting itself in two modes: extension and thought, hence as matter and as spirit, which is God and world at once); then it took the form of idealism, i.e., of an idea in perennial becoming (Hegel), or of an absolute ego (Fichte), or of a thinking act (Gentile). Immanentism paradise 208 {q.v.) is also a form of pantheism of the intellectualiste or sentimentalistic type. Every variety of pantheism has latent in it an irremediable contra­ diction, which falls into the absurd, namely: the identification of the In­ finite with the finite. God, absolute Being, is necessarily infinite and, therefore, one, eternal, immutable. The world, on the contrary, is ob­ viously multiple and, therefore, par­ ticipated, finite, changeable, temporal, e., constrained to be actuated suc­ i. cessively. It is absurd to try to identify these two beings. The Christian con­ cept of creation solves fully the rela­ tionship between God and world, between Infinite and finite. BIBLIOGRAPHY Flint, Anti-Theistic Theories (Edinburgh, 1894). Gerard, The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer (London, 1904). Pace, “Pan­ theism,” CE. Plumtre, General Sketch of the History of Pantheism (London, 1881). Schalck, "Panthéisme," DTC. Sertillanoes, Les sources de la croyance en Dieu (Paris, 1928), Ch. 18. Valensin, Panthéisme (Paris, 1922); "Panthéisme,” DA. paradise. A word of Persian origin, pairidaeza (analogous to the Hebr. pardes — park), whence the Gr. τταράδίΐσος, which the Septuagint used to translate the Hebrew —gan (garden, park). In the Vulgate we read paradisum voluptatis, in accord with the original Hebrew pv? P gan be'eden; eden in Hebrew, ety­ mologically, means, pleasure, de­ light, and has been taken in the Vulgate with this meaning. But the Septuagint took the word eden as the proper name of a region and trans­ lated παράδίΐσος èv Έδε/Λ (park in Eden). This interpretation is more probable. But the Hebraic etymology of Eden and the memory of the felicity of our First Parents have made of Eden the place and symbol of en­ joyment and perfect delight. The word paradise has come to be used in the same way. In the Old Testa­ ment, paradise was restricted to mean the place in which God put Adam and Eve and from which He expelled them after their sin. In the New Testament and in Christian literature the earthly paradise, in the ancient sense of the word, is distinguished from the heavenly paradise, in the sense of a place where the blessed en­ joy the vision of God. Thus under­ stood, paradise, also called heaven, is, foremost, a state or condition of beatitude (?·«'·), in which the vision and fruition of God are the source of eternal happiness. But paradise is also a place, as is demanded by the presence there of the humanity of Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, assumed into heaven corporally, and of all the glorious bodies after the general resurrection {q.v.). Nothing can be said about the location of paradise. BIBLIOGRAPHY Driscoll, “Terrestrial Paradise,” man, “Nimbus," CE. Hetzenauer, CE. GietTheologia biblica (Freiburg i.-Br., 1908), p. 24. Hontheim, "Heaven,” CE. Pesch, De Deo creante et devante (Freiburg i.-Br., 1925), n. 217 f. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, XII Es­ chatology (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 28-44. Schneider, The Other Life (New York, 1920). The Teaching of the Catholic Church. ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 1248-1282. Vaughan, Life Everlasting (Lon don, 1922). Parousia (Gr. παρουσία— presence, coming, return). It means the return of Christ, as Judge of the living and the dead, at the end of the world. Christ spoke in His great eschatolog­ ical discourse of this second and glorious coming; the Apostles, es­ pecially Paul, mention it frequently in their epistles. The chief difficulty of the New Testament texts, relative to the Parousia, comes from the impression they seem to give that Jesus and the Apostles held the triumphant appari­ tion to be imminent. If this were so, 209 neither Jesus nor the Apostles would have thought of founding and organ­ izing a Church which would last only for a very short time. And such has been the conclusion of a large sector of non-Catholic scholars, of which Loisy is the best-known representative. The Church has intervened with official documents condemning the eschatological theory in general, de­ fended by the modernists {DB, 2033), as well as their interpretation of the texts of the apostolic Epistles (Deer, of the Biblical Comm., June 18, 1913). Since Jesus is the Son of God, and the Apostles, as hagiographers, are inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is obvious that they could not have been mistaken about the time of the end of the world. Nor can we think that the Apostles expressed only their personal views with respect to the imminence of the Parousia, without thereby com­ promising biblical inspiration, since in the Bible it is not possible to intro­ duce a distinction between ideas and words of man and ideas and words of God (see inspiration). Jesus refused to reveal the time of His Second Coming and the end of the world (Mark 13:22 ff.), while He com­ manded the Apostles to spread the Gospel and the Church to all the world, promising to assist them with His presence and power “up to the consummation of the world” (Matt. 28:20). Paul puts the Thessalonians at ease, who were worrying about the proximate return of Jesus Christ, by telling them that before that time a great apostasy will have to take place, and the Antichrist will have to show himself (2 Thess. 2:3-4); there is no sign of apocalyptic phrenitis in St. Paul, who is busy founding churches, organizing them, giving regulations to his successors for the development and propagation of Christ’s message. Since it was a question of future events, both Jesus and the Apostles, Pasch in speaking of the Parousia, employed the prophetic style, characteristic of which is the lack of tense distinction and the presentation of far-removed events as close and united to one another. Each man’s death is followed by his meeting with Christ his Judge; when, therefore, the Apostles exhort to vigilance in anticipation of the com­ ing of Christ, they are referring to this private judgment. Moreover, they had lived with Christ not much longer than two years and had only fully understood Him after He had risen and returned to heaven. The intense desire of Him, of seeing Him again, had its influence on the Apostles who reverted to the thought of the glorious return of that Christ whom they had seen Victim of the hatred of men. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allo, L’Apocalypse (Paris, 1933), pp. CXIXCXLIH. Billot, La Parottsie (Paris, 1920). Cavalla, “Il tempo della Parusia nel pensiero di San Paolo,” Scuola Cattolica, 65 (1937), pp. 443-480. Prat, The Theology of St. Paul, trans. Stoddard, 2 vols. (Westminster, 19261927). See Analytical Summary: “The Last Ends," at the end of Vol. 2, p. 503. participation. See analogy. Pasch (or Passover). One of the three great liturgical solemnities, to­ gether with Pentecost and the Feast of the Tents (or Tabernacles), by which the Jewish people commem­ orated the benefits received from God whether in the order of nature or of grace in the course of its unsettled history. The Hebrew name for Easter is Pesach; in Aramaic, Paschàh, whence the Latin Pascha and the English Pasch. The verb root Psch (Pàsach) means “to hop over,” “pass heyond” (hence the English name Passover), the festival having been instituted in memory of the survival of the firstborn of the Hebrews during the tenth plague in Egypt, when the exterminating angel “passed over.” passibility of Christ 210 i.e., spared the Hebrew houses passibility of Christ. See Docetism, marked with the blood of the lamb propassions. (Exod. 12:13, 23> 27). The Feast lasted from the four­ passion of Christ. The pains and teenth to the twenty-first of the sufferings, taken as a whole, sustained month of Nisan (March-April), dur­ by Christ in His soul and body, es­ ing which time special sacrifices were pecially in the last days of His life, offered in the Temple. The first and which terminated in the tragedy of last days were full holydays with rest the cross. from work (Exod. 12; Lev. 23:1-14). Errors: Docetism, from the first On the fourteenth each head of a century, which denied the physical family brought a lamb or kid to the reality of Christ’s body by reducing it Temple, bled it, and sprinkled its to an appearance. Aphthartodocetism blood on the altar, burning the fat; (in the fifth century) of Monophysitic upon his return home he roasted the origin (qq.v.), which predicated of animal on a cruciform spit formed Christ an incorruptible body. Based by two pieces of wood, in order not on these theories, many thought that to break the bones. After sunset there the passion and the physical pain of followed the great Paschal supper, dur­ Jesus were a miracle. The Theoing which the lamb was eaten with paschites went to the opposite excess unleavened bread and bitter herbs, to by attributing passibility to the the accompaniment of prayers and in­ Divinity Itself. The Church, con­ structions. The partakers were obliged demning all these errors, has always to be in the required condition of taught, on the basis of revelation that legal purity. Every fragment of meat the Redeemer’s humanity is altogether remaining was religiously burned. like our own, sin excepted, as St. During the Paschal week only azymes Paul says (Heb. 2:17; Phil. 2:6 ff.), (unleavened bread) was used — hence and therefore: (a) like us, He had the name of “Feast of the Azymes” sensible passions, except for any dis­ used in the Gospels. order in them (see propassions)·, In later times the Feast was very (b) He felt real and proper pain and much elaborated. The Paschal Lamb sufferings of the flesh, i.e., had a became a real, true sacrifice and rep­ perfect passibility; (c) although the resented the immolation of Christ (1 passion of the humanity is proper to Cor. 5:7, where Pascha indicates the Word, it does not at all affect the metonymically the “Lamb”; 1 Pet. Divinity, which remains absolutely 1:19; cf. John 19:33-36). The Paschal impassible. banquet in which Israel renewed its To prove the truth and reality of pact with God was a figure of the the pain and of all the passion of Eucharistic banquet (1 Cor. 10:17). Christ, it suffices to read the Gospel Jesus Christ instituted the Eucharist which speaks in realistic language precisely at the end of the last Paschal of His weariness (John 4:6), His supper of His life. hunger and thirst (Matt. 4:2; John 19:29), His mortal sadness to the BIBLIOGRAPHY point of sweating blood. In the Old Aherne, “Pasch or Passover,” CE. Dembitz, Testament, the Messias was prophesied Jewish Services in Synagogue and Home (Philadelphia, 1898). Esterley, Box, Religion as the “Man of sufferings or sorrows.” and Worship of the Synagogue (London, St. Thomas demonstrates that the 1907). Kortleitner, /Irchaeologia biblica suffering of Jesus Christ, propor­ (Oeniponte, 1927), pp. 256-267. Lesêtre, tionately to His infinite love, was "Pâque," DBV. penalty 211 maximum both extensively and in­ tensively; nevertheless, His soul, even during the passion, continued to enjoy the beatific vision in the intellective faculty, like a mountaintop that basks in the sun while the roaring tempest batters its flanks. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 46. Jug if., Julien d’Halicarnasse et Severe d’An­ tioche (Paris, 1925). The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 440-476. Patripassianism. See modalism; mbnarchianism. Pelagianism. A great heresy of the fifth century, diffused chiefly in the Western Churches by the Breton monk, Pelagius, who came to Rome about 400, where he met Rufinus, a disciple of Theodore of Mopsuestia (see Nestorianism) and a disclaimer of the transmission of original sin (q.v.). Quickly Pelagius followed this trend, helped in the propagation of his ideas by his loquacious disciple Celestius. The Pelagian heresy can be reduced to a naturalistic system on the an­ thropological level, to the prejudice of the supernatural: it has also a Stoic tint in its exaltation of man’s moral strength against evil. Its basic principles are: (e) The sin committed by Adam injured or harmed him alone and in no wise is it transmitted to his descendants by generation. (Z>) Babies are born in the identically same condition in which Adam was before his sin: hence they are innocent and friends of God. (r) Babies, even non­ baptized, reach eternal life. (J) Man, with his natural forces and his free will, can avoid all sin and win the beatific vision, (e) Grace, as an entity intrinsic to man, does not exist, nor is it necessary; grace is Christ’s ex­ ample, the law, and free will itself, (f) The Redemption is not a regeneration of man in his soul vivified by grace, but is rather the call for a higher life to be won by one’s own efforts. Pelagianism is bent on destroying the whole supernatural order. St. Augustine immediately saw the grav­ ity of the danger and joined battle without truce for the defense of the Christian truth, first against Pelagius and Celestius, who had gone to Africa, and then against Julian, Bishop of Eclana, who had system­ atized the Pelagian error. Through the work of St. Augustine the heresy was condemned in 418 in a great Council at Carthage, approved by Pope Zozimus, who briefed its defi­ nitions in an “epistula tractoria" which was sent to all the churches. Julian of Eclana, together with seven­ teen other Italian bishops, refused to endorse the pontifical letter, and went in exile into the East, to join Theodore of Mopsuestia. Pelagianism was con­ demned also in the Council of Ephesus, together with Nestorianism (431), and in the II Council of Orange (529, DB, tot ff., 126 ff., 174 ff.). BIBLIOGRAPHY Cayré, Manual of Patrology, trans. Howitt, Vol. I (Paris, Tournai, Rome, 1936), pp. 39X394. De Plinval, Pelage (Lausanne, 1943). Gaudel, “Péché originel,” DTC. Hedde, Amann, “Pélagianisme," DTC. Pohle, "Pela­ gians and Pelagianism,” CE. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, VII Grace (Actual and Habitual) (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 82-96. Warfield, Two Studies in the History of Doctrine: Augustine and the Pelagian Controversy; The Development of the Doctrine of Infant Salva­ tion (New York, 1897). See under Semi-Pelagianism. penalty (Gr. ποινή). The privation of a good which the rational creature undergoes involuntarily on account of its own guilt. Penalty is therefore an evil (malum poenae), which stems from another evil (malum culpae). Although evil (q.v.), being a priva- penance 212 tion or lack of good, follows naturally the lot of every finite good, yet we know from revelation that God had created man in such a state that, had he not sinned, he would not have suffered evil. As a consequence of original sin, evil has invaded the world under the form of sin and of punishment. Punishment is divided into concom­ itant and inflicted: the former stems naturally from guilt and accompanies it, e.g., remorse or loss of honor; the second is imposed by the judge (God or man) in relationship to guilt. More­ over, the punishment inflicted may be medicinal or vindictive, according as the judge threatens to inflict it {poena comminata) to keep man away from guilt, or actually inflicts it to re­ establish the violated order. In the­ ology, the punishment inflicted by God on him who dies obstinate in grave guilt is subdivided into poena damni (pain of loss: loss of God) and poena sensus (pain of sense: posi­ tive suffering inflicted by God) (see hell; damned). Justice forbids that punishment be inflicted for guilt that is not voluntary on the part of the individual’s own will: therefore babies who die unbaptized are deprived of the beatific vision {poena damni), but will not be punished positively like the demons and the damned {poena sensus). Juridically, the penalty is in propor­ tion to crime, which the CIC (Can. 2195) defines as: “an external viola­ tion, morally imputable, of a law pro­ vided with a canonical sanction, at least undetermined.” The penal sanc­ tion belongs to the coercive power of a perfect society such as is the Church. The penalties established by the Church are multiple and all aim principally at the good of the de­ linquent and at the common good of the Christian family. In the old dis­ cipline there were corporal penalties also. Nowadays the spiritual penalty prevails. There are three categories of ecclesiastical penalties: 1. Medicinal penalties or censures are inflicted especially on the con­ tumacious for the purpose of bringing about their repentance. They are: {a) excommunication, by which one who is guilty of an external crime is sep­ arated from the communion of the faithful; {b) interdict, which is in­ flicted on persons and things and which involves privation of some sacraments, or in general of some sacred thing; (c) suspension, which is inflicted on clerics only and in­ volves privation of an office or benefice. 2. Vindictive penalties are inflicted for the purpose of expiation, e.g., privation of Christian burial, deposi­ tion or degradation of a priest. 3. Penal remedies and penances, like warning, surveillance, the rec­ itation of certain prayers, spiritual exercises. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I-II, q. 87. Billot, De personali et originali peccato (Rome, 1924), p. 77 ff. Code of Canon Latu, Book 5. Gans, “Censures (Ecclesiastical)," CE. Ortolan, "Censures Ecclesiastiques," DTC. Roberti, De delictis et poenis (Rome, 1929). penance (Lat. poenitere — to repent). The sacrament in which the priest, the representative of God, remits sins committed after baptism. Jesus Christ instituted it on the day of the Resur­ rection when, breathing on His Apostles, He said: “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they arc retained” (John 20:22-23). The ex­ pression “forgive sins” signifies a total pardon of sin, in so far as sin is an offense against God. By virtue of these words of universal character, the Church has defined that the power conferred by Christ is not only all inclusive, i.e., having no limitations of any kind either with respect to the 213 number or to the gravity of the sins (against the Montanists of the sec­ ond century, and the Novatians of the third century), but is also un­ susceptible of being twisted in any way from its natural meaning or con­ torted to signify the power of preach­ ing and baptizing (against Luther), or of declaring sins remitted (against Calvin), or of attenuating their pun­ ishment (against the Anglicans. Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 14, DB, 894, 912, 913, 919, 920). From the same words it is deduced also that the power conferred on the Apostles and their successors is of a judicial nature. Since, in fact, this power can be applied in two positive and opposite acts ( the act of remitting or the act of retaining), it involves knowledge of the cause of the de­ linquent and a judgment on the sub­ ject, whereby that power may be, in a concrete case, determined to the one or the other of the two acts, to which it is of itself indifferent. Hence, this judicial power can be exercised only by the pronouncement of a sentence after an objective evaluation of the penitent’s cause and in accord with divine law, which establishes that pardon be granted to the sincerely repentant sinner who confesses his sin and agrees to make condign satisfac­ tion for it. Therefore, the elements constitutive of the sacramental rite of penance are the sentence of the judge or absolution (form) and the three acts of the sinner: contrition, confes­ sion, satisfaction (matter) (qq.v.). The absolution, which determines sacramentally the three acts of the penitent, restores sanctifying grace to him. In other words, the sinner re­ covers in this sacrament adoptive sonship, the benevolence of the Fath­ er, who, having put on him again the “first robe” of justification, readmits the new prodigal son into His house, restoring his lost rights to him. How­ ever, the measure of this restitution of penance primitive rights, i.e., the reviviscence of merits (iura ad premium gloriae), corresponds to the fervor with which the penitent rises from his fall, ac­ cording to the axiom “God gives Himself in proportion to the fervor He finds in us.” Connected with the restoration of the supernatural organ­ ism is the new orientation which the sacramental grace impresses on it: an increase of the virtue of penance and of the helps of actual grace, through which the penitent’s soul finds itself under the constant impetus of an inclination (the spirit of pen­ ance) which, if supported by his docility, is able to make him ascend to the highest peaks of sanctity. The ascent toward the rcconquest of spir­ itual integrity is rendered easier by the readmission of the healed member to the participation of the goods of the Communion of Saints. Further­ more, the Church, like the mother who is more merciful according to the greater need of her child, showers more abundantly the treasures of the merits of Christ, the Virgin, and the saints, on the spiritually more needy member, especially, by the granting of indulgences (q.v.). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, qq. 84-90; Suppl., qq. 1-28. D'Alès, De sacramento Paenitentiae (Paris, 1926). Boyer, De Paenitentia et Extrema Unctione (Rome, 1942). Doronzo, De Poenitentia, 4 vols. (Milwaukee, 1949-). The first volume treats directly of pen­ ance as a sacrament and as a virtue. Galtier, De Paenitentia (Paris, 1931); Le péché et la pénitence (Paris, 1929); L’Eglise et la rémission des péchés (Paris, 1932); “Pénitence,” DTC. Hanna, "Penance,” CE. Jenkins, The Doctrine and the Practice of Auricular Confession (London. 1783). O’Don­ nell. Penance in the Early Church (Dublin, 1907). Palmieri. De Poenitentia (Prati, 1896). PiOLANTi, De sacramentis, Vol. 1 (Rome, 1945) . Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, X The Sacraments, Vol. 3, Penance (St. Louis, 1946) . The Teaching of the Catholic Church, cd. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 955-989. Wiseman, Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic Church (London, 1844). The teaching of the Catholic perfection 214 Church on the sacrament of penance was particularly attacked by H. Ch. Lea, Λ History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences in the Latin Church, 3 vols. (Philadelphia, 1896). perfection. Etymologically, perfect stems from the Latin perficere (finish, do through to the end), and means “completely done.” But, if we pre­ scind from action, which renders a thing perfect, perfection may be con­ sidered simply as full possession of act, i.e., as actuality in opposition to the potential or the virtual state. In this sense God is infinitely perfect, because He is Pure Act, Being sub­ sisting by essence, who does not admit of any limitation or any evolution to further acquisition. Every perfection is a mode of being: where there is subsisting being, all perfections are in act. Since good­ ness is that to which beings tend as to their proper perfection, the most perfect Being, God, is the highest Good, Goodness Itself, source and end of all finite good. St. Thomas (Summa Theol., I, q. 4, a. 4) writes: “All things are said to be good with the divine goodness, because it is the exemplary, effective, and final prin­ ciple of all goodness.” Plato asserted the primacy of goodness, hence the dialectics of love (cf., e.g., the Symposium). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 4. Garrigou-Lacrange, God: His Existence and His Nature, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 19471948); The One God, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1943), pp. 229-235. Peter Parente, De Deo Uno (Rome, 1938), p. 193 ff. PohlePreuss, Dogmatic Theology, 1 God: Knotuahility, Essence, Attributes (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 180-190, 241-264. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 85-88. Perrone. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 303). perseverance, final. A great gift of God by which man, at the moment of death, is in the state of sanctifying grace and, therefore, is saved. Ac­ tually, perseverance refers primarily to the process of living under the influx of God’s grace. Man, clad with sanctifying grace, given the weakness of his nature marred by original sin and the devil’s attacks, is always in danger of losing God’s friendship by succumbing to temptation, notwith­ standing his resolution to the con­ trary. There is not in this life a fixed state of the soul in grace that, as in the case of the blessed, makes relapse into sin impossible. With fine psy­ chological sense, St. Thomas (Summa Theol., 1—II, q. 109, a. 8, 9) presents the explanation: As sanctifying grace heals the mind but does not nullify concupiscence, there arise in man sud­ den and unexpected movements of the passions, which the mind — not always vigilant and alert — is not al­ ways successful in dominating for a continuous tension is psychologically impossible. Hence guilt, which returns from time to time; we resist for a time, but soon grow weary of watch­ ing and fighting and finally capitulate deliberately. The Council of Trent expounds (sess. 6, c. 22) that man, already adorned with sanctifying grace, can­ not persevere in holiness without a special help from God. Even more — according to the same Council (c. t6), sanctified man needs a particular, divine help for final perseverance, which is the magnum donum (great gift) veiled by the mystery of pre­ destination (q.v.). The gift of final perseverance is complex, since it supposes the state of sanctifying grace and requires, in addition, a continuous influx of effi­ cacious, actual grace for the whole life, and especially at the hour of death, bristling with psychological difficulties and temptations. Besides, that gift includes timely dispositions of divine providence, joining the 215 state of grace with the exact instant of death, on which depends man’s eternal status. Surely man must col­ laborate with God by co-operating freely with His grace, in order to merit eternal salvation; but it is also certain that such a decisive moment, on which converge so many diverse elements, must lie in His hands. Man cannot be sure of final perseverance. Neither can he merit it in the true sense of the word (see merit); but he can, according to a happy expression of the Fathers, merit it by prayer {suppliciter merere). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., ΙΙ-Π, q. 137; I—II, q. 109, a. 9-10; q. 114, a. 9. St. Augustine, De dono perseverantiae (PL, 44). Michel, “Persévérance,” DTC. Newman, “Perseverance in Grace,” Discourses to Mixed Congregations (London, New York, 1906). Sollier, “Perseverance (Final),” CE. person. Boethius defines it as the “individual substance of a rational nature”; St. Thomas, more concisely and exactly, as the “distinct being, subsisting in an intellectual nature.” The best pagan philosophy (e.g., Aristotle) never explored fully the problem of person. The concept of “person” is almost exclusively Chris­ tian, for it developed in the light of the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. These mysteries sug­ gested the distinction between nature and person, which was the first con­ quest of Christian thought. The Scho­ lastics, following in the steps of the Fa­ thers, elaborated a rich doctrine with varied positions. The person is a whole, of which the nature is the basic part; in addition to the nature, it includes “individuating principles” which stem from matter, accidents, and individual existence, putting the individuated nature outside of its causes and in the world of reality. If this individuated and distinedy subsisting nature is rational, it is called a person; if irra­ person tional or even inanimate, it is termed a suppositum. Which of these ele­ ments, however, is formally and definitively constitutive of person as such? This problem has been given various solutions: subsistence has been called the formal characteristic of per­ son, but the schools differ as to the negative or positive mode of inter­ preting this subsistence. 1. Negative: Scotus maintains that subsistence or personality is incom­ munication (a nature in that it does not communicate with another); Tiphanius, taking up again this opin­ ion, tries to give it a positive content by saying that subsistence is the totality, or state of completeness, of a nature in itself. 2. Positive: Some theologians (Cajetan, Suarez) reduce subsistence to a substantial mode, which would ter­ minate the nature; others (Capreolus, many moderns) reduce it to the ac­ tual existence, i.e., to the very act of existing, proper to a substance. This last opinion is preferable on account of its simplicity and greater adherence to the definitions of the Church mag­ isterium. For example, in the Incarna­ tion the human nature of Christ is not a person, because it does not have its own existence or act of existing, but subsists by virtue of the divine act of existence of the Word, thus participating in the Word’s divine personality. Modern philosophy tends to hold that person is constituted by self-consciousness; against this opin­ ion there are both philosophical and theological difficulties. Consciousness of the ego presupposes existence of the ego; consequently it reveals the ego, but does not constitute it. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 29, a. 1—2. Geddes, “Person," CE. Peter Parente, La genesi cristiana della personalita (Rome, 1933); De Verho Incarnato (Rome, 1938). PohlePreuss, Dogmatic Theology, II The Divine Trinity (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 220-228; IV Christology (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 129-132. Petavius 216 Terrien, S. Thomae Aq. doctrina sincera de unione hypostatica (Paris, 1894). Petavius. See “Outline of the His­ tory of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 303); indwelling of the Holy Trinity. Phantasiasts. See Docetism. Pietism. A religious current founded in Germany, toward the end of the seventeenth century, by Jacob Spener (T I7°5)> following on the lead given by Jacob Bohrne, a shoemaker (f 1624). Spener proposed to awaken dormant Protestantism with a blaze of lived piety (hence the name Pietists) through the intense exercise of prayer. Thus less stress was placed upon the importance of doctrinal formulas of faith, and the Lutheran theory of extrinsic justification, as an imputation of Christ’s sanctity, gave way to the concept and the practice of a progressive, laborious conformity to Christ, the Model of perfection. Pietism was a partial repudiation of Lutheranism and a yearning for Catholicism, kindled spontaneously in those collegia pietatis instituted by Spener, like our houses of retreat and spiritual exercises. In this fervor of piety, priority was naturally given to the heart and to the emotions. Spener’s ideas were embraced and elaborated fully by August Franke (■f· 1727), who used that leaven for the rehabilitation of pedagogy and the school system, to which he de­ voted his entire life at Halle, the foyer of Pietism. But in time this move­ ment degenerated into strange forms either of the apocalyptic type, like the millenaristic sect (^.r.) of Eva Buttlar and of the Swiss Brügler (both blemished by immorality); or of the pseudohedonistic type, like the Labadists; or of the symbolistic type with a rationalistic slant, like the “New Jerusalem” sect of Emmanuel Sweden­ borg in Scandinavia. These and other degenerations have their roots in the sentimentalist subjectivism of Pietism, antidogmatic and antihierarchical. However, Pietism had efficacious in­ fluence on the various sectors of in­ tellectual and civil life: two great musicians Bach and Handel draw artistic inspiration from it in their musical compositions. In the eight­ eenth century Pietism was revived in the Confraternities of Herrnhut of Nic. Lud. Zinzendorf, with Lutheran base. BIBLIOGRAPHY Cristiani, “Réforme (Evolution du Lu­ théranisme),” DA, cols. 620-622. Fries, Die Stiftting A. H. Franke (1913). Hübener, Der Pietisnitis (1901). Lauchert, “Pietism," CE. piety. See gifts of the Holy Ghost. Pneumatomachists. See Macedo­ nians. Polycarp. See “Outline of the His­ tory of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 301). polytheism (Gr. ττολι'ς— many, and θεός— god). A religious system which admits more than one divinity. It is the antithesis of monotheism (q.v.). Many controversies have flared up among students of the history of re­ ligions, especially in modern times, about the origin of polytheism. The work of Max Muller, who is con­ sidered the founder of the scientific study of religions, is noteworthy. In the first phase of his research he thought he could tie up the origin of polytheism with a linguistic phe­ nomenon, polionymia, i.e., plurality of names, of genders, of endings, which would have favored personification of various divinities. Later he con­ nected the origin of polytheism with three sources: (1) the physical source (natural things, like stones, rivers, trees, stars, etc.); (2) the anthropolog­ ical source (domestic and social rela­ 217 tions); (3) the psychological source (consciousness of the ego in relation­ ship to the infinite). To these overspeculative theories are added those of fetishism and of animism (qq.v.), as well as astral mythology, totemism (relation between tribes and animals), Magism, etc. All these theories are in general agreement in asserting that the primitive religion was polytheistic and mythological; with the progress of civilization monotheism is said to have developed gradually. But a direct and accurate study of the facts has led to the discovery of a worship of a supreme being, which is found more or less in all primitive peoples. The supreme being or great god is represented as creator of all, even of inferior spirits or divinities, as omnipotent, immense, just. This fact, quite constant and uniform in the most ancient peoples, shows that monotheism is prior to polytheism, and that the latter is a degeneration of the former. This truth is also contained in Holy Scripture (cf. Wisdom, Romans), which describes the guilty aberration of man, who, although knowing the Supreme Being, dared to turn his mind and heart from Him and form for himself absurd divinities, per­ sonifying objects, plants, and animals. BIBLIOGRAPHY Chantepie de la Saussaye, Manuel d'his­ toire des religions (Paris, 1909). Macnin, “Religion," DTC. Pinard de la Boullaye, L'étude comparée des religions, 3 vols. (Paris, 1929), Vol. I, Ch. I. Pohle-Preuss, Dog­ matic Theology, I God: Knowability, Essence, Attributes (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 217-223. See under God; monotheism. pontiff, Roman. See Roman pontiff. “Pontifical, Roman.” See liturgy. pope (Gr. πάπας— father). The name Tradition has reserved for the Bishop of Rome, who, as successor of St. Peter, is the heir of the primacy over pope the entire Church (see primacy of St. Peter; Roman pontiff). By virtue of this prerogative, for twenty cen­ turies the pope has been the greatest reality at the center not only of Roman but of world history (Urbis et Orbis). “After Constantine turned the Roman eagle around and made him fly counter to heaven’s course” (as Dante expresses it in the Divina Commedia, Paradiso, 6, 1-2), trans­ ferring to the Bosphorus his glorious nest, Rome, having become the coveted objective of so many bar­ barians, adventurers, and conquerors, would quite soon have become a rubble heap of proud ruins, had not her Bishop made himself her de­ fender. From St. Leo the Great to the present Holy Father, the pope, by spontaneous and universal recognition of the nations, has been greeted de­ fensor Urbis (defender of the City). The world (orbis), in its turn, consciously or unconsciously gravi­ tates around the Vicar of Christ. The Christian world is constituted, strengthened, and defended by the papacy. From Rome, as from a luminous focus, beam forth the rays which disperse the darkness of paganism and barbarism and extend the zone of divine influences. Ireland (truly the first-born of the Church), the Franks, the Germans, the Scandinavian countries, the Slavs en­ ter the luminous orbit of the cross because the pope entrusted to Patrick, to Boniface, to Ansgar and Willibrord, to Cyril and Methodius, the missio canonica which made them authentic heralds of the Gospel. Having made Europe Christian, the pope unified and stabilized it by creating the Holy Roman Empire, which even in its degeneration served to assure the sense of unity and universality to the world of the Middle Ages. When the Moslem threat, the arrogance of rebel princes, and the seething heresies fixed the wedge to split the great porter’s office 218 block of Christianity, the pope de­ clared Crusades, fulminated excom­ munications, assembled councils. After the fever of nationalism and the rebellion of Martin Luther (real paralysis of Christianity) threw Chris­ tian Europe into confusion and dis­ order; after Jansenism and Gallican­ ism did their best to split the inner structure of the Church, the papacy, in addition to its strong condemna­ tions of the seventeenth and eight­ eenth centuries, convoked the Vatican Council for the purpose of neutral­ izing once and for all the last germs dissolvent of ecclesiastical unity. Thus, entirely centered in its visible head, the Church, having given all she could to the Christian world, now as never before turns her maternal eyes toward the world of paganism, confidently hoping for an abundant compensation for the defection of so many among her children. BIBLIOGRAPHY Batiffol, Cathedra Petri (Paris, 1928). Cotter, Theologia Fundamentalis (Weston, 1940), pp. 383-407. Hergenrother, Catholic Church and Christian State (London, 1876). Joyce, "Pope," CE. Martin, "Pape,” DTC. Mourret, La Papauté (Paris, 1929). Pucci, Il Vescovo di Roma nella vita della Chiesa (Turin, 1943). Rivington, The Primitive Church and the See oj Peter (London, 1894). The Teaching oj the Catholic Church, cd. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 716-721. See under Roman pontiff. porter’s office. See ostiariate. positivism. Rather than a system it is a tendency of thought, which de­ veloped in the past century as a reaction to the currents of idealism. Against the subjectivistic construc­ tions of idealism and sentimentalistic dreams of romanticism, its ally, there arose toward the end of the nine­ teenth century a positive current of thought which preferred experience to theory, sensation to abstract concept, and fact to principle. It was a strong summons to minds to come down from lofty speculations to the con­ crete reality of nature and human life, under the impulse of the practical sciences, which had an extensive de­ velopment in that epoch. Positivism has its remote roots in English empiricism of the seventeenth century (Locke) and in the French sensism of Condillac; but its proximate roots are found in Kantian criticism, which had depreciated knowledge in the metaphysical zone (noumenon) to the advantage of the empirical or phenomenical zone. Confining themselves to the fact and the world of senses, the positivists draw close to material­ ism, but detach themselves from it by admitting the possibility of a supersense reality, e.g., God. The ma­ terialist denies it; the positivist is an agnostic in that he says he is ignorant as long as he is not able to dem­ onstrate it empirically. The founder of positivism in France was Auguste Comte (ψ 1857), a man of genius but lacking balance, who pivoted his system on the theory of the three stages: the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive, which mark the steps in the progress of humanity from naïve imagination, to abstract reasoning, to the direct knowledge of nature, in which dominate the phenomenon with its laws — object of experience. Human life itself is reduced to a complex of phenomena and of social and indi­ vidual physical laws. There is no God above nature, but only humanity, the great being, to which worship should be given. In England, positivism takes on a more scientific and practical cast with Herbert Spencer (-f- 1903), who adopts the evolutionistic theory and applies it to cosmology, anthropology, sociology, and ethics. According to Spencer, there is in the universe an unknowable which science and re­ ligion must respect, contenting them­ pragmatism 219 selves with knowing the facts and leaving the mysteries aside. The posi­ tivistic current in England manifests itself also in the utilitarianism of G. Bentham (φ 1832) and of Stuart Mill (j- 1873); in France, in the empirical sociology of E. Durkheim (Ÿ 1917), which reduces psychology, ethics, and religion to social facts and products. Finally, positivism took root in Italy also, especially through the work of Roberto Ardigo ( j" 1920), but in a bland form, neither very philosophical nor very scientific, adapted to men of mediocre stature, little solicitous about the great prob­ lems that transcend daily life. The disagreement between positivism and Christian philosophy and theology is evident. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allievo, Del Positivisme (Turin, 1883). De Broglie, Le Positivisme et la science ex­ périmentale (Paris, 1881). Roure, “Positiv­ isme,” DA. Sauvage, “Positivism,” CE. Turner, History of Philosophy (Boston, 1903). virtue went out from him, and healed all” (Luke 6:19). Jesus healed the deaf-mute by touching his ears with His fingers and his tongue with saliva (Mark 7:32). Such gestures would be a comedy unworthy of Jesus if His humanity did not contribute really to the miraculous cure. The Fathers are unanimous in the same teaching: the fruits of the Redemption pass through the flesh of the Word, which Cyril of Alexandria calls vivifying (JDB, 123). According to the common teaching, the sacraments themselves are sub­ ordinated to the sanctifying power of the humanity of Christ. But there is discussion on the nature of this in­ strumental function of both the hu­ manity of Christ and the sacraments; some theologians prefer physical in­ strumentality (more consonant with Tradition); others, a simply moral instrumentality. St. Thomas stands for the physical. BIBLIOGRAPHY power of Christ. Three powers are distinguished in the incarnate Word: (1) the divine power (omnipotence) which belongs to Him as God; (2) the power proper to every human nature, which belongs to Him as per­ fect Man; (3) an instrumental power of divine origin, which is exercised, however, with the concourse of the human nature, according to the exigencies of the redeeming mission of the Saviour. It is evident that omnipotence cannot be communicated to the humanity of Christ, because it belongs properly and exclusively to an infinite Being. But it is theolog­ ically certain that humanity has con­ curred and still does concur in cer­ tain communicable divine actions, like working miracles, producing and in­ fusing grace in souls. The gospel descriptions leave no doubt in this matter: “And all the multitude sought to touch him, for St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, qq. 8 and 48. Hugon, La causalité instrumentale dans l’ordre surnaturel (Paris, 1924), Ch. 3. Peter Parente, De Verbo Incarnato (Rome, 1939), p. 221 ff. power of jurisdiction. See hierarchy. power of orders. See hierarchy. pragmatism (Gr. πράγμα — action, deed). A philosophico-religious system which began in America toward the end of the nineteenth century, mainly through the works of Charles Sanders Peirce and especially of William James, who is considered the true founder and popularizer of the new theory. Begun as a method, prag­ matism developed into a doctrine and a system which can be defined in general as a tendency to consider everything from the practical view­ point, i.e., in terms of action, seeking in action itself the reason of truth and prayer 220 certainty, of life and religion. The starting point of pragmatism is the devaluation of the theoretical world of ideas; ideas have no value of them­ selves, but are considered only in function of action. In order to act and accomplish, man needs a con­ viction, a belief; the ideas must, there­ fore, converge toward a belief which is to become the principle of action. If in the course of action it is seen that an idea helps, then it will be said that it is true. The truth of an idea depends on its practical verification. This is the so-called scientific method of the pragmatists in opposition to the intellectualistic methods in the search of truth. Thus it appears clear that for the pragmatists there exists no immutable or eternal truth: truth, on the contrary, develops itself and is in continual flux of becoming, like action itself, which is the purpose of life. In the religious field pragmatism rejects all external revelation of truth and all conceptual systems, limiting itself to the consideration of indi­ vidual religious feeling and cofisciousness, called by the technical term of religious experience. Through this experience the individual feels the divine and elevates himself to God by an act of faith, which is pure will to believe (not adhesion of the in­ tellect to revealed truths) and tend­ ency to verify the utility and ad­ vantage of believing. This act of faith may appropriate to itself even a previously formed religion such as Christianity, but only provisionally and in so far as such religion proves itself useful and efficacious in prac­ tice. Theoretic discussions of prin­ ciples are useless in the field of re­ ligion just as they are useless in philosophy. Pragmatism is an antimetaphysical system because it is anti-intellectualistic (basically it is sensism, which goes back to the English empiricism of Locke and Hume). Viewed as a critique of knowledge, it falls into disastrous relativism by denying the first logical principles and the stability of truth with correspondingly disastrous re­ percussions in the moral field. Good­ ness and truth become something subjective, subordinated to convictions of the individual and his experimental tests. From a religious viewpoint prag­ matism is a radical denial of all re­ vealed religion and makes God’s very existence conditioned by psychological experience, which is an exaltation of the will against reason. Pragmatism stems especially in the matter of re­ ligion, from the Lutheran principle of fiducial faith (see Lutheranism). BIBLIOGRAPHY Blanche, "Pragmatisme," DA. Leclère, Pragmatisme, Modernisme, Protestantisme (Paris, 1909). Papini, Std Pragmatisme. Saggi e ricerche (Milan, 1913). Pratt, What Is Pragmatism (New York, 1909). Schinz, Anti­ Pragmatism (New York, 1909). Turner. "Pragmatism," CE. Walker, Theories of Knowledge (New York, 1910). prayer. Commonly defined as an elevation of the soul to God in order to express to Him our feelings and our petitions. Psychologically, prayer is an act of the intellect, whereas de­ votion is an act of the will, which gives itself readily to God’s service; both appertain to the virtue of re­ ligion, which inclines man to render due reverence and honor to God (St. Thomas). In a broad sense, any movement toward God or work doncfor Him can be called prayer. But, strictly speaking, prayer is elevation of the mind to God (subjective aspect), and request or petition (objective aspect). A divine model of prayer is the Pater Noster, dictated by Jesus, who has given an example of the con tinuous use of prayer and who has exhorted us to pray always. Prayer, as an act of religion, is a duty; but it is also a need of the 221 soul, which feels its own infirmities and indigence and turns in humility and confidence to the One who can help it. Prayer can be mental (silent) or oral (vocal). The sound of the word does not serve to communicate with God, who knows all things, but to excite our own affections. Those who admit universal fatalism or de­ terminism deny the value of prayer, rejecting the concept of a provident God. But, even when divine prov­ idence is admitted, a vexatious ques­ tion can arise: prayer, if effective, would seem to change God’s plan (which is immutable). St. Thomas maintains that ab aeterno divine prov­ idence has disposed that certain effects should be conditioned by prayer and subordinate to it, and so prayer enters together with the other elements in the design of God. The terminus proper of our prayer is God alone, the Triune God: but we pray also to the Blessed Virgin and to the saints that they may intercede for us. The efficacy of prayer depends on the divine mercy, but ordinarily it is proportionate also to the dignity of the one praying. Mary’s power of intercession is significantly called by the Fathers omnipotentia supplex. Jesus Christ as Man prayed on earth and, according to St. Paul, He con­ tinues to intercede for us in heaven. Even the sinner can and should pray the best he can; God hears his prayer not in justice but in mercy. The entire Christian liturgy bears witness to the usefulness, beauty, and necessity of prayer (see contempla­ tion; mystics'). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Sutnma Theol., II-II, q. 83. D'Ai.Ès, “Prière,” DA. Faber, Growth in Holiness (London. 1854). Fenton, The The­ ology oj Prayer (Milwaukee, 1939). Fisher, A Treatise on Prayer (London, 1885). Fonck, "Prière," DTC. Pascal Parente, The Mystical Life (St. Louis. 1946)· Index: "Prayer”; The Ascetical Life (St. Louis, 1947), Index: "Prayer." Poulain, The Grace of Interior predestination Prayer, trans. Smith (London, 1928). Wynne, "Prayer," CE. predestinarianism. A doctrine de­ rived from a misunderstanding of some expressions of St. Augustine concerning the gratuity of grace and the weakness of our free will as a consequence of original sin {q.v.). The first predestinarian was the French priest Lucidus (fifth century), who, fighting the Semi-Pelagians {q.v.), fell into rigorism as regards the doctrine of predestination. His error was repeated in the ninth cen­ tury by the monk Gottschalk, and later by Wicliffe and Huss. Luther, Calvin, and Jansenius (see Calvinism; Jansenism) accentuated the pessimistic tone of this heresy, which may be summarized as follows: {a) through original sin, man has lost his liberty, becoming a slave of concupiscence; (Z>) God does not will the salvation of all men, but only of some who are gratuitously predestined to glory and are not, therefore, obliged to co-operate with grace; {c) the actions of the predestined are neces­ sarily good, while the actions of those who are not predestined are neces­ sarily infected with sin; {d) the divine decree, which determines the eternal fate of men, precedes all considera­ tion of merits or demerits, because God creates some men for heaven and others for hell (Calvin, Inst, relig. christ., i, 3, 21); {e) Christ did not die in behalf of all men (Jansenius). The Church has condemned such errors on several occasions (cf. DB, 316, 320 ff., 816, 827). BIBLIOGRAPHY Amann, “Pridestinatianisme,” DTC. LavAUD. “Predestination (IV. La controverse au IX siècle)," DTC. Pohle, "Predestinarianism,” CE. See under predestination. predestination. The general mean­ ing is to prearrange in view of an end. In a theological sense, predestination predetermination 222 is the order or plan conceived by God to bring the rational creature to its supernatural end, which is life eternal (St. Thomas). 1. Holy Scripture: St. Paul speaks of it most insistently (Rom. 8; Eph. i), employing the term προορίζω to indicate a plan of God, which en­ visages as a whole the Christian salva­ tion of mankind (cf. Lagrange, Comm, on the Epistle to the Romans), to be effected through grace and the heavenly gifts, human co-operation, however, not being excluded. 2. Tradition culminates in St. Augustine, who, against the Pelagians, developed amply the thought of St. Paul, conceiving the idea of a cate­ gory of men, whom God, according to His will and choice, helps in such a way as to assure their salvation. To other men God grants some help, but not as efficacious as to the predestined; in fact, these are not saved. The in­ timate nature of predestination is a mystery, but none can accuse God of injustice, since original sin has made humanity a “mass of damnation,” and God, out of His sheer goodness, selects in it a group of souls pre­ destined infallibly to eternal life. Moreover, no one is damned without his own guilt (cf. De praedestinatione sanctorum; De gratia et libero arbitrio). 3. The Church has defined gratui­ tousness of predestination to grace and glory, but has condemned the predestinationism of Gottschalk, Huss, Wicliffe, Luther, and Calvin, who put those predestined to paradise and those predestined to hell on the same footing, independently of merit or demerit. 4. The theologians: St. Thomas adopts substantially the teaching of St. Augustine, but smoothens some of its rough angles and tempers the question, taking into account all its elements. In the sixteenth century a violent controversy concerning the divine con­ course and knowledge flared up be­ tween Dominicans {Bannesians) and Jesuits {Molinists), which was brought before the pope, but without definitive results {Congregatio de Auxiliis). Naturally the question in­ vested, later on, the problem of pre­ destination, especially on the follow­ ing point: in predestining to eternal life does God, in His mind, take ac­ count of the meritorious co-operation of man? The Bannesians say “No” {predestination ante praevisa merita)·, some Molinists say “Yes” {predestina­ tion post praevisa merita), whereas still other Molinists (the Suarezians), stand rather for the “no” of the fol­ lowers of Bafiez. This point, however, is not the only one contested. In any system the mystery remains and per­ haps consists in the complex multi­ plicity of the elements (grace, divine knowledge, free will, etc.). Christian doctrine, however, insists on two things: {a) to be saved we must co-operate with grace; {b) no one is damned unless it be through his own fault (cf. II C. of Orange, C. of Kiersy, C. of Trent: DB, 198 ff., 316 ff., 826-827, 850). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 23. D'Alès, “Prédestination,” DA. Friethoff, Die Predestinationslehre bei Thomas von Aq. and Calvin (Freiburg, Helv., 1926). GarrigouLagrange, Predestination, trans. Rose (St. Louis); The One God, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1943), PP- 653-717· Lemonnyer, Simonin, Garrigou-Lagrange, Lavaud, “Prédestina­ tion,” DTC. Peter Parente, De Deo Uno (Rome, 1938), pp. 291-329. Pohle, “Predes­ tination,” CE. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmalie The­ ology, VII Grace {Actual and Habitual) (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 187-221. Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, trans. Vollert (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 697-730. predetermination. See concourse, divine; grace, efficacious; Bannesianism. premotion, divine. See concourse, divine. 223 presbyter (Gr. πρεσβύτερο·; — an­ cient). After the institution of the deacons {q.v.), the Acts of the Apostles mention on repeated occa­ sions the “presbyters” who, in the Church of Jerusalem, are invested with administrative functions and with a spiritual ministry. In the Council of Jerusalem they appear as making the decisions together with the Apostles (Acts 11:30; 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 20:28). St. James (5:4) says they anoint the sick (see extreme unction). Paul institutes presbyters in all the churches with powers and duties of pastors and teachers (Acts 14:23; 20:28-31) so that they may be the continuers of his apostolic mis­ sion. In some texts (Acts 20:28 with 20:17; cf. I Pet. 5:1-5) the equiva­ lence between “presbyters” and “bish­ ops” is clearly stated (see bishops), whose designation is made by Paul’s delegates, Titus and Timothy, who transmit the necessary powers by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). Probably the presbyters were simple priests who, in the churches founded by St. Paul, had care of God’s flock under the high authority of the Apostle and Founder, who was the only bishop. At Paul’s side, his dele­ gates, Titus and Timothy, have epis­ copal powers (ordination of deacons and presbyters). From the beginning of the second century, the name “presbyters” is re­ served — with some few exceptions — to ecclesiastical persons, inferior to bishops. Even today presbyters are commonly called priests. BIBLIOGRAPHY Auffroy, “Sacerdoce catholique,” DA. Boudinhon, "Priest," CE. Manning, The Eternal Priesthood (London, 1883). Michel, “Prêtre,” DTC; “Prêtresse," DTC. Moberley, Ministeri­ al Priesthood (London, 1897). Pohle, “Priest­ hood," CE. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, XI The Sacraments, Vol. 4, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, Matrimony (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 94-98. Ruffini, La gerarchia della Chiesa prescience negli Atti degli Apostoli e nelle lettere di S. Paolo (Rome, 1921), pp. 67-90. Sanday, Conception of Priesthood (London, 1898). The Teaching of the Catholic Church, cd. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 10221061. See under hierarchy; orders, holy; priest­ hood of Christ. prescience (foreknowledge). The knowledge of future things attributed to God. Future is that which is con­ tained virtually in its own cause with a relationship or tendency to be realized by it. This relationship to real existence is not found in the concept of “possible.” The “future” is: {a) necessary, if it depends on a cause determined by fixed natural law, e.g., an eclipse; {b) contingent, if it depends on a cause not deter­ mined necessarily, as is the free, future act, proper to the human will; (c) absolute or conditioned, according as it is independent or dependent on a condition. If the condition is such that it will never happen — though possibly it could — the future is called hypothetical or juturible; e.g., if Christ returned to earth to preach again before the judgment, the whole world would be converted. A famous controversy flared up in the sixteenth century between the Dominicans and the Jesuits on the divine foreknowledge. We must dis­ tinguish the fact from the manner. (1) First of all, it is a definite the­ ological principle that the creatures are not the cause of God’s knowledge, but rather the divine knowledge is the cause of the creatures — taken, however, in co-operation with the divine will. (2) It is an article of faith that God knows all things, including any kind of future events whatever (Vatican Council, sess. 3). St. Augustine, in De Civitate Dei, 5, 9, affirms: “Who does not know in anticipation all future things surely is not God.” (3) The mode or man­ ner according to which God knows presence of God 224 the future is mysterious and draws its particular difficulty from the general difficulty of the relationship between the Infinite and finite, eternity and time. The greatest difficulty lies in con­ ciliating divine prescience with hu­ man free will. Thomism (see Bannesianism) starts from God and defends His dominion even over human acts, which He foresees inasmuch as He determines them with His omnipotent will, physically moving the human will to do what He wills. Thus, the mystery vanishes as far as God is concerned, but it grows on the hu­ man side (see concourse, divine'). Molinism {q.v.) starts with man and defends free will in regard to the influence of grace and divine pre­ science, adopting the so-called middle knowledge {scientia media) in which God would know, before His will comes into play, what a man would do in this or that creatable order of things. The mystery vanishes in man, but grows in God. The Church permits discussion in the matter. Perhaps the truth is par­ tially on both sides. The mystery lies in the complexity of the elements in play: free act, which involves intel­ lect and will, divine knowledge (ex­ emplary cause), divine will (efficient cause), presentiality (see eternity). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 14, n. 13. D’AlÈs, Providence et libre arbitre (Paris, 1927). Garrigou-Lagrange, God: His Ex­ istence and His Nature, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1947-1948); Providence, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1947). presence of God. It may be con­ sidered with reference to place or to time. In regard to place, God is pres­ ent contemporaneously everywhere be­ cause of His infinity and immensity (see infinity). But, as St. Thomas remarks {Summa C. Gent., IV, 68), God is everywhere not in the way a body extends itself into the space, i.e., having one part here and one part there, but by reason of His simplicity He is in the entire universe and entirely in each part of it. The base or reason of this omnipresence is His action: God is present in every creature inasmuch as He acts (con­ serving its being, moving it in its operation). And since the action and the essence of God are identical, where He acts, there He is, wholly and essentially. With reference to time, God is actually present to all its moments (past, present, future) because He is eternal (see eternity), and as such He transcends and dominates all time. This is His natural omnipresence, expressed by the Scholastics in three formulas: per potentiam, in so far as He op­ erates in all things; per praesentiam, in so far as He is eternal and sees all things, according to the words of Holy Scripture omnia nuda et aperta sunt oculis eius (Heb. 4:13); per essentiam, because in Him action and essence are identical. In addition to this presence which is called subjective, God is present objectively in every intellect which knows Him and in every will which loves Him. Finally, God makes Him­ self present in a special way in the human soul sanctified by grace {su­ pernatural presence), which becomes, therefore, the temple of God (St. Paul). But even here the basic reason of His presence is a divine action in the creature. It is, however, undeni­ able that God makes Himself present in the sanctified soul also as the object of supernatural faith and love, pend­ ing and in preparation for the beatific vision, of which the life of grace is a prelude (see mission, divine; indwell­ ing of the Holy Trinity). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 8; q. 43, a. 3 and 6. Devine, "Presence of God,” CE. Garrigou-Lagrange, The One God, trans. 225 Rose (St. Louis, 1943), pp. 253-267. SerSt. Thomas d’Aquin (Paris, 1925), Vol. 1, p. 195 ff. Tyrrell, Hard Sayings (London, 1898). See under indwelling of the Holy Trinity. tillanges, Presence, Real, Eucharistic (fact). A dogma of Catholic faith that under the species of bread and wine, once consecration has been performed, the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ are really present. This truth, being above the powers of reason and foreign to experience, can be admitted only on the basis of divine revelation. God has revealed this mystery to us in three facts narrated in the New Testament which are forged together like the rings in a chain: the promise, the institution, and the celebration of the Eucharist in the nascent Church. The promise is related by St. John. Jesus, climaxes, as it were, the three miracles He had just wrought (the multiplication of the loaves, the walk­ ing on the waves, and the preter­ natural landing of the boat), by ele­ vating the thoughts of His audience to a spiritual bread, which is identical with His own flesh, not subject to nature’s law, and which, when eaten, has the effect of bringing souls to the portals of eternal life. The most salient words are: “Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed” (6:54—56). Jesus spoke so clearly that the dis­ ciples declared they could not accept the content of His words, whereas St. Peter, as spokesman for the Apostles and expressing, in its germ as it were, the faith of the whole Church, cried out: “We have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God” (John 6:70). Presence, Real Engraved upon the souls of the Twelve, the words of the promise are the natural background against which the scene of the Last Supper (the institution) is set. When Christ took the bread and said: “This is my Body,” and, holding the chalice of wine in His hands, added, “This is my Blood” (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-23; Luke 22:19-20; i Cor. 11:24-25), the Apostles in the actions and words of their Master immedi­ ately recognized the fulfillment of the promise made at Capharnaum. Obe­ dient to His command “Do this for a commemoration of me,” the Apos­ tles immediately after Pentecost be­ gan the celebration of the Eucharist at Jerusalem (Acts 2:42), at Troas (Acts 20:7-11), at Corinth; it was precisely in this last city that those disorders came about which provoked St. Paul’s letter, in which the faith of the nascent Church is, as it were, photographed in the act of its normal exercise (cf. 1 Cor. 10:14-21; I1:i7~34)· Tradition walks firmly in the path traced by the Apostolic faith: the first Christian generations adhered to the Real Presence as to the funda­ mental cell of dogma and piety. The Doctors of the fourth and fifth cen­ turies made it the subject of their catecheses, homilies, and discussions, and used it as a foundation and sure premise in settling Trinitarian, Christological, and ecclesiological con­ troversies, which were then stirring in the bosom of Christianity. From the sixth to the tenth centuries the Church transmitted to the new peoples re­ generated unto Christ the torch of eucharistie faith, which was taken up with such sincere enthusiasm that when, in the eleventh century, Berengarius (Ϋ io88) impugned, for the first time in history, the Real Presence, the faithful rose in a body up against the heretic and constrained him to abjure his error. But while presence, real 226 Berengarius’ denial provoked a strengthening in Eucharistic faith and increased the gravitational pull of medieval civilization around the cen­ tral mystery of the Eucharist, the heresy of the Protestant sacramentarians (Zwingli, Carlstadt, Oecolampadius), who reduced the Eucharist to an empty symbol of the body of Christ, and the heresy of Calvin and the Anglicans, imagining the sacra­ ment of the altar as a bread permeated with a mysterious force emanating from the body of Jesus present in heaven only, turned many from the profession of this dogma. Against these errors the Council of Trent (sess. 13) defined that in the Eucharist “is contained truly, really, and substan­ tially the body, the blood, the soul, and the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ,” and condemned those who asserted Him “as present in sign or figure or only virtually” (DB, 883). As regards the way, mode, and condition of the Real Presence, see transubstantiation; presence, real, eu­ charistie (mode')·,eucharistie accidents. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 65, a. 1. Batiffol. Etudes d’histoire et de théologie positive (Eucharistie) (Paris, 1903). Connell, De sacramentis (Brugis, 1933), pp. 176-192. Doronzo, De Eucharistia, Vol. 1 (Milwaukee, 1948), pp. 173-224. Goossens, Les origines de /'Eucharistie (Gembloux, 1931). Lebreton, “Eucharistie." DA. Piolanti, De sacramentis, Vol. 2 (Rome, 1945). Pohle, “Eucharist," CE. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, IX The Sacraments, Vol. 2, The Holy Eucharist (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 10-87. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance, trans, from the second German edition (St. Louis, 1913). Ruch, Bareille, Bour, Vernet, De Ghellinck, Mangenot, Godefroy, "Eucharistie,” DTC. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 863872. Wiseman. Lectures on the Real Presence (London, 1842). presence, real, eucharistie (mode). The mode or manner of the eucharistie presence of the body of Christ, considered in itself (ab­ solute mode) and in its relationship to the sensible species (relative mode), is essentially bound up with tran­ substantiation. This action, since it is effected between two substances to the absolute exclusion of the accidents which remain unvaried, has, as its proper term and objective, the sub­ stance of the body and blood of Christ; therefore, directly, i.e., by virtue and force of the words of con­ secration (vi verborum), only the sub­ stance of the body of Christ is present under the species of bread, and only the substance of His blood, under the species of wine. But since in Christ, after His resurrection, body, blood, soul, and divinity are inseparably united by virtue and force of natural concomitance or co-existence (vi naturalts concomitantiae), the whole of Christ is present under each species, as the Council of Trent defines (DB, 885), with all its quantity as befits a body that enjoys the fullness of sensitive life. But, since directly and per se, only the substance of the body and of the blood is present, quantity, which is present by consequence and per accidens, is bound to exist and to be present after the manner of sub­ stance (per modum substantiae). If, in fact, quantity were present in its proper and natural way, it would exert the pressure of its weight, ex­ tending beyond the dimensions of the host, etc., all of which is contradicted by experience, which thus confirms the conclusion logically derived from the dogma of transubstantiation. Although this mode of presence is mysterious, the human intellect can not demonstrate it to be contradictory or repugnant, since it is entirely ig­ norant of the intimate nature of the two extremes on which this marvel hangs: the divine omnipotence, which is inexhaustible, and the nature of corporeal substance, which bailies the acumen of the philosopher and escapes the eye of the scientist, as is dearly 227 evidenced by the multiple conjectures formulated on the essence of bodies. Moreover, the human mind can be helped to glimpse the possibility of this mystery. The Gospel tells us that Christ’s glorious body appeared wrenched loose, as it were, from gravity and impenetrability, when He walked on the waves and penetrated into the cenacle through closed doors. Again, since Christ’s body with its quantity is present in the Eucharist after the manner of substance (which, like the soul is in the entire body and entirely in each single part of it), it follows that Christ’s body is present, whole and entire, in the whole host and in all its individual parts, both before and after the breaking or fraction of the host (as the Council of Trent defines, DB, 885). However, we cannot say that before the fraction it is present infinite times, because number depends on quantitative di­ vision and, so long as quantity re­ mains undivided, the substance of a thing is present one time only, under its dimensions. The substance of Christ’s body, too, is present in a special manner, which excludes all modes of presence that may be found in nature. It is not present through quantitative contact, because, although it has all its di­ mensions, it is not referred to the species of bread through them; nor is it present through informative or virtual contact, as the soul in its body or, respectively, an angel in a place, since Christ’s body does not act on the species as a formal or efficient cause; nor is it present by ubiquity, such as is proper to God, because the intrinsic power of the Lord’s body is limited and, therefore, cannot embrace all beings containing them in its power. But it is present by the simple and mysterious relationship of con­ tained to container, the species ac­ quiring the relationship of container with respect to the body of Christ by preternatural virtue of transubstantiation, and hence as this relationship is multiplied, the presence is multiplied. This mode of presence, mysterious and glorious at once and reserved to the body of Christ, is given a technical term sanctioned in the Council of Trent {DB, 874): “sacramental.” BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 66. Billot, De sacramentis, Vol. I (Rome), pp. 457-508. Connell, De sacramentis (Brugis, 1933), PP- 211-227. Doronzo, De Eucharistia, Vol. i (Milwaukee, 1948), pp. 384-447. PiOLANTi, De sacramentis, Vol. 2 (Rome, 1945) . Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, IX The Sacraments, Vol. 2, The Holy Eucharist (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 88-101, 129-135, 158184. Van Hove, De SS. Eucharistia (Mechliniae, 1941), pp. 47-68. Vonier, A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist (Westminster, 1946) , pp. 206-222. preternatural. That which surpasses nature, its laws and its active and passive potency or capacity. According to the Catholic doctrine, we distin­ guish between a natural and a super­ natural order {q.v.). The supernatural has various grades: the absolute su­ pernatural, which transcends all created nature, and is, in the line of substance, God Himself; in the line of accidents, e.g., grace {q.v.)·, the relative supernatural, which tran­ scends only one sector of created na­ ture, as, e.g., infused knowledge which transcends human nature but is natural in the angels; and finally, the preternatural, which, although surpassing the natural conditions of a being, is only an extraordinary perfectioning of it, as, e.g., immortality of the body, which does not transcend absolutely human nature since it is but the extraordinary prolongation of the life already existing in the body. In the state of original innocence {q.v.) sanctifying grace and the in­ fused virtues {supernatural gifts) must be distinguished from an aggre­ gate of preternatural gifts, which con­ stitute the integrity {q.v.) of human priest 228 nature (bodily immortality, infused knowledge, and immunity from concupiscence). A miracle («/.t'.) belongs to the supernatural world when the hap­ pening is miraculous in its substance, and to the preternatural world when it is miraculous only in the mode or manner in which it is performed. Finally, preternatural is customarily termed that which cannot be ex­ plained by the commonly known laws of nature, e.g., certain hypothetically diabolic phenomena, among them, according to some authors, spiritistic phenomena (see spiritism}. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bainvel, ’Nature et Surnaturel (Paris, 1920). Peter Parente, De creatione universali (Rome, 1943), p. 173 f. Verriele, Le surna­ turel en nous et le pfché originel (Paris, 1932). priest. See presbyter. priesthood of Christ. The Latin word for priest is sacerdos (sacra dans — giving holy things) and his state or office is called sacerdotium. The priest or sacerdos in the proper sense of the word is a mediator, di­ vinely constituted, who offers to God a true sacrifice in recognition of His supreme dominion and in expiation of human guilt, thus procuring for men the appeasement and friendship of God. “Priest” and “sacrifice” are correlative and are found in every religion. It is a truth of faith that Jesus Christ is a perfect Priest (Council of Ephesus and Council of Trent, sess. 23, DB, 122). Revelation is clear: “The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech” (Ps. 109:4). St. Paul in his commentary on this text (Epistle to the Hebrews) develops amply the doctrine of the priesthood of Christ, showing its excellence in comparison with the priesthood of the Old Testa­ ment, which is surpassed and abro­ gated. Christ is the holy and im­ maculate Pontiff who, by offering the sacrifice of Himself on the cross one time only, has wrought for all time the redemption of humanity from sin. Theological reason also proves that Christ is truly a Priest, because He is a perfect Mediator (see mediation) and has offered a real sacrifice (q.v.). The theologians discuss the formal constitutive reason of Christ’s priest­ hood. The most probable opinion is that Christ is Priest because of the hypostatic union, which makes Him a true Mediator. We may consider, as integrative elements of the same priesthood, sanctifying grace, which is in Christ as individual Man and as Head of the Mystical Body of the Church, as well as the designation or vocation of Christ by the Father (Heb. 5). The Catholic priesthood is a participation of the priesthood of Christ, the one true Priest, living and operating in each of His ministers. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., HI, q. 22. Grimal, The Priesthood and Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, trans. Keyes (Philadelphia, 1915). Pius XI, Encyclical Ad Catholici Sacer­ dotii (1935). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic The­ ology, V Soteriology (St. Louis, 1945), pp. 127-139. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 477-489. Thouvenin, “Jésus Christ,” DTC, cols. 1335-1342. Vosté, Studia Paulina (Rome, 1928), Ch. 6. See under presbyter. priesthood, participated. See or­ ders, holy. primacy of St. Peter. The power of jurisdiction (see hierarchy) — not of simple directive authority or of ex­ cellence or of honor — conferred by Jesus Christ on the Prince of the Apostles, by force of which he be­ came supreme head and ruler of the whole Church. The Vatican Council, defining this 229 point of doctrine {DB, 1832), merely interpreted authentically the words of Christ, whose historicity is admitted even by the rationalists. The primacy of Peter, indeed, is insinuated in the changing of his name, promised in the colloquy at Cesarea of Philippi, conferred after the resurrection on the banks of the Lake of Tiberias, and exercised in the nascent Church. Jesus imposed on Simon the name Peter (Matt. 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; John 1:42). According to bib­ lical customs, change of name had great significance: when God wished to establish the patriarchate, He chose Abram to be head and center of that institution and changed his name to Abraham; when He instituted the Synagogue He chose as its head an­ other great patriarch, Jacob, and changed his name to Israel. The mys­ terious meaning of the new name was revealed by the Master in the memorable scene that took place at the foot of Mt. Hermon: “Jesus saith to them [Apostles]: But who do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou are Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answer­ ing said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven” (Matt. 16:15-19). In these words the Saviour spoke to Peter in terms of the future: it is the promise! The conferring of that power comes after the resurrec­ tion near the Lake of Tiberias; Jesus now speaks in the present: “Simon, primacy of St. Peter son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou know­ est that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17). Representing His Church with the image of an edifice, of a kingdom, of a flock, Jesus makes Peter the founda­ tion, tire key bearer, the shepherd. “In the first comparison, that of the building, stability of doctrine is more particularly brought out, in the sec­ ond the power of governing is more stressed, and in the third especially envisaged is pastoral care and affec­ tion; but in each comparison the primacy of St. Peter is abundantly and perfectly portrayed” (Card. Capecelatro). The history of the infant Church shows the son of Jona had full consciousness of being “pastor” (shepherd) not only of the lambs but also of the sheep — of all Christ’s flock; in fact, immediately after the Ascension, Peter acted as the supreme head of the Church. It was Peter who proposed in the Cenacle that a substitute be named to take the place of Judas Iscariot in the Apostolic College; it was Peter who was the first to preach on Pentecost; it was Peter who received the first pagans into the bosom of the Church at Cornelius’ home, although Paul is par excellence the missionary ol the Gentiles; it was Peter who ques­ tioned and reproved the couple guilty of lying; it was Peter who, like a president, was the first to speak at the Council of Jerusalem. Priscïllianism 230 BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas. Summa Contra Gentiles, 1. 4, c. 76. Florit, Il primato di S. Pietro negli Atti degli Apostoli (Rome, 1942). Glez, “Primauté du Pape,” DTC. Ruffini, La Gerarchia della Chiesa negli Alli degli Apos­ toli (Rome, 1921). See under Church; pope; Roman pontiff. Priscïllianism. An assortment of bad. (/) Matrimony and bearing of offspring are diabolical works, (g) Corruption of the holy text of Sacred Scripture. Modern critics, after accurate study, hesitate to attribute all the abovenamed errors to Priscillian. Up to what point he taught or paved the way to so many errors, in part al­ ready condemned by the Church, can­ not as yet be determined. It is certain, however, from the fragments of his works, that Priscillian had a predilection for the Apocrypha (q.v.) and used ambiguous expressions about the Trinity; at times he leans to Gnosticism or Manichaeism, at least in his expression. It may be that his disciples misunderstood and exag­ gerated his doctrine. errors attributed to Priscillian (fourth century). Sulpicius Severus, in his Historia Sacra (beginning of the fifth century), speaks of the life and the errors of this man of Spanish descent, of his quick genius, austere habits, and strong inclination to as­ ceticism. Priscillian soon became the head of a religious sect in which women were the predominant ele­ ment. Bishop Idacius of Emerita con­ demned the errors of Priscillian in BIBLIOGRAPHY the Synod of Saragoza (380). Pris­ Babut, Priscillien et le Priscillianisme (Paris, cillian, however, was not discouraged. 1909). Bardy, “Priscillien,” DTC. Healy, On the contrary, he had himself “Priscïllianism,” CE. Schepps, Priscilliani quae ordained a priest and later conse­ supersunt (Vienna, 1889). Tixeront, History crated Bishop of Avila. Finding Spain of Dogmas, trans. H.L.B., Vol. 2 (St. Louis, 1914), pp. 229-241. too hostile, fie and his fellow bishops attempted to seek refuge in Rome under Pope Damasus, but the Pope privilege. See law. refused to receive them, and so did St. Ambrose in Milan. Finally he was procession, divine. Materially, pro­ cession means motion from one point accused before Emperor Maximus at to another; such motion is repugnant Treves and condemned to death. His followers, however, continued to to the divine nature. Only immanent spread their errors with fanatic zeal, processions are attributed to God, until the Council of Braga (563) e., the mere origin of one term from i. formulated 17 anathematisms against another. There are, in fact, in God Priscïllianism. two immanent operations proper to spirit: intellection and volition. Al­ The Priscillians, according to these anathematisms, taught the following though these operations are identified errors: (a) Sabellianism (q.v.) by with the divine nature, by analogy denying the real distinction of the with what happens in us we are not three divine Persons. (Z>) Arianism able to conceive them except as rela­ (q.v.) by denying the existence of tions between two terms (operating — Christ before His birth by Mary, (c) operated). But reason would never Docetism (q.v.) because they at­ have succeeded in forming any idea of the divine processions, unless tributed to Jesus an apparent body. (d) Pantheism by asserting that the revelation had explicitly manifested angels and souls are emanations of them: “For from God I proceeded. the divine substance. () God is not only the Efficient Cause, but also the Final Cause of all things, and as such must have conceived the means of directing back to Himself, as to their supreme End, all created things. No creature escapes this prov­ idential order, since providence is bound up with divine causality and, like it, is universal. Therefore, free will also is subordinate to divine prov­ idence (Matt. 6:30), which does not disturb the order of nature, but con­ serves and directs it, using necessary causes to produce necessary effects, and contingent causes, as human wills are, to obtain contingent and free effects. Physical and moral evil, which we see in the world, is not opposed to divine providence, if we consider: (1) that it is permitted, not caused directly by God; (2) that it depends on the deficiency of finite being; (3) that it is to be examined not in an isolated and particular way but in the framework of the universal order, which may demand the sacrifice of this or that particular being (see evil'). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 22. D'Alès, “Providence," DA. Bruce, The Moral Order of the World (London, 1899); The Providential Orders of the World (London, 1897). Garricou-Laorance, God, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1947-1948); The One God, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1943), pp. 625-652; Provi­ dence, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1947); “Provi­ dence,” DTC. Maccosh, The Method of Divine Government (Edinburgh, J850). Peter Par­ ente, "Π male secondo la dottrina di S. Tommaso,” Acta Pont. Acad. Rom. S. Thomae Aq. (1940). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic The­ ology, III God, Author of Nature and the Supernatural (St. Louis, 1945), pp. 79 85. Sertillanoes, St. Thomas d'Aquin, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1925), p. 312 ff. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vol». (New 235 York, 1949), pp. 214-247. Walker, “Provi­ dence (Divine),” CE. prudence. See virtue. punishment. See penalty. Puritanism sure hope of entering paradise after due expiation. A pain of sense {poena sensus) commonly is admitted by the Fathers and theologians, fire not excluded. Purgatory will last only to the day of judgment. BIBLIOGRAPHY purgatory. Place and state in which the souls of the just who died in venial sin and with the debt of temporal punishment for grave sins remitted, are subjected to purifying sufferings until, having paid their debt, they are worthy of paradise. The existence of purgatory is a truth of faith defined by the Council of Trent (sess. 25, DB, 983). Holy Scripture: “It is ... a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sin” (2 Mach. 12:46). St. Paul (1 Cor. 3:11 ff.) speaks of those who, having some remnants of sin mixed with good works, will be saved in the next life quasi per ignem (through fire). Tradition: In the first centuries there was no explicit doctrine on purgatory, but they had the liturgical usage of prayers for the dead, reflected also in the epigraphy of the Cata­ combs. From the time of St. Augus­ tine the doctrine of purgatory was developed, which continues substan­ tially unchanged in the East and the West. The Scholastics treat of purga­ tory as of something belonging to the doctrine of faith. Luther and Calvin were wrong, therefore, in rejecting purgatory as a diabolic invention. The Church, while defending the existence of purgatory, has not de­ fined explicitly what its pains are: in­ cidental mention is made of fire in the I Council of Lyon, in a Letter of Clement VI {DB, 456 and 570 ff.). Certainly there is in purgatory a temporary pain of loss {poena damni — privation of the vision and pos­ session of God), mitigated by the St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, Suppl, and Appendix. Bernard, "Purgatoire,” DA. Billot, De novissimis (Rome, 1921). Canty, Purga­ tory: Dogmatic and Scholastic (Dublin, 1886). Coleridge, The Prisoners of the King (Lon­ don, 1836). Hanna, “Purgatory,” CE. Jugie, Le Purgatoire (Paris, 1942). Michel, “Purga­ toire,” DTC. Oxenham, Catholic Eschatology (London, 1878). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, ΧΠ Eschatology (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 75-101. Sadlier, Purgatory: Doctrinal, Historical, Practical (New York, 1886). Sut­ cliffe, The Old Testament and the Future Life (Westminster, 1947), pp. 121-125. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, cd. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 1141-1175. Vaughan, Thoughts for All Times (Spring­ field, Mass., 1916), pp. 156-171. Wiseman, Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and Prac­ tices of the Catholic Church (London, 1836). See under eschatology. Puritanism. Rather than a sect, it is a rigoristic tendency of Protestant­ ism, similar to Jansenistic rigor­ ism. Puritanism is rooted especially in Calvinism and is based on two fundamental principles: faithful and exclusive attachment to the Bible as the only rule of faith, and the con­ sciousness of being in the number of the predestined. Hence a proud piety, joined with contempt of life’s pleas­ ures and sense satisfactions, which re­ minds us of the attitude and the style of the Pharisees. This tendency is generally encountered wherever Calvinism is dominant, but is de­ veloped especially in England from the start of Anglicanism down to our times. The term puritan appears for the first time in 1564, under Eliza­ beth, to indicate those Episcopalian Anglicans who wanted to purge the common book of prayers {Prayer Boof() from its residues of Catholi­ cism. The Queen, with the help of Quakers 236 Archbishop Whitgift, unleashed a fierce persecution against the Puritans, who sided with the democratic Presby­ terians in opposition to the Episco­ palians. James I stated two famous principles: the divine right oj lyings, and the divine right oj bishops. The Puritans lined up against both, with the result of a civil war. Politically, Puritanism favored par­ liamentarism, which prepared the way for modern democracy. On religious grounds, it accentuated the aversion to Roman papism, infiltrating the Low Church. Psychologically, it has made the individual a self-idolater, a presumptuous builder of his virtue and his fortune. BIBLIOGRAPHY Barclay, Inner Life of the Religious Soci­ eties of the Commonwealth (1876). Burton, “Puritans," CE. Byington, The Puritan in England and New England (London, 1896). Campbell, Puritanism in Holland, England and America (London, 1892). Cristiani, “Puritanisme,” DTC. Neal, History of the Puritans (1732-1738). Rust, The First of the Puritans and Their Boohs of Common Prayer (Milwaukee, 1949). Trésal, “Reforme (VI La Réforme en Angleterre),” DA, cols. 664673· Q Quakers (Eng., to quake). A Prot­ estant sect founded in England in the seventeenth century by George Fox, a poor shoemaker and visionary, who spent his life between imprison­ ments and persecutions. In one of the trials he stood, Fox threatened the judge, exhorting him to quatre for the wrath of God; then the judge called him ironically the “Quaker”: hence the name of the sect. Quakerism carries the religious in­ dividualism of Protestantism to the extreme. Luther offered the Bible as source and rule of faith: Fox and his followers recognize no law of religious life except internal divine illumina­ tion. No teaching authority, no wor­ ship, no sacraments — but prayer and meditation to feel the divine in oneself, to taste and savor the light of Christ in the inmost soul. This quietistic teaching was overcome by the Quaker, Elizabeth Fry, heroine of evangelical charity toward the poor, the im­ prisoned, the outcasts of fortune. Today the Quakers number about 150,000, most of them in the United States. They are characterized by their aversion to war, which they consider the fruit of wickedness exclusively. BIBLIOGRAPHY Clarkson, Portraiture of Quakerism (Lon­ don, 1806). Cristiani, “Quakers,” DTC. Loughlin, “Friends, Society of (Quakers)," CE. Janney, History of the Religious Society of Friends From the Rise to the Year 1828 (Philadelphia, 1837-1850). quietism: A pseudohedonistic tend­ ency developed within the Church which places spiritual perfection in prayer and contemplation, conceived passively as abandonment to God. The soul, in giving itself completely to God, renounces its free activity and the control of the flesh and passions to the point of conciliating the basest sensuality with mystical adhesion to God. This attitude of the spirit im­ plies the scorn of ascetics understood as a laborious co-operation with grace for the conquest of perfection, and of all the other traditional means sug­ gested by divine revelation and the experience of the saints. Quietism spread in several countries under various forms. In Spain we find the sect of the Alumbrados (En­ lightened) since the sixteenth century. In France, there was a double quietist current: the one moderate, restricted to the method of contemplative prayer and abandonment to God, described in the writings of Boudon, Surin, Epiphane, and especially of Fénelon (attacked by Bossuet); the other bolder and more compromising, 237 headed by Madame Guyon, a fanatic who joined sensual mysticism to con­ templative mysticism by the theory of the passivity of the soul in tempta­ tions and in sins of lust. In her shady venture, the Barnabite Fr. La Combe was involved, perhaps in good faith. Morbid quietism raged in Italy more than in any other place, chiefly through the work of Miguel Molinos, a famous pseudomystic (see Molinosism). To have an idea of moderate quietism it suffices to read the proposi­ tions extracted from a work of Fénelon {Explication des maximes des Saints sur la vie intérieure), con­ demned by Innocent XII in 1699 {DB, 1327-1349). But no one de­ veloped the quietistic theory to its extreme consequences as Molinos did in his famous Spiritual Guide, which contains the 68 propositions con­ demned by Innocent XI in 1687 {DB, 1221 ff.). BIBLIOGRAPHY Dudon, "Quiétisme au XVII siècle,” DA. Huvelin, Bossuet, Fénelon, le Quiétisme, 2 vols. (Paris, 1912). Menendez y Pelayo, Hétérodoxes espanoles (classical work, re­ cently republished by M. A. Bonilla, at Madrid). Pace, "Quietism,” CE. Pascal Parente, The Ascetical Life (St. Louis, 1947), pp. 236-244. Pourrat, "Quiétisme,” DTC. Vaughan, Hours With the Mystics (New York, 1893). See under Molinosism. R rationalism. In general it is the tend­ ency to appreciate the value of human reason, applying it preferentially for the solution of all life’s problems, not excluding religion. In this sense, rationalism is intellectualism, and is opposed to voluntarism, mystical sen­ timentalism, agnosticism, skepticism, pragmatism, and all irrational or extrarational currents. This healthy and dignified rationalism does not conflict with faith; on the contrary, rationalism it is in perfect harmony with it. St. Thomas, together with the betterknown Scholastics, is a luminous ex­ ample of this kind of rationalism, in which faith and reason join their lights and help each other {fides quaerens intellectum, intellectus quae­ rens fidem), the principle being fully respected of the subordination of reason to faith, and of philosophy to theology. But rationalism, in the strict sense, is a system that claims the supreme and absolute dominion of human reason in all fields, subjecting to its control every phenomenon and every truth, the supernatural world and God’s authority not excluded. This system tends to humanize the divine, when it does not eliminate it entirely, and to naturalize the supernatural, when it does not reject it. Such tend­ ency to overevaluate reason even in the field of faith reveals itself here and there since the first centuries of Christianity: e.g., in the latter part of the fourth century in the heresies of the Anomoeans, Nestorians, Pela­ gians {qq.v.), connected with the Antiochian School (naturalistic in tendency). But really heterodox ra­ tionalism began with Humanism, when the study of the classics awak­ ened and accentuated in man a proud individualism, a fever for knowledge, for investigation, for scientific research, for autonomy in the theoretical and practical field, and an immoderate attachment of the mind to itself and to nature. Rationalism developed rapidly into a sinuous current of systems, from the naturalism of Telesio, Bruno, and Campanella, to the subjective construction of Carte­ sianism, to empiric scientism, to Luther’s free interpretation of the Bible, then to Encyclopedism and eighteenth-century Illuminism, down to Kant, with his cult of autonomous and autochthonous reason, arbiter of theoretical and practical truth. With Real Presence 238 Kant rationalism reached its critical systemization; in the eightcenth-century it resumed its development to the most antithetical consequences, such as absolute idealism and ma­ terialistic monism. With regard to the religious prob­ lem, rationalism runs the gamut from a vague deism to pantheism and, finally, to atheism (qq.v.). The Cath­ olic religion has withstood the attack of rationalism throughout the cen­ turies, contending every inch of ground and barring its passage. The phases of this struggle are pointed out in the Syllabus of Pius IX and in the definitions of the Vatican Council (cf. DB, 1700 ff., and 1781 ff.). BIBLIOGRAPHY Avei.ing, ‘‘Rationalism,’’ CE. Benn, His­ tory of Rationalism in Nineteenth Century (London, 1906). Constantin, “Rationalisme,” DTC. Fillion, Les étapes du Rationalisme (Paris, 1911). Hurst, History of Rationalism (New York, 1882). Peter Parente, “Il piii tragico divorzio,” L'Enciclica "Summi Ponti­ ficatus,’’ Commento (Rome, 1940). Real Presence. See Presence, Real, Eucharistic (fact and mode). Rebaptizers. See Donatism. Redemption (Lat. redimere — buy back, redeem). In ancient literature redemption signified ransom, i.e., liberation of slaves or goods in bond through payment. In the religious field redemption is understood with reference to sin, which is an oÿense against God and a moral slavery, i.e., it has an objective and a subjective aspect; therefore, redemption involves at once a reparation or expiation or satisfaction {objectively) and a ran­ som or liberation or reintegration (subjectively). These two meanings are well expressed in the German Erlosung (ransom) and Versohnung (expiation). The term “redemption” is enriched by Christian religion, which is essentially a message of salva­ tion, a soteriology centered in Jesus, whose name, according to the Hebraic etymon, means precisely Saviour. An outline showing approximately the rich content of the Catholic con­ cept of Redemption could be ex­ pressed in the following terms: Man by sinning has offended God and made himself a slave of sin and of the devil who suggested it to him. Since man is incapable of repairing so great a destruction, the Word of God becomes incarnate, binding humanity to Himself (the Mystical Body), expiates and makes reparation to the offended God in the place of sinful man (vicarious satisfaction) by merit­ ing for all reconciliation with God and liberation from slavery to Satan and sin. Lutheranism has exaggerated the objective aspect, reducing Re­ demption to a penal substitution of Christ in the place of man, who, on his own part, has to do nothing (extrinsicism). The Socinians, Liberal Protestants, and modernists on the other extreme, reduce Redemption to an individual work of man himself, to which Jesus Christ contributes by the moral influence of His example (subjective moralism). But Catholic doctrine, based on divine revelation, avoids excesses and harmoniously tempers the various elements and as­ pects in an organic system: Christ the Redeemer substitutes Himself for us in expiation, but we are in Him by the solidarity and dependence propci to the Mystical Body; He redeems us by His whole life on earth, and par­ ticularly by His death, which is an expiatory sacrifice, having physico­ moral efficacy. But man, in order to actuate in himself the salvation wrought by Christ, must adhere freely to Him by faith and charity and by the use of the sacraments. These concepts arc drawn from: 239 Isaias, Ch. 53 (the soteriological poem of the “Servant of Jahweh”); Syn­ optics (Matt. 20:28; 29:28; Mark 10:45; I4:24! Luke 19:10; 22:20); John (1:29; 10:15; Apoc. 5:8; i John 2:2); Peter (1 Pet. 1:18; 2:21); and especially from St. Paul, who stresses particularly the redemptive value of Christ’s death (cf. Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7; 5:2; i Tim. 2:6; Gal. 3:13; Heb., passim, etc.). Even the rationalists recognize that all of St. Paul’s teach­ ing is a lively realistic and complex soteriology, animated by the concept of the Mystical Body, through which Christ’s passion, death, and resurrec­ tion become our own, as Adam’s sin became ours. All the constitutive elements of the Redemption are found more or less developed in the Fathers, according to the various periods or schools. Some, the Westerners especially, stress Pauline realism; others (Easterns), Joannine mysticism (redemption: dei­ fication of man through the incarnate Word, Light-Life). At times they have recourse to vivid metaphors and allegories to illustrate more effectively this mystery to the people, as, e.g., Christ “disburses” His blood to Satan in order to free man from his tyranny; God fools the devil, who vents his ferocity on the innocent Christ, in the belief He was really a sinner, and by this fatal mistake Satan loses his right to torment men any longer. The ra­ tionalists were wrong in trying to represent these oratorical expedients of the Fathers as a real Christian mythology. The Council of Trent set down explicitly and carefully the chief points of the Catholic doctrine of Redemption against the Lutheran errors (sess. 5 and 6, DB, 787 ff.). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, qq. 48-49. D'Alès, "Rédemption," DTC. Hugon, Le mystère tie la Rédemption (Paris, 1927). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, V Soteri­ ology (St. Louis, 1945), pp. 13-75. Richard, relation, divine Le dogme de la Rédemption (Paris, 1932). Rivière, The Doctrine of the Atonement, trans, from the French, 2 vols. (London, 1909); “Redemption," DTC. Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, trans. Vollert (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 405-465. SoLLiER, "Re­ demption,” CE. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), PP- 52-65, 477-512. relation, divine. According to Aris­ totle and St. Thomas, relation is one of the nine accidents, and its formal definition is “Order of one thing to another” (ad aliquid — rrpos τι). It involves a subject (e.g., father), a terminus (son), a foundation or reason on account of which the subject has reference to the terminus (genera­ tion, between father and son). Dif­ ferently from the other accidents, relation, more than a perfection in the subject, is a reference to the terminus, and its essential character­ istic lies precisely in that reference (esse ad), while its inherence in the subject (esse in) is secondary, and may be real or only logical. Thus paternity lies wholly in the relation­ ship of one individual to another by virtue of generation; thus also the intelligible object implies a real rela­ tion to the knowing intellect, but such relation does not add anything to that object. It is a truth of faith that in God there are real relations, because in revelation we find correlative terms, such as Father and Son. This doctrine stems also from the divine proces­ sions (q.v.): a divine procession is inconceivable without a terminus a quo and a terminus ad quern in rela­ tionship between themselves. Since the processions are two, the terminuses are four and the relations between these are four, as may be illustrated in the following diagram: paternity F---------- >S I st procession filiation F«---------- S religion 240 active spiration F,S---------------- >HS 2nd procession passive spiration F,S<----------------- HS These relations are distinct from the divine nature only by a distinctio rationis ratiocinatae (a distinction of reason with foundation in the thing itself; see attributes of God), but are really distinct between themselves, since they are in opposition (pater­ nity-filiation) in an irreducible way and, therefore, require distinct sub­ jects of attribution (paternity in the Father and filiation in the Son). Only active spiration is not in opposition to paternity and to filiation, and so it has as subject both Father and Son; but it is in opposition to passive spiration, which, therefore, demands a distinct terminus (the Holy Spirit). Of the four real relations in God, three are numerically distinct and, thus, constitute the three divine Per­ sons: the Father, who is subsisting Paternity, the Son, who is subsisting Filiation, the Holy Spirit, who is subsisting Spiration of Love. Accord­ ing to the esse in, the Persons subsist by force of the one divine being with which They are really and absolutely identical; according to the esse ad, They are distinct ratione ratiocinata (by a distinction of reason with foundation in the thing itself) from the essence, but really distinct among Themselves. This real mutual dis­ tinction, being purely relative, does not violate the absolute unity of God. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 28. Joyce, “Trinity,” CE. Peter Parente, “Il Mistcro della SS. Trinità,” ll Simbolo, Vol. 1 (Assisi, 1941). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic The­ ology, II The Divine Trinity (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 228-235. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, cd. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp· 134-139· religion (Lat. relegere — read over, think over [divine things]; or religare — bind [to God]; or redigere — choose again [God lost by sin]). Gen­ erally speaking, it is a bond, a moral union between God and men, as is evident from the history of religions and from the consideration of the natural relationship of the rational creature to the Creator. Subjectively, religion is a voluntary disposition of the soul to recognize God as the supreme Being and Lord of the uni­ verse, and to pay Him due worship. Objectively, it is the whole of truths and principles, by which our life is ordered and directed to God, supreme End. In both senses religion invests the whole man: intellect, will, practical activity. Religion is not, therefore, the cult of duty immanent in autonomous reason (Kant); or the consciousness of the divine immanent in us, fol­ lowed and surpassed by philosophical synthesis (idealists); or an instinct of the subconscious (modernists); or a provisional substitute of the science of natural phenomena (positivists). Religion accompanies the human race constantly in every phase of its in­ tellectual, moral, and civil evolution: therefore, it fills real needs of human nature. Religion is natural if it flourishes spontaneously in the soul from the thought of a God, Creator and Lord, and implies a tendency to the natural end, proportionate to the human in­ tellect and will. It is supernatural if it is based on a positive revelation of God, which involves speculative truths to be believed and rules of conduct to be followed with reference to the attainment of an end transcending the proper powers and exigencies of human nature. Such is the Christian religion, wholly orientated toward the beatific vision, an absolutely super­ natural end. Given the existence of a personal God, man cannot rightly re­ fuse to render Him external and in­ ternal worship; and since various re­ 241 ligions claim to be revealed, man has the obligation of seeking the true revelation by means of external criteria (miracles and prophecies) and internal criteria (loftiness and nobility of doctrine and precepts in harmony with the purest aspirations of the human heart). See revelation; cult. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II—II, q. 81. Aiken, "Religion,” CE. Bowne, The Essence of Religion (Boston, 1910). Brinton, The Religious Sentiment (New York, 1876). Cot­ ter, Theologia Fundamentalis (Weston, 1940); cf. Index, “Religion.” Garrigou-Lagrance, De Revelatione (Paris, 1914). Hettinger, Natural Religion (New York, 1893). Kellogg, The Genesis and Growth of Religion (New York, 1892). Lang, The Making of Religion (New York, 1898). Lilly, The Great Enigma (New York, 1892). Tanquerey, De vera religione, etc. (Rome, 1931). The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 2-10. Religious (Congregation of). See Holy See. resurrection, general. A truth of faith defined by the IV Lateran Coun­ cil (1215, DB, 429): “Both the repro­ bate and the elect will rise with the bodies, which they now have, to re­ ceive according to their bad or good actions . . . etc.” The resurrection is one of the articles of the Creed. This truth is explicitly revealed in both Old and New Testaments: Job 19-23; Isaias 26:19; Ezechiel 1:14; Daniel 12:2; 2 Machabees 7:1-13; 12:39-46. In the New Testament we find many clear and definite texts, especially in St. Paul (1 Cor. 16; 1 Thess. 4, etc.), who puts our resurrection in close relationship to that of our Lord (cf. also John 5:28). Tradition is unani­ mous in upholding this doctrine (from Didache to Tertullian, who wrote De Resurrectione Carnis, and to St. Augustine, who insisted on the identity of the mortal and the risen body). Reason cannot demonstrate, Resurrection of Christ but can see the convenience of this supernatural truth. St. Thomas main­ tains that the perfection of man is the soul and its own proper body: as the body has been associated with the soul in mortal life, so it is just and right that it be united to the soul in eternal life and share with it the joy or the punishment merited. The resurrection is universal for all men and it implies the individual identity of each risen person. To have this identity it suffices that the soul take on again at least one part of the matter with which it was substantially united before death. This principle eliminates many difficulties. St. Thomas answers with sobriety several curious questions on the conditions of the risen body (cf. Summa contr. Gent., IV, 80-85, and Summa Theol., Suppl., qq. 75-86). St. Paul (1 Cor. 15) describes the qualities of the glorious body, which the theologians reduce to four: impassibility, subtility, agility, and splendor. The body will thus feel and reflect the beauty and virtues proper to the blessed soul. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, Suppl., qq. 75-86; Summa Contra Gentiles, 1, 4, qq- 79-80. D'Alès, “Résurrection de la chair," DA. Darragh (Anglican), The Resurrection of the Flesh (London, 1921). Maas, “Resur­ rection," CE. Michel, “Résurrection des morts,” DTC. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic The­ ology, XII Eschatology (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 121-148. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 1211-1247. Vonier, The Life of the World to Come (London, 1926), pp. 132-168. See under eschatology. Resurrection of Christ. That Jesus Christ rose from the dead to new life is a truth, historically attested by all the Evangelists and by St. Paul, which from the first days of Christianity formed not only a part of the gospel message, but its very basis and soul, as well as the central element of the doctrine and liturgy of the nascent Church. revelation 242 Modern criticism has utilized all possible means to destroy the historic reality of this fact: fraud of the Aposdes, theory of hallucination or of merely apparent death of Jesus, etc. But up to the present time none of these contradictory attempts has succeeded in seriously solving the problem. Catholic exegetes, against all the assaults of criticism, old or new, from Reimarus to Loisy, set down these firm points: (i) The real death of Christ and His burial is narrated by the Evangelists with wealth of detail and decisive circumstances. (2) Christ’s return to life in all His physical reality, testified to by unim­ peachable persons, like Peter and Paul, in public, in presence of the Jews, who would have contradicted them if at all possible. (3) Before the Evangelist’s account, we have the energetic testimony of St. Paul (be­ tween a.d. 53-55), who saw Christ on the way to Damascus and went to Jerusalem, where he conversed with Peter and James, from whom he could get detailed information on Christ’s Resurrection, which for him was the raison d’etre of the faith and of the apostolate. And St. Paul attests it in a quasi-ritual language that re­ echoes the original catechesis of the first Christian community the day after the Ascension of Jesus. (4) The psychological phenomenon of hallu­ cination was impossible in unsettled and bewildered minds, as the Apos­ tles’ were; so true is this that at the first apparition of the risen Christ they were afraid and Jesus had to persuade them of the reality of His body by eating and drinking and having them touch Him. (5) The time between Jesus’ death and the first testimony of His Resurrection is so brief as to be absolutely insuffi­ cient for the formation of a legend. (6) If the Evangelists had wished to invent a legend and deceive others, they would have gotten together on their narratives, which, on the con­ trary, present a variety of detail and richness of individual style that prove precisely the truth and objectivity of their testimony. (7) Reducing to fraud or hallucination the change wrought by the Resurrection in the Apostles, so timid and cowardly be­ fore, as well as St. Paul’s conversion and work, is altogether absurd. The Resurrection is not only the supreme proof of Christ’s divinity but also the reason for the blazing of faith, apostolate, and martyrdom, which characterized the earliest days of Christianity. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 53. Cotter, Theologia fundamentalis (Weston, 1940), Index: “Resurrectio Jesu." Cox, The Resurrection (London, 1890). De Grand­ maison, Jesus Christ, 3 vols. (New York, 1930-1934), Vol. 2, Ch. 4. Fenton, We Stand With Christ (Milwaukee, 1940), Index: “Resurrection of Christ." Lepin, Christologie (Paris, 1908), p. 77 ff. Maas, “Resurrection,” CE. Marsh, The Resurrection of Christ, Is It a Fact? (London, 1905). Milligan, The Resurrection of Our Lord (London, 1884). RicciOTTi, The Life of Christ, trans. Zizzamia (Milwaukee, 1947). Simpson, The Resurrec­ tion and Modern Thought (London, 1911). Sutcliffe, The Old Testament and the Future Life (Westminster, 1947), Ch. 12. Williams, Our Lord's Resurrection (London, 1882). revelation (Lat. revelare — remove the veil; equivalent to manifesting an obscure thing). Theologically, revela­ tion is the act by which God manifests Himself primarily in the creation of the universe, which reflects analog­ ically the divine attributes invisible of themselves (cf. Rom. 1:19): this is natural revelation. But God has manifested Himself in a particular way by means of the prophets and of Jesus Christ: and this is supernatural revelation, which transcends the nat­ ural order, either by reason of the object of revelation (mystery) or only on account of the mode or manner in which a truth, natural in itself, is manifested (e.g., immortality of the 243 soul). Formally, supernatural revela­ tion is a gratuitous, oral teaching given by God to men with reference to salvation and eternal life. Possibility: Revelation is possible on the part of God, because He is the Source of all truths and, therefore, can teach His creature, limited in being, in intelligence and in knowl­ edge. It is possible on the part of man, for if man can learn from other men, a fortiori he can learn from God. Revelation is, therefore, both possible and fitting, even in the case of mys­ teries, the imperfect knowledge of which in the ideal order is none the less fruitful in the practical order. Necessity: Divine revelation is ab­ solutely necessary in order to know truths transcending the power of hu­ man reason, as is evident; it is morally necessary for the human race in its actual state to know easily, with firm certitude and without admixture of error, the sum total of natural re­ ligious truths necessary for the right orientation of our life (Vatican Coun­ cil, sess. 3, c. 2, DB, 1786). Rationalism and modernism either pervert the meaning of revelation, deny it in the name of the autonomy of reason, or reduce it to a progressive consciousness of the divine. Natural­ istic systems, like Pelagianism, do not recognize any necessity of rev­ elation. See sentiment, religious; subconsciousness. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bainvel, De vera religione et apologetica (Paris. 1914). Cotter, Theologia fundamenta­ lis (Weston, 1940), pp. 35-79. Fenton, We Stand With Christ (Milwaukee, 1942), pp. 10-92. Garrigou-Lagrange, De Revelatione (Paris, 1926). Jung, “Révélation,” DTC. Pascal Parente, The Mystical Life (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 221-237. Tanquerey, De vera religione, De Ecclesia, De fontibus revelationis (Rome, 1941). reviviscence of merits. Human works, with reference to eternal life, are termed: dead if performed while reviviscence of sacraments in the state of mortal sin, live if per­ formed while in the state of grace, mortified if performed while in the state of grace but presently deprived of their efficacy of leading to their reward on account of a subsequent fall into mortal sin. What happens to mortified works at the moment of justification? Scrip­ ture and the Fathers explicitly assert that, in restoring His friendship to the sinner, God readmits him to the enjoyment of the spiritual goods acquired before his straying from the paternal home. It is therefore an in­ contestable fact that the merits reac­ quire their efficacy with reference to the attainment of the eternal reward. But in what measure? Opinions dis­ agree on this point. Suarez maintains integral restitution, while St. Thomas teaches that merits are given back to the penitent in proportion to the fervor of his conversion, according to the principle that God “gives Himself to the extent of the ardor He finds” (Dante, Purg., 15, 70). The first opinion exalts God’s mercy, while the second — very severe at first blush — is more consonant with theological principles and more capable of ex­ citing fervor in penitents. Regarding other nuances in the teaching of St. Thomas, pointed out by his disciples, cf. Boyer, De Poenitentia (Rome, 1942), pp· 275-277· BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., III. q. 89, a. 2. Billot, De sacramentis, Vol. 2 (Rome, 1930), p. 115 f. Doronzo, De Poenitentia, Vol. 4. Michel, "Reviviscence (Reviviscence des meri­ tes),” DTC, cols. 2634-2644. Marino, “La revivisccnza dei meriti secondo la dottrina dei Dottore Angelico," Gregorianum (1932), pp. 75-108. Suarez, Opusculum 5: “Relatio de reviviscentia meritorum,” Opera Omnia (Parisiis, 1858), pp. 436-513. reviviscence of the sacraments. If a sacrament, validly received but unproductive of grace on account of an impediment or obex (q.v.), is later Richard of St. Victor 244 rectified by removing the obex, it is said to revive, producing grace by virtue of the rite formerly applied. From this description it appears that reviviscence requires certain con­ ditions: (i) On the part of the sub­ ject, the removal of the impediment is necessary. (2) On the part of the sacrament, the requirements are: (a) that it be valid but without fruit or inform (without the supernatural form of grace), because if the sacra­ ment is invalid it does not exist, and if it does not exist it cannot act; (Z>) that the external rite be past, because if it still exists we cannot speak of revival but of normal conferring of grace; (c) that the external right leave in the recipient some effect, because reviviscence involves a causal influence on the part of the external rite, which would be inconceivable did it not leave a real imprint of its passage. (3) On the part of God, finally, the requirement is the will of conferring the sacramental grace even in this extraordinary way. Those sacraments effectively revive in which the foregoing conditions are met. Three of these conditions are met in all the sacraments, except penance: the removal of the impedi­ ment, the sacrament valid but inform, the passing away of the external rite. It remains only to inquire if the other two conditions are fulfilled: the per­ manence of some sort of effect and God’s will to bestow grace extraordinarily. The permanence of a real effect, i.e., of the character, is found in baptism, confirmation, and orders; also, the positive will of God is de­ duced from the fact that otherwise original sin could never be removed in one who receives baptism un­ worthily, and that the faithful who received confirmation and orders un­ worthily would be forever deprived of the corresponding sacramental graces which are so extremely neces­ sary for the fulfillment of the duties to which they are deputized. Also as regards extreme unction and matri­ mony, while, on the one hand, we find permanence of an interior unctio and of a vinculum (bond), on the other, we deduce the divine will from the fact that here, too, the faithful would remain deprived of the sacra­ mental helps so efficacious in over­ coming the final temptation of the death agony and in facing successfully the difficulties of married life. Only penance and the Eucharist do not revive, the former because it can­ not be at the same time valid and inform, according to the doctrine of many theologians, and the latter be­ cause it would be counter to the prin­ ciples of divine action. In fact, in the hypothesis of reviviscence of the Eucharist, one who all his life made daily sacrilegious Communions would only have to make a simple act of contrition in the sacrament of penance to receive as many increases of grace as the sacrileges he has committed. It is truly repugnant to think that God may wish to put such a reward on sin. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 69, a. 10 (with the commentaries of John of St. Thomas, Gonet, Billuart). Doronzo, De sacramentis in genere (Milwaukee, 1946), In­ dex Analyticus: “Reviviscentia.” Marin Sola, “Proponitur nova solutio ad conciliandam causalitatem physicam sacramentorum cum corum reviviscentia,” Divus Thomas (Freiburg, 1925), ΡΡ· 49~63· Michel, “Reviviscence (Reviviscence des Sacraments)," DTC, cols. 2618-2628. Richard of St. Victor. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology" (p. 302). rite (Lat. ritus — religious observ­ ance). In ecclesiastical usage it is the total amount of ceremonies (bows, benedictions, signs of the cross, impo­ sition of hands, anointments, etc.) and Roman pontiff 245 formulas (prayers, hymns, antiphons, verses, etc.), of which the liturgical acts are composed. Of these rites, some are essential, i.e., constitute the very essence of the sacrifice or of the sacraments (matter and form; q.v.), have a divine origin, and remained unchanged throughout all the vicissitudes and transforma­ tions of the liturgy in its two thou­ sand years of development. Others are accidental, i.e., they compose the frame into which are fitted, developed, and illustrated the essential rites; these are of ecclesiastical origin and are enlarged, changed, and at times dis­ appear under the influence of his­ torical incidents and according to the diversity of temperaments and reli­ gious environments. This variety of accidental rites, within the basic unity of the Christian cult, has given rise to the different liturgical families, which have been flourishing in the Church since the fourth and fifth centuries: The Antiochian rite, embracing the Greco-Jerusalem, the Syro-Maronite, the Chaldean, and the Byzantine liturgies (this last, called of St. John Chrysostom, is the most widely dif­ fused, being used in Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, and Russia). The Alexandrian rite, from which stem the Greek liturgy of St. Mark, the Coptic, and the Ethiopian liturgies. The Gallican rite, which included the Ambrosian, the Mozarabic, the Celtic, and the Gallican liturgies. The Ancient Roman rite (to which the African was kindred). In the Carolingian Age a kind of liturgical osmosis between the Roman and the Gallican rites took place, giving origin (at least in its basic physiog­ nomy) to the present Latin liturgy, which is predominant in the Catholic world. BIBLIOGRAPHY Attwatbr, Christian Churches of the East. Vol. I, 3 cd. (Milwaukee, 1947). Brichtman, Eastern Liturgies (Oxford, 1896). Callewaert, De S. Liturgia universim (Brugis, 1925). Duchesne, Christian Worship, Its Origin and Evolution, trans. McClure (Lon­ don, 1903). Fortescue, “Rites,” CE. Ham­ mond, Liturgies, Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1878). Shipman, “Rites in the United States,” CE. See under cult; liturgy. Rites (Congregation of). See Holy See. “Ritual, Roman.” See liturgy. Roman pontiff. The successor of St. Peter, i.e., the heir of his primacy over the entire Church (see primacy of St. Peter). The supremacy conferred on the son of Jona was not a personal privilege, since the Church, being an edifice, a kingdom, a sheepfold destined to last unto the consum­ mation of the world, always has need of its foundation, its key bearer, its pastor; the primacy, therefore, had to be perpetuated through the cen­ turies, and St. Peter had to live in his successor, the Roman pontiff (cf. DB, 1825). But why in the bishop of Rome and not in another? Why in the bishop of Rome and not rather in that of Jerusalem where Jesus died? Be­ cause the Redeemer, who had pre­ arranged all human history for the end of salvation, selected Rome, the great metropolis, as center of His Church. He chose it by inspiring the Prince of the Apostles to locate defin­ itively his seat in that city, so that the bishops who succeeded him in that see would inherit ipso facto the privileges of the primacy. Clear testimonies and indisputable facts in the nascent Church dem­ onstrate that from the beginning both the bishop of Rome and the faithful of the world have full consciousness of the high pre-eminence of the Sabellianism 246 Roman Church. In the beginning of the second century, St. Ignatius of Antioch greets the Church of Rome as προκαθημίνη τής αγάπης (Rom., Prologue). The most natural mean­ ing of this expression, as Duchesne observes, is that the Roman Church presides over all the churches taken as one body. As the bishop of a par­ ticular church presides over the works of charity in that church, so the Roman Church presides over those same works in all Christianity. At the end of the same century, St. Irenaeus of Lyons writes these famous words: “It is necessary that every church be in agreement with it [the Roman Church], on account of its more powerful principality [propter potiorem principalitatem}·, this means that all the faithful scattered through­ out the world must be in agreement with it, because in it has been always conserved intact the tradition which had its origin from the Apostles” (Adv. haereses, III, 3, 27). In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian exalts Rome as the “Principal Church whence priestly unity has had its origin” (Ep., 12, 4). There is much factual evidence to accompany these documents, proving the prac­ tical recognition of the Roman pri­ macy. The first century had not yet ended when Pope Clement in im­ perative tones recalled to obedience the rebellious Christians of Corinth (Ep., 44, 3, 45; 40, 12). In the second and third centuries the bishop of Rome appears as arbiter of ecclesi­ astical controversies, which he settles authoritatively, especially those con­ cerning the faith; even the heretics have recourse to all sorts of intrigues to gain the confidence of the Holy See and procure for themselves the favor of the Chair of Peter. The primacy, according to the Vatican Council definition (DB, 1831), involves an ordinary, imme­ diate, universal, supreme, full, juris­ dictional authority over the flock of Christ, in matters of both faith and discipline. The sixteenth-century reformers did their utmost to defame the texts on Peter’s primacy, his coming to Rome, his heritage transmitted to his suc­ cessors (the three truths forming one block). Modern Protestants explain everything through evolution: a unique center of Christianity, they say, is the last thing to be formed; such a center is not at the base but at the vertex of the pyramid. At first the Christian communities are amor­ phous, later they organize in small oligarchies (collective government by priests); afterward comes the mo­ narchical episcopate. But many years will have to pass before the bishops scattered throughout the world recog­ nize the bishop of Rome as their head. This easy theory is freely con­ tradicted by the texts quoted above and by many others that could be adduced. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 1. 4, c. 76. Ballerini, De vi ac ratione primatus Romanorum Pontificum et de ipsorum injallibilitate in definiendis controversiis fidei (Veronae, 1766). Batiffol, Cathedra Petri (Paris, 1938); L'Eglise naissante (Paris, 1927); La paix constantinienne (Paris, 1929); Le Siège apostolique (Paris, 1924). Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice. Glez, “Pouvoir du Pape dans l’ordre temporel,” DTC. Palmieri, De Romano Pontifice (Rome, 1931). See under pope. s Sabellianism. See modalism. sacramentels. In a broad sense, they are all those rites and ceremonies which accompany the observance of the divine cult and the administration of the sacraments; in a narrow sense, they are “certain rites, actions, or par­ 247 ticular things which the Church cus­ tomarily uses, in imitation of the sacraments, in order to obtain, through her intercession, certain effects, especially of spiritual char­ acter” (C1C, Can. 1144). Their origin goes back to the nas­ cent Church, since the ancient ecclesi­ astical writers speak of them as com­ mon practice among the faithful. They are instituted by the Church and produce their effects not ex opere operato, but ex opere operantis Ecclesiae, in as much as the Church, because of her dignity and in virtue of her powerful intercession, obtains from God, although not infallibly and for those who worthily receive the sacramental, the spiritual effect for which it was instituted. The sacramentels are divided into two classes: exorcisms and blessings or benedictions. Exorcisms consist in the imposition of hands and the recitation of certain prayers for the purpose of expelling the devil from the soul and body of the believer. They are applied to irra­ tional creatures also, so that the devil may not use them abusively to harm man. Benedictions are divided into con­ stitutive and invocative. The consti­ tutive benedictions are applied to men and to irrational creatures to conse­ crate them to God (e.g., blessing of the virgins, consecration of chalices). The invocative are imparted to man for the purpose of obtaining some divine benefit (e.g., the blessing of St. Blaise), and to irrational creatures that their use may be beneficial to man’s soul and body (e.g., blessing of the table). BIBLIOGRAPHY Arendt, De sacramentalibus (Rome, 1900). Doronzo, De sacramentis in genere (Mil­ waukee, 1946), pp. 540-560. Gasquet, Sacramentals (London, 1928). Lambinc, Sacra­ mentels of the Holy Catholic Church (New York, 1892). Leclercq, "Sacramentals," CE. Michel, “Sacramcntaux," DTC. Paschanc, sacraments, institution of The Sacramentals According to the C.J.C. (Washington, D. C., 1925). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, VIII The Sacraments, Vol. I, The Sacraments in General, Baptism, Confirmation (St. Louis, 1945), pp. 111-120. Stolz, De sacramentis (Freiburg i.-Br., 1942), Appendix. Van Noort, De sacramentis. Vol. 1, nn. 152-158. Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome luris Canonici, Vol. 2, nn. 461-469. Sacramentarians. See Real, Eucharistic {fact). Presence, Sacraments (Congregation the). See Holy See. of sacraments, institution of. To institute a sacrament (see sacraments, nature of) means to attach to a sensible rite the efficacy of producing the signified grace. Christ who, as God, had the ab­ solute and independent power (po­ testas auctoritatis) of uniting to poor material elements the power of caus­ ing grace, as Man also, obtained from the Father so great a dominion over grace, in view of the merits acquired in His passion, that He was constituted the dispenser of all super­ natural goods. Armed with this power (potestas excellentiae), the Redeemer was free to transmit grace either im­ mediately or through means of sensi­ ble riles. Revelation assures us that He, while retaining the power of in­ fluencing souls in extraordinary ways corresponding to His infinite wisdom (non enim alligavit gratiam suam sacramentis), chose the second way. Indeed, Scripture and Tradition de­ scribe the direct intervention of Jesus Christ in determining for His Church the use of the various rites communi­ cative of grace: baptism (John 3:5; Matt. 28:19); confirmation (Acts 8:14; 19:6); Eucharist (John 6:1-72; Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; i Cor. 11:23-25); penance (John 20:21-23); extreme unction (James 5:13-15); orders (Luke 22:19; I Cor. 11:26); matrimony (Matt. 19:4-9; Eph. 5:20-32). sacraments, nature of 248 These critically verified testimonies, strengthened by statements of the most ancient ecclesiastical writers, not only show that the repudiation of five sacraments by the reformers of the sixteenth century is unjustified, but also lay bare the prejudice of those liberal Protestants who subscribed to the following statements of Harnack: “For us there is no sadder spectacle than these transformations of the Christian religion, which from what originally was, namely, the adoration of God in spirit and truth, becomes the cult of symbols. It was to destroy this form of religion that Jesus Christ suffered crucifixion, but here it comes back to life under the mantle of His name and His authority.” The Gospel, on the contrary, as­ sures us that Christ, far from having the iconoclast spirit of destroying re­ ligious rites and symbols, freely under­ went death to transform them from infirma et egena elementa (“weak and needy elements”) to means of resur­ rection and life. Based on the New Testament docu­ ments and the Fathers, the Church, although allowing freedom of dis­ cussion on the mode of institution, has solemnly defined in the Council of Trent the fact itself, i.e., that Jesus Christ has instituted all the sacra­ ments actually in use (DB, 844). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 4. Doronzo, De sacramentis in genere (Milwau­ kee, 1946), pp. 383-419. Franzelin, De sacramentis (Rome, 1911). Kennedy, “Sacra­ ments," CE. Michel, “Sacrements,” DTC. sacraments, nature of (Lat. sacra­ mentum — sacred oath, military oath, etc.; Gr. μυστήριον — hidden thing). A sacrament is a sensible sign, pro­ ductive of grace. In other words, the sacrament in its external rite is a symbol; namely, an exterior repre­ sentation of a reality not attainable by the senses; e.g., in baptism, the ex­ terior sign, constituted by the water and the words pronounced by the minister, symbolizes and represents an interior and invisible reality, namely, the renewal and purification of the soul. The sacrament, therefore, is not only the symbol of a superior reality, but produces by virtue of the latent action of God that same reality which it signifies. It is, therefore, a sign that really contains what it represents, realizing and producing it as a true cause. The elements that concur in the intrinsic constitution of a sacrament are, therefore, two: symbolism and causality, the concept of sign (see matter and form) and the concept of cause (see causality of the sacra­ ments), closely bound up in reciprocal relationship. The existence, the constitution of the sensible rite and the efficacy of the individual sacraments, is dependent on their institution by Jesus Christ (see sacraments, institution of)·, in­ deed, only He, who is God, could at­ tach to poor and material elements, like water, oil, bread, etc., the power of producing spiritual and super­ natural effects, like sanctifying grace (q.v.), sacramental grace (q.v.), and the character (q.v.). The peaceful possession of this doc­ trine by the Church, fruit of many centuries of reflexion on the data of revelation (cf. Rom. 6:3-11), was dis­ turbed by the sixteenth-century re­ formers, who denied that the sacra­ ments of the New Law have the dignity of being causes of grace and considered them to be mere symbols exciting to faith (Luther), or pledges of divine benevolence (Calvin), or identification cards of Church mem­ bership (Zwingli), or mere insignia distinguishing the faithful from in­ fidels (Carlostadt and Socinians). The Council of Trent asserted, against such impoverishment of dogma, the causal efficacy of the sac­ 249 raments and condemned one after another the errors of Protestantism, in the 13 canons of the seventh ses­ sion {DB, 844-856). Likewise the modernists, who re­ peated in substance Luther’s error, were condemned by Pius X, in 1907 {DB, 2089). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., HI, qq. 60—65 (with the commentaries of Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, Gonet, Billuart, Pegues, etc.). Bellarmine, De sacramentis. Connell, De sacramentis (Brugis, 1933), pp. 1-94. Divine, The Sacraments Explained (London, 1905). Doronzo, De sacramentis in genere (Milwau­ kee, 1946), pp. 1-113. Franzelin, De sacra­ mentis in genere (Rome, 1911). Janot, Les sept fontaines (Paris, 1939). Kennedy, “Sacra­ ments," CE. Martindale, The Sacramental System (New York, 1928). Meagher, Six Sacraments, ed. Lattey (London, 1930). Piolanti, De sacramentis (Rome, 1945). PohlePreuss, Dogmatic Theology, VIII The Sacra­ ments, Vol. I, The Sacraments in General, Baptism, Confirmation (St. Louis, 1945), pp. 3-31. Pourrat. The Theology of the Sacra­ ments (London, 1924); “Sacrement,” DA. Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, trans. Vollert (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 558—582. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 733766. Vonier, A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist (Westminster, 1946), pp. 10-52. sacraments, number of. The Coun­ cil of Trent defined {DB, 844) that seven sacraments, neither more nor less, were instituted by Jesus Christ, namely: baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, holy orders, and matrimony. Actually, Holy Scripture and the Fathers speak of seven rites, in which are verified the distinctive elements of a sacrament; therefore, the sacraments instituted by Christ are seven. We grant that neither the Bible nor Tradi­ tion enunciates in an abstract and ex­ clusive way the septenary number, and that it is only in the twelfth cen­ tury that we are able to find such formal enumeration of the seven sac­ raments. But that docs not mean that the ancient writers did not know the sacraments, number of fact; it merely indicates that, although they admitted and used the seven rites, they had neither the occasion nor the means to list them as seven. They did not have the occasion both on account of the lack of errors in this matter with the corresponding lack of stimulus to profound doctrinal analysis and abstract expression, and on account of the practical nature of these institutions which was con­ ducive rather to stressing their right use than to constructing their theo­ retical synthesis. They did not have the means; they knew, indeed, that baptism, confirmation, etc., consist of a symbolic rite with the power of producing that which they signify, but their knowledge did not extend beyond the mere fact. Even when Origen and St. Augustine began the process of abstraction, following the Neoplatonic philosophy which was wont to stop at symbolism rather than to sound the mysteries of causality, they found it easy to apply the notion of sign to our rites, but had no in­ centive to developing in their respect the idea of cause. Thus appeared the abstract concept of sacrament as a sacred sign, a concept so vague and indetermined as to allow placing in the same category all the symbols with which the liturgy overflowed. Only when the Scholastics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, favored by the Aristotelian philoso­ phy, added to the idea of sign a differentiating characteristic, that of cause, did it become easy to reserve the name “sacrament” to those sacred signs which at once were cause of what they symbolized, and to group under one heading and label the seven rites productive of grace. On the other hand, the fact that the list of the seven sacraments, once formally determined, was unani­ mously accepted by the theologians and immediately accepted throughout the Catholic world tends to prove Sacrifice, Eucharistie 250 that the list was merely an expression of what the Church had been always practicing and explicitly teaching. Such practice and doctrine are effica­ ciously supported by the ancient heret­ ical sects (Nestorians, Monophysites, Jacobites, etc.) who, though separated from the Catholic Church from the fifth and sixth centuries, professed the sacramental septenary. Therefore, even in those remote times, the tradition of the seven sacraments was deep rooted, for, had there been any doubt about the Apostolic origin of such doctrine, the heretics would have capitalized on such doubt by abandon­ ing the sacramental septenary in order to create a deeper moat between them and Rome. and the desire of expiation in order to regain God’s friendship. It is a truth of faith that Christ’s death was a real and proper sacrifice (Council of Ephesus and Council of Trent, DB, 122, 938, 950). Indeed, in the Gospel Christ’s death is often referred to in technical, sacrificial terminology: hostia (θυσία), victima propitiatoria (ίλαστηριον), etc. Christ is called the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world, the Lamb slaughtered (Apoc. 5:6). St. Paul, especially, develops this doctrine, in his Letter to the Hebrews. With the sacrifice of the cross is intimately connected the sacrifice of the Mass, which draws its value from it (see Mass). Christ is Priest and Victim in both. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 65. Bittner, De Numero Sacramentorum Septen­ ario (Breslau, 1859). Doronzo, De sacramentis in genere (Milwaukee, 1946), pp. 496-538. Franzelin, De sacramentis in genere (Rome, 1911). Kennedy, "Sacraments," CE. Michel, “Sacrements,” DTC. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, VIII The Sacraments, Vol. 1 The Sacraments in General, Baptism, Confirmation (St. Louis, 1945), pp. 32-57· Pourrat, The Theology of the Sacraments (London, 1924). St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 48, a. 3. Doronzo, De Eucharistia, Vol. 2 (Mil­ waukee, 1948), Index Analyticus: “Sacrificium coeleste”; "Sacrificium Coenae”; “Sacrificium Crucis.” Gardeil, “Sacrifice,” DTC. Grimal, The Priesthood and Sacrifice of Our Lord fesus Christ, trans. Keyes (Philadelphia, 1915). Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, V Soteriology (St. Louis, 1945), pp. 111-126. Vosté, De passione et morte Jesu Christi (Rome, 1937). p- 331 A- Sacrifice, Eucharistic. See Mass. Salmeron. See “Outline of the His­ tory of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 303). sacrifice of Christ. A sacrifice, in sanctification. The transforming ac­ general, is the offering and the real or equivalent destruction of a material thing, performed by a legitimate min­ ister and directed to God for the purpose of recognizing His Lordship and expiating human guilt. There is no religion without sac­ rifice, which is the most solemn act of worship. Sacrifice stems from the feeling of one’s dependence on the Creator, to whom man owes all, even his very life. In order to express recognition of this subjection, man offers to God things necessary to life, if not life itself, as happened more than once. To the feeling of subjection is added the consciousness of guilt tion which makes man holy. Sancti­ fication, therefore, implies essential reference to the concept of sanctity or holiness. Holy (Hebr. tyTp qôdés, from ïHp qâdâs — to separate) means that which is separated from profane things and consecrated to God. Sanctity, in fact, has a nega­ tive aspect (withdrawal from sin) and a positive aspect (friendly union with the Divinity). In the Old Testament, despite its motives of interior holiness, there gradually prevailed a kind of extrinsic and legal sanctity, which reached its apex in Pharisaism. Christ kindled the flame of true 251 sanctity, representing it as a regenera­ tion, a new life, nourished principally by love to the degree of a mysterious participation in the very life of God. Its negative aspect (purification and liberation from sin) is developed par­ ticularly by St. Paul, while its positive aspect (vital communication and mu­ tual immanence between God and man), more particularly by SS. John and Peter, who speak of a participation of the divine nature in redeemed man (see "consortium," divine). These pre­ cious elements of written revelation, elaborated by the Fathers and the theologians, concur to form the theology of sanctification, sealed by the magisterium of the Church. Sanctification has three phases: genetic, static, and dynamic. Genet­ ically, sanctification in the present order is the passage from a state of sin to friendship with God through grace. (As regards such passage, see justification.) Statically, sanctification is the condition of man elevated by sanctifying grace and its annexed gifts. It may be called sanctity in its being or essence. Dynamically, sancti­ fication is the supernatural activity of the sanctified man, who tends to win an increasingly intense life of union with God by practicing virtue and by assiduously struggling against the passion and temptation. History records two opposite errors with respect to sanctification: Pelagi­ anism (q.v.), which rejects original sin and the necessity of grace, attributing to nature the work of sanctification (naturalism); and Lutheranism (q.v.), which, at the other extreme, exaggerates original sin, denies the possibility of man’s regeneration and collaboration with God, reducing our sanctification to an external imputa­ tion of the divine sanctity. The Church has condemned both errors, teaching, in harmony with revelation, that sanctification is the work of God, who infuses grace but requires sanctity man’s free co-operation both at the time of the acquiring of grace and afterward in the keeping and the increasing of God’s gift. Sanctified man must struggle and work con­ tinuously to progress in holiness, es­ pecially under the impulse and by the exercise of charity (q.v.), which is the measure of true sanctity. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Π-Π, q. 184. Karrer, Le sentiment religieux dans l’hu­ manité et le christianisme, trans, from the German (Paris, 1937). Michel, "Sainteté,” DTC. sanctity (mark of the Church). Sanctity or holiness is the second char­ acteristic endowment or distinguish­ ing mark which the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed attributes to the Church and which stems from its intimate nature. If, indeed, the Church is “the union, in social form, of Christ with man,” it must be holy, like all that is in contact with God. The Bible represents sanctity as a characteristic attribute of the Church: “Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it . . . [and] present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing;... [that] it should be holy, and without blemish. . . . He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight” (Eph. 5:2527; 1:4); “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and might cleanse to himself a people acceptable, pursuer of good works” (Tit. 2:14). The holiness of the Church is three­ fold: sanctity of principles, of mem­ bers, and of gifts. Sanctity of prin­ ciples consists in the fact that the Church is endowed with means which are suited to produce sanctity in men (active sanctity). Truly, the dogmatic sanctity of Christ 252 and moral doctrine of the Church {magisterium) is the leaven that raises the human mass from the darkness of earth to the splendor of heaven, its sacraments {ministerium) are the channels which transmit sanctifying grace, and its authority {imperium) is directed solely to guiding the faith­ ful along the way of perfection. Sanctity of members {passive sanc­ tity) is obvious in the continuous spectacle, that has been going on since the beginning of Christian history, of the very many faithful living accord­ ing to the commands of the Gospel {common sanctity) and especially of the many others who, by following the evangelical counsels, have reached the arduous heights of heroism {per­ fect sanctity), which is usually ap­ proved and certified by canonization. The entire history of Christian peo­ ples, from St. Paul to St. Benedict, from St. Francis of Assisi to St. Teresa of Jesus, from St. Vincent de Paul to St. John Bosco, is crisscrossed by luminous wakes of heroic sanctity. The holiness of gifts {signs of sanctity) emerges from the gift of miracles, through which the Holy Spirit is accustomed to manifest His presence in the whole Mystical Body (miracles are, indeed, gratiae gratis datae, i.e., graces gratuitously given for the edification of the Church), as well as in certain singularly virtuous members of the Church, since, ordi­ narily, God employs the souls dearest to Him for the working of His marvels. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, tn Symbolum Apostolorum expositio, a. 7-8. Cotter, T/ieologia funda­ mentalis (Weston, 1940), pp. 411, 465-476. De Poulpiquet, L'Eglise (Paris, 1927). Joyce, "Sanctity (Mark of the Church),” CE. sanctity of Christ. Generally speak­ ing, holiness signifies association with the Divinity. In a concrete and Chris­ tian sense, it involves a certain partici­ pation in the divine nature by means of grace, an adoptive filiation or sonship, and immunity from guilt. The humanity of Christ is most holy by reason of the hypostatic union and of the boundless grace with which it was enriched, {a) On ac­ count of the hypostatic union the assumed humanity subsists by the very being of the Word. Thus no closer union with God is conceivable, nor can anything belong to God more properly than that humanity. By that same union Christ-Man is not an adopted Son but the natural Son of God, and, therefore, is impeccable (see impeccability), {b) In addition to this sanctity of a substantial char­ acter, the humanity of Christ has a sanctity of an accidental order by virtue of grace and the supernatural gifts. By the hypostatic union Christ’s humanity is holy; through grace and the gifts it acts in a holy way, i.e., in a godly way. The grace in Christ is so full that, as St. John says, “of His fullness we all have received.” Thus the humanity of the Saviour is the inexhaustible source of all sanctity; the splendors of the one and holy Church are an irradiation of that most holy humanity. The Gospel speaks of a progress of Jesus in wisdom and grace (Luke 2:52). He was, nevertheless, full of all wisdom and grace from the first in­ stant of the incarnation. That prog­ ress, as the Fathers suggest, must be understood not in a real sense, but in the sense of progressive manifestation. Sanctity of Mary. Conceived with­ out stain of sin (see Immaculate Con­ ception), she was immune to all sin and its concupiscence, even venial sin (Council of Trent); she was thus full of a perfect grace, superior to that of the saints and the angels, and in­ finite in some way, i.e., not in an absolute sense, but proportionately to her sublime dignity as Mother of God. 253 BIBLIOGRAPHY Chollet, La psychologie du Christ (Paris, 1909). Hugon, Le mystère de l'incarnation (Paris, 1931), p. 208 ff. Merkelbach, Mariologia (Paris, 1939), p. 157 ff. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, IV Christology (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 207-247. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 389-392. Thouvenin, “Jésus Christ,” DTC, cols. 1274-1295. satisfaction of Christ (Lat. satis­ factio). In Roman law satisfaction meant the compensation for a debt to be paid or for an offense to be ex­ piated (the Wergeld of Germanic medieval law). Tertullian used this juridical term to signify the peniten­ tial works enjoined in the penitential discipline. Consequently the term passed into the liturgy (first the Mozarabic) to signify the works and intercessions of the saints in behalf of sinners. St. Anselm applied satisfaction to Christ the Redeemer, developing a whole doctrine which was later in­ corporated in the framework of scho­ lasticism. In his work, Cur Deus Homo (“Why the God-Man?”), he insisted on the concept of satisfaction as an objective reparation for the natural order disturbed by guilt, so as to establish a juridical proportion be­ tween guilt and satisfaction. St. Thomas integrated this concept with the moral element of Christ’s passion (love, obedience) and with the prin­ ciple of the solidarity between Christ, the Head, and men, the members of His Mystical Body. An adjective was later added to the term, and vicarious satisfaction was used to indicate the substitution of Christ for men in satisfying the divine justice and in liberating them from the slavery to the devil and sin. This satisfaction offered by Christ, especially through His passion and death, has an infinite value, because it is proper to the Word (see theandric operation). Ac­ cording to St. Thomas, three elements satisfaction, sacramental concur in its constitution: love, justice, pain. The first is the formal and most important element; the second is the guiding or directing reason; the third is the material element (see Redemption). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 48, a. 2. St. Anselm, Cur Deus Homo. Doronzo, De Poenitentia, Vol. 3. Ricard, De satisfac­ tione Christi in Tract. S. Anselmi "Cur Deus Homo" (Louvain, 1914). Sollier, "Redemp­ tion,” CE. See under Redemption. satisfaction, sacramental. The vol­ untary acceptance of works requiring sacrifice (prayer, alms, mortification) in order to expiate the temporal pun­ ishment or penalty which remains after the remission of sin. Holy Scrip­ ture teaches us (Wisd. 10:2; Gen. 3:17; cf. Num. 20:1; 2 Kings 12:1314) that God does not always remit, together with the guilt and the eternal penalties, all the temporal punishment. The priest, therefore, when giving absolution imposes works of satisfaction (penance), which the penitent must accept. The effects of satisfaction are: compensa­ tion, according to the rules of justice, for the outrage of God’s honor caused by sin, the healing of the forces of wounded human nature, and the reparation of the scandal of sins com­ mitted in the presence of the brethren. The Protestants objected, claiming that satisfaction is proper only when there is equality of nature between the guilty and the offended person, where­ as the distance between God and man is infinite. What could a creature ever do that might satisfy his debt toward God? The Council of Trent reit­ erated: “Satisfaction is not so much our own, but of Christ and through Him, in whom we live and move and satisfy, and do worthy and fruitful penitential works, which have their value from Him, are offered to schism 254 God by Him, and are accepted by the Father through Him” (sess. 14, c. 8; DB, 904). Therefore, all our works, through their sacramental application made by the priest, bear the imprint of the blood of Christ. Man, as a living member of the Mystical Body, receives the influence of the Head, lives of His life, His works, His merits, His satisfaction; the current of the divine life of Jesus propels, as it were, the tiny boat of human life toward the banks of eternity. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas. Summa Theol., Ill, S«pp/<·mentum, qq. 12-15. Capella, De satisfactione Jesu Christi et satisfactione nostra (Ferrariae, 1551). Doronzo, De Poenitentia, Vol. 3, Ch. 6. Galtier, “Satisfaction,” DTC. Hanna, “Pen­ ance,” CE. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, X The Sacraments, Vol. 3, Penance (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 217-231. schism (Gr. σχίσμα — separation, di­ vision). The crime of one who sep­ arates himself from the Catholic Church to form another sect under the pretext that the Catholic Church errs or approves disorders and abuses. Schism is distinct formally from heresy, because heresy breaks the dogmatic bond by professing error, while schism breaks the social bond by the refusal of obedience to the legitimate pastors. However, in the long run, schism falls fatally into heresy, because it eventually denies the authority and the infallibility of the Church. The history of Christianity is marred by flighty and proud minds that rebelled against the legitimate authorities and became autonomous, forming dissident sects. The chief schisms were those of the Novatians in the third century and of the Donatists in the fourth and fifth cen­ turies. The saddest one, however, is the Greek Schism, started by Photius (ninth century), which keeps apart from the bosom of the true Church so many Christian peoples who at one time counted among their num­ ber outstanding saints and doctors. Schismatics are members wrenched from the body of the Church, dried up branches, as it were. If they are in bad faith they cannot be saved, be­ cause, as St. Augustine says, foris ab Ecclesia constitutus et separatus a compage unitatis et vinculo caritatis, aeterno supplicio punieris, etiamsi pro Christi nomine vivus incendiaris (“Constituted outside of the Church and separated from the sinews of unity and bond of charity, you will be punished with eternal torture, even should you be burned alive for Christ’s name,” Ep., 173, ad Donatum). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II-II, q. 39. Attwater, Christian Churches of the East, Vol. II, rev. cd. (Milwaukee, 1948). Batiffol, Le catholicisme de saint Augustin (Paris, 1929). Congar and Jucie, "Schisme,” DTC. Forget, “Schism.” CE. Fortescue, "Schism (Eastern),” CE; The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1907). Jugie, Theologia Dogmatica Christianorum Orientalium, Vol. I (Paris, 1927); Le Schisme Byzantin (Paris, 1942). Salembier, "Schisme d’Occident," DA. Schools of Alexandria and Anti­ och. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 301); allégorism; Arianism; Monophysitism; Nestorianism. science, divine. Science is the knowl­ edge of things not only in themselves but also in their proper causes. It is a perfect intellectual knowledge, and in this sense science is properly pred­ icated of God. Divine revelation exalts the wis­ dom of God. St. Paul gathers its most ancient testimonies in the ex­ clamation “O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God!” (Rom. 11:33.) The Church defines (Vatican Council, sess. 3, c. 1; DB, 1782) that God is endowed with an infinite intellect. The concept of 255 divine omniscience is familiar to all Tradition for these reasons: (a) In­ tellectuality is the highest perfection of the human and angelic creature: but created perfections must be in God in an eminent way (see analogy'). (Z>) The order and finality of the cosmos reveal an intelligent Cause, (c) Intellectuality and, therefore, knowledge are connatural properties of all spiritual beings; to know means to receive “intentionally” in oneself the forms of external things without altering or losing one’s own form; this is possible only to spirit, which, while remaining identical with itself, is able to become all things by know­ ing them. Since God is spiritual in the highest sense, He is supremely in­ telligent; what is more, by reason of His simplicity {q.v.), His intellect and knowledge are identical with His essence and, therefore, His knowledge is most perfect and infinite, as is His essence. God knows, above all, Him­ self {primary object), then all crea­ tures present, past, and future, and all possible things. The Scholastics dis­ tinguish: scientia visionis, for real things, and scientia simplicis intelligentiae, for possible things. The Molinists add the scientia media (see Molinism; prescience). There is discussion among theolo­ gians on the mode of God’s knowl­ edge of creatures; the best opinion is that which holds mediate knowledge: God, by knowing perfectly His es­ sence, knows in it also all things real and possible, for all things are actual or potential imitations of the divine essence. If God knew things directly, e., outside of Himself, they would i. in a certain way actuate and modify the divine intellect, which is repug­ nant. Knowing all things by a most simple act, which is identical with His essence, God does not reason, like we do, by passing from one known object to another, but grasps intuitively and exhausts with one single act all the science of Christ intelligibility of His own nature and of all created or creatable beings. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 14. Garrigou-Lagrange, Cod, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1947-1948); The One God, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1943), pp. 416-479. Michel, “Science (II Science de Dieu)," DTC, cols. 1598-1620. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, I God: Knowability, Essence, Attributes (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 327-422. Sertillanges, St. Thomas d’Aquin, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1925), p. 210 ff. Toner, “God,” CE. science of Christ. The total knowl­ edge which Christ has both as God and as Man. As God, the Word has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit that act of divine in­ tellection which is identical with the divine essence and through which the Triune God knows Himself and all things possible and real (past, present, and future). This truth is based on the true divinity and consubstantiality of the incarnate Word (Council of Nicaea) and on the integrity of His divine nature (Coun­ cil of Chalcedon). It is rejected by Monophysitism, Agnoetism, and the theory of kenosis {qq.v.). This divine knowledge of the Word, being infinite, could not be communicated formally to the as­ sumed soul of Christ, which, instead, had to have those kinds of knowledge that are possible to the intellectual creature, namely: the beatific vision, infused knowledge, and acquired knowledge, {a) The beatific vision is proper to the blessed; it could not, therefore, be lacking to Christ, even during His life on earth, on account of the hypostatic union, which is a much greater perfection than the beatific vision, {b) Infused knowledge is a gift of God, consisting in the infusion of intelligible species in the intellect which is thus enabled to un­ derstand things without the concourse of the senses; this knowledge accom­ panies the beatific vision in the blessed Scotus 256 and the angels and, therefore, was also in Christ, Head of the angels and King of the blessed, (r) Acquired knowledge is that which the human mind obtains by means of abstraction of species or ideas from the phantasms of sense cognition; Christ, as perfect Man, must naturally have this knowl­ edge, in which only He could make progress, according to the Gospel (Luke 2:52). These three kinds of knowledge, being of different char­ acter, can exist together in the same soul, and Christ uses now one, now another. Nor are they superfluous, since they have different gradations of luminousness. Divine knowledge, as well as the threefold human knowledge of Christ, exclude from Him any ignorance whatever; if Jesus says (Mark 13:32) that He does not know the day of the final judgment, this expression must be understood in the sense that He cannot manifest it (thus the Fathers). Cf. Decree of the Holy Office, 1918, DB, 2183-2185. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, qq. 9-12. Hugon, Le mystère de l’incarnation (Paris, 1931), P· 243; “Le décret du Saint-Office touchant la science de l'âme du Christ," Revue Thomiste, 1918. Maas, “Knowledge of Jesus Christ,” CE. Michel, “Science” (IV. Science de Jésus-Christ), DTC, cols. 1628-1665. Peter Parente, De Verbo Incarnato (Rome, 1939), p. 194 ff. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, IV Christology (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 247-277. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 392397. Thouvenin, “Jésus-Christ," DTC, col. 1273 f. Scotus. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 303); analogy; person. Scripture, Holy. See Bible. seal of confession. The most grave obligation of keeping secret all that has been revealed by the penitent with reference to absolution in the sacra­ ment of penance, and whose revela­ tion would render that sacrament onerous and odious. The primary subject of such obligation is the con­ fessor; the secondary subject, all those who, either by accident or design, legitimately or illegitimately, have heard something pertaining to con­ fession. Obviously the penitent is not held to secrecy. The object of the secret is: (1) all mortal sins, gen­ erally or specifically, and all venial sins confessed specifically; (2) all that might constitute damage or hardship on the penitent, if it were revealed. Hence, virtues, supernatural gifts, etc., do not come within the object of this secret. Even when the confessor denies absolution he is held to the secret, for as the IV Lateran Council teaches, Radix unde sigillum enascitur non est absolutio sed penitentiale indicium (“The root whence the seal arises is not absolution but penitential judgment,” i.e., the fact of submitting one’s sins to the confessor’s judgment in the sacrament). This obligation is founded on: («) Natural law, because the penitent manifests his sins on condition of secrecy; a quasi-contract is stipulated between penitent and confessor. (Z>) Positive divine law; in fact, since Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of penance in the form of a judgment, which requires the revelation of sins, He implicitly imposed the sacramental seal. Indeed, if it were not included in the penitential judgment, confes­ sion would become odious, harmful, scandalous: things our Saviour, in­ finite Justice, Sanctity, and Mercy, absolutely could not permit, (c) Ecclesiastical latv, as is obvious from the severe canonical legislation. It is apparent, therefore, that this secret is so strict that it cannot be revealed, except by the penitent’s permission, even when the confessor’s life or the public good is at stake. Historically, it is a fact that there exists a special 257 action of divine providence insuring the keeping of this secret. With few exceptions, the ministers of God have always merited the confidence reposed in them by the faithful, at times even sealing it with their blood. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Comment. In 4 Sent., dist. 2, q. 3, a. 4. Dolhabaray, “Confession (X Science acquise en),” DTC, cols. 960-974. Doronzo, De Poenitentia, Vol. 2 (Milwaukee, 1951). Honoré, Le secret de la confession (Brugis, 1924). Kurtscheid, A History of the Seal of Confession, trans. Marks (St. Louis, 1927). Nolan, “Seal of Confession,” CE. Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis, Vol. 3, η. 443-448. Semi-Pelagianism the Cappadocians (St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory Nazianzus) tried, as best they could, to follow a conciliatory course in the midst of so many aberrations, which consisted not in sacrificing the sub­ stance of the Nicene definition, but in abstaining from stressing the dis­ puted expressions, even the word ό/Αοουσιον. This was a prudential measure and not a retractation of the doctrine they had defended, as some modern critics have unjustly insin­ uated, speaking of them as NeoNicenists. BIBLIOGRAPHY Semi-Arians. Originating from Arianism (q.v.), the Semi-Arians attempted through insidious subtleties to sabotage the Nicene definition con­ cerning the όμοουσιοϊ (consubstantiel, said of the Word with respect to the Father). The chief Semi-Arian sects are: 1. The Anomoeans (Gr. wofioios — dissimilar), founded by Aëtius and Eunomius, the closest to Arianism. Insisting on the concept of αγέννητος (unborn) as proper to God, they denied the divinity of the Word and His consubstantiality with the Father, for the reason that the Word is gen­ erated, the only-begotten Son. St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nyssa fought them vigorously (see Anomoeanism). 2. The Omocans (Gr. o/zoios— similar), also called Acacians (from Acacius of Caesarea, j· 366). The Word, according to them, is not consubstantial with the Father, but only similar to Him (see Acacians). 3. The Homoiousians (ομοι-ονσιος— of like substance), the largest among the Semi-Arian sects, called also Basilians (from Basil of Ancira, ■j· 366). They reject the όμοουσιος of Nicaea and hold that the Word is not of the same substance of the Father, but of a substance similar to that of the Father. St. Athanasius and D’Auis, Le dogme de Nicée (Paris, 1926), p. 126 ff. Chapman, “Semiarians and Scmiarianism,” CE. Tireront, History of Dogmas, trans. H.L.B., Vol. 2 (St. Louis, 1914), p. 50 f. Seminaries (Congregation of). See Holy See. Semi-Pelagianism. A mitigated form of Pelagianism {q.v.) sprung up on the occasion of certain ex­ pressions of St. Augustine (before he became bishop) on the beginning of faith and good will (cf. De libero arbitrio; De Diversis Quaestionibus, 85, especially question 86). The chief authors of the movement were John Cassian, of St. Victor, near Marseilles, Gennadius of Marseilles (from whom the Semi-Pelagians are called also Marsilians), Faustus, Bishop of Riez, and Vincent of Lerins, who wrote the famous Commoni­ torium, in which he evidently opposes St. Augustine, without naming him. St. Augustine, close to death, was in­ formed of the new heresy by two good laymen, Prosper Aquitanus and Hilary, and wrote two works against it. Later Prosper composed a poem De Ingratis (i.e., on those who do away with grace) against the Semi­ Pelagians. Another defender of St. Augustine was St. Fulgentius, who attacked Faustus especially. senses of Scripture 258 The chief points of the heresy are: (e) Grace is not required to begin faith and sanctification, but only to complete them. (Z>) God grants grace according to our merits and our posi­ tive dispositions to receive it. (c) Final perseverance is the fruit of our own merits. Through the work of St. Caesarius of Arles a council was assembled at Orange in 529 (Cone. Arausicanum II), which reinforced the condemna­ tion of Pelagianism (already issued in the Council of Carthage of 418, and in that of Ephesus in 431), and re­ jected the new error of Semi-Pelagianism, defining (according to the teach­ ing of St. Augustine) that: (e) Grace is always necessary for every good act in supernatural life, even for the initial one. (Z>) Grace is absolutely gratuitous and God distributes it freely, (c) Without grace it is not possible to persevere in good to the end and so win eternal life. The definitions of this Council were ap­ proved by Pope Boniface II (cf. DB, 174 ff.). BIBLIOGRAPHY Cayré, Manual of Patrology, trans. Howitt, Vol. I (Paris, Tournai, Rome, 1936), pp. 601-603, 635“637· Pohle, “Scmipelagianism," CE. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, VII Grace {Actual and Habitual) (St. Louis, >946), PP· 96-110. 'Fixeront, History of Dogmas, trans. H.L.B., Vol. 3 (St. Louis, 1916), pp. 264-301. senses of Scripture. Since all au­ thors write to communicate ideas, every text carries its own particular meaning. An exclusive property of the biblical texts is that they often have, in addition to their literal sense — which springs up directly from the words — a sense which is called typical. Such is the case when the words or the things expressed, or the persons described, have not only a literal, historical meaning, complete in itself, but are also pointed to signify other things, events, or persons. The type or figure is the thing or fact or person intended to signify another, called the antitype. For example, Adam was the type of Christ, Christ is the antitype of Adam (Rom. 5:14). Between type and antitype there must be a relationship of re­ semblance, e.g., the priesthood of Melchisedech, who offers as sacrifice to the Most High bread and wine, is a type of the priesthood of Christ, who offers under the species of bread and wine His own flesh and blood (Heb. 7:3). It is obvious that God alone could direct words and events toward future doctrines and realities, and, therefore, the typical sense of the biblical texts can be established only on the testi­ mony of the Bible itself or of Tradi­ tion, namely: on the sources of revelation. We distinguish Messianic, moral, and anagogical (which aims upward or on high) types, according as their content is Messianic or moral or re­ spective of life eternal. Jerusalem, e.g., is, in the literal sense, the capital of the Kingdom of Judea, in the typical Messianic sense it is the figure of the Church, in the typical moral sense it is the figure of the soul of the faithful, and in the anagogical sense it is eternal beatitude. The typical sense, in all its forms, is proper to the Old Testament; in the New Testament only anagogical types are to be found. Since the typical sense derives from divine revelation, it has a probative value in dogma; but it should be noted that nothing is found expressed in the Bible in the typical sense which is not enunciated as well in the literal sense. BIBLIOGRAPHY Cotter, Theologia fundamentalis (Weston, 1940), pp. 677-686. Hopfl, Gut, Introductio generalis in S. Scripturam (Rome, 1940), pp. 453“468. Steinmueller, A Companion to Scripture Studies, Vol. 1 (New York, 1941), pp. 226-245. See under hermeneutics. sign 259 sentiment, religious. Skilled psy­ chologists, both ancient and modern, discuss the nature of sentiment with­ out being able to define it. Some hold that sentiment derives from an affec­ tive or emotive faculty, distinct from both the volitive {motive) and the perceptive-intellective faculties. Some reduce sentiment to psychological phenomena, while others consider it as a representative or intellective function. The Scholastic theory, formulated by St. Thomas, who followed Aris­ totle, presents the surest guarantees of truth, despite its age. According to this teaching, there are in man only two kinds of psychic faculties: the cognitive and the appetitive, each being distinguished in sensible and supersensible or spiritual. We have, therefore, the zone of the senses with the corporal organs, the sensations and the passions which belong at once to the body and to the soul that in­ forms the body. From this inferior zone we pass to the spiritual zone, in which function the immaterial facul­ ties of intellect and will. Sensation, proper to the sense faculties, is origi­ nated from a passive impression of the external world on the senses, which be­ comes a perception of the object and its representation (phantasm-image); hence follows in the appetitive faculty a movement toward the object per­ ceived, namely, an impulse, accom­ panied by physical emotion, which is usually called passion (love, hate, joy, sadness, etc.). As the sense appetite has its pas­ sions subordinate to sense representa­ tions, so the rational appetite, i.e., the will, has its affections subordinate to intellective representations (con­ cept-ideas). Sentiment is placed among these affections of the will, which, residing in a spiritual faculty, has repercussions in the sense zone and, like sensation, has both an active and a passive character, inasmuch as it may be termed an impression di­ rected to an action. The gamut of the sentiments is indefinite, but love is its fundamental note. The religious sentiment is born from the knowledge of God the Creator, which inspires man with humble subjection, adoration, or fear. According to Catholic doctrine, re­ ligious sentiment does not precede but accompanies and follows the knowledge of God, and it is a precious energy for the development of piety and spiritual perfection. But from the rise of Lutheranism, senti­ ment has become for many the unique or the chief source of religion, which is reduced to a mere psychological experience (see experience, religious). This is also true of Schleiermacher, the founder of sentimental theology, and of the Pragmatists (see Prag­ matism), who furnish modernism {q.v.) with its theories. Psychological sentimentalism, consisting in an exaggeration of sentiment, becomes in religious matters anarchy and con­ fusion which lead unconsciously to pantheism and atheism. BIBLIOGRAPHY See under experience, religious. septenary, sacramental. See sacra­ ments, number of. “sigillum sacramentale.” See seal of confession. sign. An intermediary between the thing known and the cognitive faculty. A sign manifests something distinct from itself either because it is the perfect image of that thing (e.g., a photograph, a species ex­ pressa), in which case it is called formal sign, or because it is so in­ timately connected with the thing signified as to recall it spontaneously, in which case it is called instrumental sign. The bond between the thing simplicity of God 260 signified and the instrumental sign may have its foundation either in nature, e.g., smoke with respect to fire {natural sign), or in the human will, e.g., a flag with respect to the country {conventional sign), or, fi­ nally, in both, e.g., the eagle by the daring of his flight has a special aptitude to signify acuteness of in­ tellect, but that, in a concrete case, the eagle signifies St. John the Evangelist depends on the will of the Church, which has chosen this symbol {mixed sign), following a prophetic vision of Ezechiel. All our life with its multiple social relations is based on signs and symbols; words, which are the most important factor in human fellowship, are purely conventional signs. Conse­ quently, the Founder of the perfect religion, which is an elevation and orientation of our life to God, could not neglect this element. In fact, our Lord instituted seven sacramental signs, which not only recall to mind the most wonderful realities of the supernatural order (grace, the char­ acter, etc.), but ingraft them with divine efficacy on the soul of the be­ liever (see sacraments, nature of). The Church, faithful imitator of her divine Founder, has surrounded the seven sacraments with many other holy symbols (the sacramentals) and has ornamented the ecclesiastical lit­ urgy with multiple rites which help the Christian to understand and, as it were, to experience the realities sealed up in the invisible world of grace. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 60. Doronzo, De sacramentis in genere (Mil­ waukee, 1946), Index Analyticus: “Signum." Gredt, Elementa Philosophiae AristotelicoThomisticae, Vol. i (Freiburg i.-Br., 1931), n. 9. Maritain, Les degrés du savior (Paris, I932)> P- 769; L'esprit dans sa condition charnelle (Paris, 1939), pp. 80-89. simplicity of God. Simple, antonym of composite, excludes all composi­ tion (physical, metaphysical, substan­ tial, accidental, logical). There is a negative simplicity, like that of the mathematical point, which involves rather poverty and imperfection, and there is also a positive simplicity, which means perfection, like that of a spirit. The IV Lateran Council and the Vatican Council define that the divine essence is absolutely simple {DB, 428, 1782), coherently with revelation which represents God as purest Spirit and as Being Itself (see essence, divine). The Scholastics demonstrate scien­ tifically the absolute simplicity of God by an argumentation ab absurdo: Every composite is posterior to and dependent on its parts; it is necessarily caused, because its parts would not unite into the whole without the in­ fluence of an extrinsic cause; it is finite, because its various parts limit each other reciprocally in order to be distinct. Now to be dependent, caused, finite is obviously repugnant to the nature of the supreme Being. There­ fore God is altogether simple, namely: (1) In God there can be no distinc­ tion between essence and existence, otherwise existence would be extrinsic to His essence and, therefore, caused, and His essence would be a potency, as it were, with respect to the exis­ tential act (which is inconsistent with God, Pure Act); God Himself would then be a Being by participation and not the very self-subsisting Being. (2) Likewise, in God there can be no real distinction, and thus no com­ position between nature and person, otherwise His nature would be a formal part of His person, i.e., would be finite, no longer divine. (3) Nor can there be accidental composition in God, for no further determination can be made to the infinite and most perfect substance of God. Every ac­ cident is perfective of the subject in which it inheres. Therefore, God is 261 simple in the most absolute way; however, in His most simple Being and Pure Act all perfections are im­ plicitly contained. Simplicity belongs, in some degree, to all spiritual beings, like the human soul (q.v.). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 3. Garrigou-Lagrange, God, trans. Rose (St. Louis), pp. 1047-1948. Parente, De Deo Uno (Rome, 1938), Ρ· 177 ff. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, I God: Knowability, Essence, At­ tributes (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 202-212. Sertillanges, St. Thomas d'Aquin, Vol. 2 (Paris, ■925). P· 166. sin, original. The sin committed by our first parents, as is narrated in Holy Scripture (Gen. af.). God en­ riched Adam and Eve with gifts (see innocence; integrity) and placed them in the earthly paradise, full of every material good. He wanted from His creatures a very simple proof of fidelity, a test very easy to pass: He forbade them to eat of the fruit of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil,” threatening most severe punishment if they disobeyed. Satan, under the form of a serpent, tempted Eve who, en­ ticed by his words, picked the fruit and tasted of it. She, in turn, handed it to her husband vho, to please her, did not hesitate to eat of it, despite the divine prohibition. Immediately guilt darkened their minds and upset the harmony of their whole being. They felt their senses rebel and be­ came ashamed of their nakedness, trying to flee from God by hiding be­ hind the trees. God, as He had warned, exacted the penalties of the first sin and expelled the guilty from paradise, who inaugurate for them­ selves and all humanity after them the unending journey of suffering, miseries, and tribulations. Holy Scripture often recalls this tragic event: “From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die” (Ecclus. 25:33); “By the sin, original offense of one, many died. ... By the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners” (Rom. 5:15, 19). St. John recalls the role of the devil: “He was a murderer from the begin­ ning” (John 8:44). Tradition is unanimous on this doctrine. Some traces of the event are found in the religious mythologies of the pagan world, which, however, appear as deformations in comparison with the dignity and the dramatic sobriety of the biblical narrative. The rationalists deny the historicity of the sacred narrative, alleging in­ congruities or absurdities of detail (an apple the cause of such ruin, a serpent speaking to the woman, etc.). Our exegetes have answered these objections adequately: (a) God, after so great generosity, had a right to impose a test; (Z>) in His infinite goodness, He is satisfied with a very light one; (<■) Fie manifests clearly His precept and its sanctions; (zf) the sin of our first parents materially was the eaten fruit, but formally was pride and rebellion against God, for the devil suggests to Eve that if they eat of the fruit they will not die but will become similar to God; Adam prefers his wife to God, and both Eve and he disobey through their proud desire of becoming gods. Their sin thus became grave, so much more so because they were rich in spiritual light and strength, thus having no excuse, no pretext to adduce in at­ tenuation of their guilt, which was pure malice. Besides, if divine justice struck, and rightly so, divine mercy and goodness intervened immediately with the promise of the Redeemer who will crush the evil serpent. Consequences of original sin in the first parents themselves are: () In his soul man resembles God and reflects His image in a particular manner soul (Gen. 1:6, 26); such affirmation im­ plies that the soul is not something material (cf. Eccles. 12:7). («·) The soul is immortal; the Gospel gives ample testimony to this truth (cf. Matt. 10:28); as regards the Old Testament, see particularly Wisdom 2:23; 3:1, 4, 10; Psalms 48:15-16, etc. {d) From these texts is also proved that the soul is the formal element of man, the vital and rational principle on account of which man is man, i.e., a living animal specifically distinct from the brutes. 2. Tradition generally repeats and develops the written revelation con­ cerning the nature and properties of the soul. However, Tertullian pro­ poses the strange theory of a corporeal traducianism {q.v.), teaching that the soul of the child is generated through the seed of its parents. Later St. Augustine, although rejecting Tertullian’s opinion, seemed to lean toward a spiritual traducianism (the soul of the child generated by the soul of its parents, as light from light), in order to expound more efficaciously against the Pelagians (see Pelagianism) the transmission of original sin. However, the holy Doctor did not exclude creationism, i.e., the creation and im­ mediate infusion of the individual souls into their bodies. Scholastic theologians discussed more subtle questions, for example: in what moment does God infuse the soul (modern theologians commonly answer: in the very first moment of fecundation). More important is the question of the unity of the soul and of its nature as the substantial form of the body. Plato denied the substantial union of the soul with the body and divided the soul itself into three ele­ ments (trichotomy). Some rare traces of such theory is found also among Scholastic doctors. The Franciscan, Peter John Olivi, distinguishing in the soul the essence and its three ele­ ments or grades (the rational, the Spirit, Holy 266 sensitive, and the vegetative), main­ tained that only the last two (the sensitive and the vegetative) inform the body: the soul, in so far as it is rational, is united substantially with the body (composing with it one sole individual), but not formally. The Council of Vienne condemned this opinion and defined that the rational soul is the immediate substantial form of the body {DB, 481). The Scotists still maintain that, be­ sides the principal substantial form which is the soul itself, the body has a secondary corporeal form {forma corporeitatis). The Thomists, on the contrary, in full concordance with the doctrine of the Church, teach that the rational soul is the only substantial form which constitutes man, as man, as animal, as living being, as body, as substance, and as being (see immortality). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, qq. 75-77; Quaestiones de Anima. Boyer, De Deo Creante et Elevante (Rome, 1940), p. 122 ff. Driscoll, Christian Philosophy, The Soul (New York, 1898). Maher, Boland, “Soul," CE. Mercier, Psychologie, Vol. 2 (Louvain, 1928), p. 347 ff. Spirit, Holy. See Holy Ghost. spiritism. A doctrinal and practical system which claims to put living men in communication with the spirits of the other world. The evocation of the dead and of the spirits of the other world was in practice among the an­ cients, but in the past century as a consequence of a strange episode that happened in the Fox family at Hydes­ ville in the United States (1847), evocation of, and communication with, spirits became a spreading fashion and was systemized under the specious name of spiritism to the point of be­ coming a new religion. Today spirit­ ism is a very complex and garbled affair by reason of the confused super­ imposition of numerous elements added to the simple experiences of the Fox sisters. No longer merely the moving tables with typtology (tap language), but mysterious writings, luminous phenomena, levitation, for­ mation of images and their material­ ization, divination, etc., together with the various theories of magnetism, hypnotism, somnambulism, telepathy, perispirit, od, reincarnation, etc., have been added in an effort to give a scientific character to phenomena which on account of their very ex­ travagance provoke suspicion and dis­ trust. The principal actor in spiritism is the medium, connecting link be­ tween the spirits and the mortals. Famous mediums were Florence Cook, who worked with the scientist Crookes, and Eusapia Palladino. It is proved that fraud and imposture have played a great role in spiritistic phe­ nomena; to the fraud of the mediums should be added the credulity and suggestibility of the public. There re­ mains, however, a nucleus of real facts, which can be explained by nat­ ural forces (magnetism, muscular vibration, telepathy). From a moral viewpoint, spiritism often presents censurable aspects, not to mention the disorientation of con­ science and the loss of mental balance determined by its frequent practice. From a theological viewpoint, the alleged communication with the dead and the spirits, not to mention the frauds of spiritism, cannot be sus­ tained. In the Bible and in Christian hagiography we come across cases of deceased persons, of angels, and of demons appearing to the living to warn, help, tempt, or punish them. Such communications, however, al­ ways take place in a sober atmosphere, in which rules the will of God who arranges or permits them. In spirit­ ism, on the contrary, we find u spectacle of exhibitionism, often gro tesque, which is repugnant to the sanctity of God and to the dignity of 267 the angels and the disincarnate spirits. There remains only the possibility of diabolical intervention for those phe­ nomena which could not be given a natural explanation. From this we easily understand why the Church, abstaining from any statements on the nature of the vari­ ous phenomena, allows, within the limits of prudence, the use of magnet­ ism and hypnotism, while it opposes any participation whatsoever in spirit­ istic performances on account of their superstitious character and the dan­ gers to which the faithful may be exposed as regards faith and morals. (Cf. Decree of the Holy Office, April 24, 1917, AAS, 1917, June 1, p. 268.) BIBLIOGRAPHY Capron, Modern Spiritualism (Boston, 1855). Carrington, The Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism (Boston, 1907). De Heredia, Spiritism and Common Sense (New York, 1922). Gearon, Lo spiritismo el il suo fallimento (Turin, 1934). Pace, "Spiritism,” CE. Raupert, Modern Spiritism (London, 1904). Roure. Le Spiritisme d’aujourd’hui et d’hier (Paris, 1923); "Spiritisme," DTC; “Spiri­ tisme,” DA. Wallace, Miracles and Modern Spiritualism (London, 1877). State and Church. The concept of State is complex and, therefore, the term is not always used in the same sense: some understand by it rather the authority, the power, the govern­ ment; others, rather the social organ­ ism, the nation. We may say that the State consists of the authority, as the formal element, and of the multitude, as the material element. From this we can form an approximate definition of the State as being a stable union of families and of individuals in a de­ termined territory, under the same authority, for the purpose of procur­ ing the common good. The concept of nation includes unity of race and history, which is not a necessary ele­ ment of the politically constituted State. Varied and contradictory are the opinions about the origin of the State and Church State as a civil society and about the nature of the State as a supreme authority. 1. Contractualism (Hobbes, Rous­ seau): Civil society originates from a contract or convention of primitive men who, motivated by the desire of eliminating individual strife and dis­ orders, have renounced the fullness of their private liberty by subjecting themselves to a “general will” per­ sonified in the sovereign State. This conception is phantastic and without historical foundation. 2. Absolutism: The State is all, and the individual is for the State. This concept is dominant in paganism, and in various forms was adhered to by Plato and Aristotle. But absolutism has gained strength in modern times through the idealistic theories of Hegel and his followers, who con­ sider the State as something divine, as a religion, as an absolute will, which absorbs the life and liberty of the human person: such is State wor­ ship with a pantheistic background, which has been used in support of totalitarian, despotic regimes of our time. Theories of this kind, which represent a retrogression to aban­ doned pagan conceptions, are refuted, if not otherwise, by their evil consequences. 3. Liberalism {q.v.): In harmony with the principles of the French Revolution, liberalism affirms the sov­ ereignty of the people and the perfect equality of citizens in the exercise of their proper rights. The State (the authority) is a delegate of the people, with the function of maintaining public order and of regulating by legislation the harmony and the equi­ librium of the individual freedoms. This is the theory of the "gendarme state," to which Kant also contributed, by separating ethics and law, leaving the former to the autonomy of indi­ vidual reason, and the latter to the protection, rather negative than posi- State and Church 268 five, of the State. The liberal State is agnostic not only politically and economically, but also with reference to the problem of religion and to the Church. 4. Positivism (q.v.): Basing itself on evolutionistic theories, positivism explains the origin and the nature of the State after the fashion of the natural development of an organism, without the influence of immutable principles or of free will, but accord­ ing to a deterministic law. These and other theories, although having some true points, sin by way of exaggeration: they concede too much either to nature, or to the hu­ man will, or to the authority of the State, or to the individual. But their gravest fault is absolutism, which makes of the State an idol to which the sacred personality of man must be immolated. It seems strange that dem­ ocratic trends, such as socialism, are inspired also by this same concept, attributing to the State direct and immediate interference in the in­ terest and in the private life of the individuals. With respect to the problem of re­ ligion, all these theories are either deficient or erroneous, because they suggest either the disinterestedness of the State (liberalism), or the absorp­ tion of religion in the very life of the State declared to be divine, ethical, religious (idealistic absolutism), or the open persecution and elimination of every positive religion, of the Cath­ olic Church especially (atheistic com­ munism and socialism). Against such doctrines, which bear poisonous fruits in the politico-social field, stands the Christian doctrine with its classical traditions, with its human and divine principles, drawn from reason and revelation. Recently, this doctrine has been summarized, illustrated, and pro­ claimed by Leo XIII, especially in the encyclicals Immortale Dei, Libertas, and Rerum Novarum; by Pius XI in his Quadragesimo Anno; and by Pius XII in various allocutions. From these and other documents of the ecclesi­ astical magisterium we can draw the following fundamental outline of Christian doctrine with respect to civil society, the State, and the rela­ tions of the State with the Church: 1. Society, like the family unit, has a natural origin, because man is social by nature (Aristotle) and in­ sufficient unto himself. He needs the organized help of his fellows to be able to develop his aptitudes and to attain his end. Since it is natural, so­ ciety has God Himself as its Author. 2. The end of society and of the State is the common good of the temporal order, distinct from and superior to the private good. The pursuit of this end requires juridical protection, which defends rights and assures justice in the relations of sub­ jects among themselves, and positive assistance or help to all kinds of private initiative: economic, indus­ trial, cultural, etc. In pursuing the common good, the State cannot im­ pede, but must, on the contrary, facil­ itate for citizens the attainment of the supernatural end itself (proper to re­ ligious society), to which all men are destined. 3. The authority of the State comes from God; the people by their will, explicit or implicit, have only the function of designating the person or the subject of the authority. 4. In view of the objective sub­ ordination of the temporal end of man to his supernatural end, it is evident that the Church, as a religious society instituted by God precisely for the supernatural end, cannot be de­ pendent on the State. The State, on the contrary, must be indirectly sub­ ordinate to the Church, by avoiding interference in spiritual things con­ cerning the Church and also by avoid­ ing such legislation and action in temporal matters which would im- 269 pede in any way the exercise of re­ ligious authority over the faithful, respecting in the faithful the right of religious freedom. 5. The State has the duty of recog­ nizing and professing religion, be­ cause the State, like the family and the individual, derives from and de­ pends on God. Consequently, the State, in strict logic and in strict justice, has the obligation of defend­ ing the Catholic Church and of pro­ hibiting other religious cults. Only as a prudential measure may it tolerate them. 6. In order to avoid harmful con­ flicts with a State which does not follow these principles, the Church negotiates a concordat, which is a bilateral agreement on rights and du­ ties, reservation always being made of the principle of the superiority of the Church. BIBLIOGRAPHY Antoine, “Etat,” DA. Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, Vol. 2, "De habitudine Ecclesiae ad civilem potestatem” (Rome, 1927). Dauson, Religion and the Modern State (New York, 1938). Lattey, “Etat (Culte d’),” DA. Macksey, “State and Church," CE. Oddone, La costituzione sociale della Chiesa e le sue relazioni con Io Stato (Milan, 1932). Sturzo, L’Eglise et l'Etat (Paris, 1937). The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 726-730. Valton, "Etat,” DTC. See under vicar of Christ. Suarez. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 303). subconsciousness. A term brought into current use in the second half of the past century, especially by Myers, who believed he discovered (1886) outside the periphery of hu­ man consciousness a psychological substratum, vague and obscure in itself, but rich in perceptive and emotive resources, which he called precisely subconsciousness. W. James adopted the theory and applied it to religious experience (7.1/.). According subconsciousness to these authors, a “conscious ego” exists in us, clear and normal, which is our ordinary personality; but in the depths of our mind there is hidden a "subconscious ego,” called also sub­ liminal, in which are elaborated in­ tuitions and vague sentiments un­ known to us, but which gradually group themselves, merge, and sud­ denly erupt into the zone of the “conscious ego,” where they deter­ mine new aspirations, new directive ideas, a new life. In the obscure, sub­ liminal consciousness is elaborated es­ pecially the sentiment of the divine, which is the root and source of re­ ligion. The real revelation is not in the Sacred Books, does not come from the outside, but springs up from the depths of the subconscious self. The magisterium of the Church takes up such religious sentiments of the col­ lective consciousness and formulates them into dogmas, which are not im­ mutable truths but provisional expres­ sions, of a practical-symbolic nature, of religious experience (see dogma; symbolism; pragmatism). This theory of James, through Le Roy, has passed into modernism {q.v.), upsetting the concept of revela­ tion, of the Church, and of the whole Christian religion. In Protestant circles, more precisely in the Anglican theology, the theory of the subconscious has been applied to Christology, to explain the per­ sonality of the Man-God. According to one of the foremost representatives of that theology, W. Sanday {Chris­ tology, Ancient and Modern, 1910; Personality in Christ and in Our­ selves, 1911), Christ was a perfect man in whose subliminal conscience, however, there developed a sentiment of union with the Word of God, which gradually passed into His clear consciousness, where it determined the persuasion of a personal fusion be­ tween Christ the Man and the Son of God. Christian consciousness has subdiaconate 270 translated this experience and senti­ ment of Jesus into the dogma of the hypostatic union (q.v.). All this theory of the subconscious, founded on an exaggeration and arbitrary interpretation of obscure sentiments (which can be given a much simpler explanation), is in con­ flict with sound psychology, which asserts a hierarchy and gradation in the faculties of the spirit (intellect, will, sensibility); it is also unac­ ceptable from a religious standpoint, because it perverts the sense of revela­ tion and dogma by eliminating the historical value of Christianity, and because, in Christology, it tends to a Nestorian solution of the personality of Christ (see Nestorianism). BIBLIOGRAPHY Bois, La valeur de l’expérience religieuse (Paris, 1908). Dehove, “Subconscient et In­ conscient," DA. Johnson, Anglicanism in Transition (London, 1938). Michelet, "Re­ ligion,” DA, col. 899 if. Myers, Human Per­ sonality (1905). subdiaconate (Gr. υποδιάκονος— un­ der-servant). The lowest of the major orders (see orders, holy). The sub­ deacon, as his name indicates, is es­ sentially the servant of the deacon, whom he helps in his multiple duties, which at present are reduced to pour­ ing the water in the chalice, singing the epistle, assisting at the altar by presenting the chalice and paten, washing the corporal and the other sacred linens. The most ancient documents which speak of this order are the epistolary of St. Cyprian and the letter of Pope Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch (a.d. 261). At Rome there were seven sub­ deacons, as there were seven deacons. Afterward, there is mention of the obligations of chastity and of the re­ cital of the Breviary as annexed to this office, which only at the end of the twelfth century was placed among the major orders in the Western Church. In the Eastern Churches it is still considered as a minor order. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, Suppl., q. 37, a. 2. Fanning, “Subdeacon,” CE. Kurtscheid, Historia luris Canonici, Vol. i (Rome, 1941). Taunton, The Law of the Church (London, 1906). Tixeront, Holy Orders and Ordinations, trans. Raemers (St Louis). See under orders, holy. subjectivism. The tendency to exag­ gerate the value of the knowing sub­ ject to the point of absorbing objec­ tive reality in him. Subjectivism has been characteristic of modern phi­ losophy since the time of Descartes. Descartes, by his famous Cogito, ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”), be­ gan to subordinate being to thought, inverting the order followed by the Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy which defines truth as an adequation of the intellect to the thing, and sub­ ordinates thought to being. Even in the zone of sense knowledge Des­ cartes began to deny the objectivity of certain sensations. English empiricism pushed similar denials (Locke) to the point of eliminating the reality of matter (Berkeley) and of reducing all reality to a flux of subjective sensations (phenomenalism of Hume). Kant (see Kantianism) was able to save only a phenomenal reality, sacrificing the objective reality of the substance of things (the noumenon). Idealism (q.v.) did the rest, rejecting all reality outside of the thinking subject (Fichte, Schelling) and of the idea (Hegel) or the act of thinking (Gentile). Thus was finally affirmed the ab­ solute immanence of the object in the subject, denying all transcendence, e., all reality extraneous to thought i. and outside of it. Nowadays a reaction has begun against this subjective immanentism by a return to that mod­ erate realism, which is proper to the Christian philosophy. substance 271 BIBLIOGRAPHY Sec under idealism; immanentism. subordinationists. Heretics of the second and third centuries who pre­ pared the way for Arianism (q.v.) by teaching that the Word is not God in the proper sense, but rather a most excellent creature intermediate be­ tween God and the world (cf. Demiurge of the Platonists and the Aeons of the Gnostics). The Word is, therefore, subordinate to the true God. The consequence of subordinationism is the denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ, held to be not the natural but only the adoptive Son of God (see adoptionism). At the end of the second century Theodotus the Elder at Rome, and Paul of Samosata, at Antioch in the third century, spread subordinationism and adoptionism. Both were condemned by the Church. Subordinationism passed to Arius through Lucian of Antioch. In the first-century apologists (Jus­ tin, Athenagoras, Tatian, Origen, and especially Tertullian), there are some phrases which suggest subordi­ nationism (Word — God in the sec­ ond place, minister of God in crea­ tion, etc.). But, after thorough study of the texts and their context, the apparent difficulty vanishes: these writers were the first to attempt to illustrate with human language the relationships of the divine Persons, and they hazarded various phrases, somewhat unlucky and ambiguous, in attempting to express the procession of the Word from the Father. The defect is only in the words, which may be interpreted benignly, in view of the general doctrine of these apolo­ gists, which is sound and affirms sub­ stantially the equality of the three Persons. BIBLIOGRAPHY CayrÉ, Manual of Patrology, trans. Howitt, Vol. i (Paris, Tournai, Rome. 1936) (cf. on p. 729, "Doctrinal Index," n. 45). Parente, De Deo Trino (Rome, 1938), pp. 36 ff., 69. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, trans. H.L.B., Vol. i (St. Louis, 19x0) (cf. Index: "Sub­ ordinationism”). subsistence. See hypostatic union. (Lat. substantia, Gr. υττοστασις — that which is under­ neath, a quasi-substratum). In the scholastic language it is defined: that which of its nature can exist in itself and does not require a subject of in­ hesion in order to exist. It is opposed to accident, which cannot naturally exist unless in a subject that sustains it, like the color on the wall. Sub­ stance, thus understood, and accident are the supreme categories or predica­ ments that divide real being: every­ thing that exists is either substance or accident. It is necessary to distinguish created substance, which is that de­ fined above, from the uncreated sub­ stance (God), which exists not only in se (in itself) and per se (by itself), but also a se (from itself, as it were, not from another). Substance is not the object of the senses, as are acci­ dents, but of the intellect, nor by this fact is it less real than accidents. Sensism, which is the basis of em­ piricism (q.v.) and of phenomenal­ ism, has induced the negation of the substance of things (Locke, Hume). Along with this current go the posi­ tivists (q.v.) and the so-called ac­ tualists, who reduce substance either to the series of events or phenomena or to the very activity of things (Taine, Ribot, Paulsen, Huxley). Against such negation it suffices to appeal to the testimony of conscious­ ness, which attests the permanence of one same subject, of one same “ego,” notwithstanding the continuous suc­ cession of mutations and phenomena. Catholic doctrine stands for the reality of substance, really distinct from its accidents, on which basis it illustrates the mystery of transubstantiation substance suffering 272 {q.v.), by which the substances of bread and of wine are converted into the body and the blood of our Lord, while the accidents or species of the one and the other consecrated element remain intact. Substance may be taken also in the sense of essence of the thing (that by which the thing is con­ stituted in its species), being then divided into first and second. First substance (Aristotle: ουσία πρώτη) is that which is individuated and sub­ sisting in its physical reality, e.g., John; second substance (ουσία Sevrepa) is the specific abstract essence of the individual subject, which is attributed to all the individuals of the same species, e.g., humanity, common to all men. First substance coincides, in rational beings, with person {q.v). In man there are two substances, one material (the body), the other spiritual (the soul), completing each other and forming together one composite sub­ stance or essence, to which the unique act of being gives a profound unity. In God there is only one and most simple substance, in which, however, subsist three Persons, constituted by three distinct relations (see Trinity). BIBLIOGRAPHY Boyer. Cursus Philosophiae, Vol. I (Paris, 1936), P· 346 ff· Jolivet. La notion de sub­ stance (Paris, 1929). De Munnynck, “Sub­ stance,” CE. Walker, Théories of Knowledge (New York, 1910). suffering. Like all things that are most simple and well known, it is difficult to adequately define suffering. It may, however, be described by op­ posing it to joy and pleasure. St. Thomas proposes a profound concept of pleasure, deriving it from the per­ fect activity of being as from its proper cause. Suffering, therefore, de­ pends on a disorder of activity (im­ pediment, deficiency, or excess of action). Like pleasure, suffering is sensible or spiritual: the former, called also physical, affects animal life and has only reference to present happen­ ings, like sensation on which it de­ pends; the latter is called moral, is proper to man, and saddens the spirit without limitation of time or space. In man, sense suffering is greater than in animals because of the presence of intellectual knowledge. Suffering dominates human life so as to con­ stitute one of the most difficult enigmas. The problem of suffering is bound up with the problem of evil {q.v.), from which it stems like a sad flowering. The solutions attempted for these two problems are, therefore, analogous. The chief extra-Christian solutions are: 1. Mazdaism (theologico-religious solution): the religion of the Persians, reformed by Zarathustra (sixth cen­ tury B.C.), who admits a Principle of good {Ahura Mazda) and a Prin­ ciple of evil {Ahura Mainyu). The suffering of life lies in the conflict between these two Principles, and is reflected in man in the conflict be­ tween soul and body. This dualism, which Manichaeism {q.v.) adopted and spread, is meta­ physically absurd and morally dele­ terious, as is witnessed also by history (see Albigenses). 2. Buddhism (ascetico-moral solu­ tion): Buddha (sixth century B.C.) starts with a pessimistic concept of life, detecting evil and suffering in every part of it. Since the root of suffering lies in desire, he proposes, as a remedy against it, the extinction of every desire and every passion and the renunciation of activity and life, so as to find refuge in a sort of egoistic contemplation. This is a negative solution, antipsychological (the passions cannot be destroyed, but disciplined) and anti­ social (the desertion of life). 3. Gree\ philosophy: Several sys­ tems attempted a solution to the prob­ superstition 273 lem of suffering: the Socratic-Aristotelian solution of ethical rationalism (knowledge — good, happiness); the hedonistic solution of the Epicureans, the Stoic doctrine of virtue, consisting in indifference and imperturbability (ataraxia). All these solutions are unilateral and, therefore, defective. 4. Modern philosophy returns to the old motifs of the exaggerated optimism (Leibnitz idealism) or of the excessive pessimism (Schopen­ hauer, Hartmann). Christianity, coherently with its teaching on evil, sees in suffering a natural condition of the human being, aggravated by original sin. One should not attempt to escape suffering, but should face it; it is licit to fight it and eliminate it, inasmuch as possible, but it is better to endure it and make of it a powerful lever of the spirit. In Christ’s school the faithful learn not only to endure but to love suffer­ ing as a means of purification. The problem of individual and social suffering, as well as the problem of evil, cannot be solved except in the consideration of eternal life, as end and goal of our present existence. BIBLIOGRAPHY Colonna, II dolore Cristiano (Naples, 1914). Zacchi, 11 problema del dolore (Rome, 1928). See under expiation. supernatural. That which surpasses and transcends, in being or in opera­ tion, all created nature. Nature (^•t'.), being created, is finite and limited in its essential constitution, in its grade of being, and, consequently, in its capacity of acting and of receiving. An element is called supernatural: (a) when it is outside of and above the constitution of a created nature; (£) when it cannot be the term propor­ tionate to the active potency of that nature; (<·) when it is not due to that nature, either physically or morally. Such is divine grace, a gift gratuitously infused by God in the rational creature, which, therefore, be­ comes similar to God (deijorm) in being and operation. The supernatural is a generous communication of God to His creature either by way of in­ tuitive intellection, like the beatific vision (q.v.), or by way of an acci­ dental modification of nature, like grace. Created nature with respect to the supernatural has no exigency or tendency of its own, but a mere pas­ sive capacity to receive the action of God, which elevates it to a superior order. This capacity is called obedi­ ential potency, through which nature is obedient to the special influence of God. It represents the point of in­ sertion of the supernatural in our nature. In addition to the absolute super­ natural (grace, miracle) there is the relative supernatural, which does not transcend all created being, but only one or another particular nature (e.g., infused knowledge, natural to the angel, supernatural in man), and the preternatural which, while surpassing created nature, does not transcend it, but perfects it in its own order (e.g., immortality of the body). Thomism maintains a sharp line of distinction between created nature and the supernatural; Scotism, on the other hand, tends to bind, without dis­ continuity, one and the other (see desire of God). BIBLIOGRAPHY Bainvel, Nature et surnaturel (Paris, 1931). Capéran, La question du surnaturel (Paris, 1938). Michel, "Surnaturel,” DTC. PohlePreuss, Dogmatic Theology, HI God: Author of Nature and the Supernatural (St. Louis, 1945), PP· 179-231· VerriÈle, Le surnaturel en nous et le péché originel (Paris, 1932). SoLLiER, "Supernatural Order," CE. superstition. The act or practice of paying a divine worship to one to whom it should not be paid (that is, to creatures), or in worshiping God in an undue manner. He honors God in an undue manner who renders to suppositum 274 stances, e.g., meeting an old woman Him a false worship (e.g., by per­ or a hunchback, etc. Magic is a kind forming Jewish ceremonies which are of vain observation, being the art of definitively abrogated in the New working astounding effects by means Testament) or a superfluous worship of mysterious or disproportionate (e.g., lighting a certain number of causes. candles, holding a particular position, etc.). He, on the other hand, pays a BIBLIOGRAPHY divine worship to creatures (partic­ St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II-II, qq. 92-96. ularly to the devil), who abandons Brand, Observations on Popular Antiquities himself to acts of idolatry or indulges (London, 1888). Gardette, "Magie,” DTC. in divinations, in vain observation, Graham, "Divination,” CE. Ortolan, “Di­ vination," DTC. Prümmer, Manuale Theo­ or in magic. logiae Moralis, Vol. 2, nn. 501-519. Roure, Idolatry (q.v.), as the word indi­ “Superstition,” DA. Séjourné, "Superstition,” cates, is the adoration of idols. The DTC. William, "Superstition,” CE. idol is the material image of a false god, like Jupiter, Mercury, the moon, suppositum. See person. the sun. Whether the cult is paid to the image or to the thing or person “Syllabus” (Gr. συν λαμβάνω — I represented by it, idolatry, no matter take together). An authentic collec­ how elevated its object, always tion of errors condemned by Pius IX. amounts to the adoration of a crea­ This collection is composed of 80 ture, animate or inanimate. There is propositions taken from the many nothing more contrary to reason and and diversified documents of the to faith. same Pontiff (allocutions, letters, en­ Divination is the art of predicting cyclicals). The Syllabus was promul­ the future or of knowing occult things gated in 1864, together with the en­ by means not established by God, cyclical, Quanta cura. which always implies the invocation The 80 propositions are divided of diabolical intervention. St. Thomas into ten paragraphs: (1) pantheism, distinguishes nine species of divina­ naturalism, and absolute rationalism; tion, in which the devil is directly (2) moderate rationalism; (3) indifcalled upon: prestidigitation, oneiferentism, latitudinarianism; (4) social­ romancy, necromancy, pythonism, ism, communism, secret societies, etc.; geomancy, hydromancy, acromancy, (5) errors on the Church and its pyromancy, haruspicy. We read in the rights; (6) errors on civil society, both in itself and its relations to the Summa Theologica (Π-Π, q. 95, a. 3) the explanation of these names. The­ Church; (7) errors on natural and Christian ethics; (8) errors on Chris­ ologians add six other species of di­ vination, in which the devil is tian matrimony; (9) errors on the implicitly invoked: astrology, the ob­ civil power of the Roman pontiff; servation of signs (augurium), pre(10) modern liberalism. sagement (omen), chiromancy, physi­ Theologians disagree on the dog­ matic value and the character of this ognomy, sortilege. Vain observation is the use of pontifical document. Some (Franzelin among them) favor the opinion means disproportionate for obtaining that both the Syllabus and the ac­ a determined effect, e.g., pretending to companying encyclical are documents know all the knowable by pronounc­ of the infallible magisterium of the ing mysterious words, to heal all ill­ nesses by using inefficacious medicines, Pope. Others (e.g., Dupanloup) al­ though recognizing the importance to determine what will be the course and the doctrinal value of the Syllaof the day from some banal circum­ Symbol 275 bus, do not attribute to it die char­ acter of infallibility. Still others at­ tribute to it only the value of its sources. All three opinions have an amount of probability; but, although the first is not most certain, the Syllabus is without doubt a very important docu­ ment of the papal magisterium, and has become the object of the magis­ terium of the bishops who have ac­ cepted it. Therefore, its doctrine must be received at least with great respect and obedience as the voice of the Church, if not with the assent given to matters of divine faith. Neverthe­ less, several propositions in the Sylla­ bus require acceptance as matters of divine faith, not by force of the Syllabus itself, but of the previous documents from which they are derived. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bainvel, De magisterio vivo et traditione (Paris, 1905), p. 104. Bricné, “Syllabus," DTC. Choupin. Valeur des décisions doc­ trinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siège (Paris, 1913); “Syllabus," DA. Haac, “Syllabus,” CE. Symbol (Gr. συμβάλλω — I put to­ gether, I compare). Etymologically and according to the most common usage, even in classic works, it is equivalent to sign, countersign, mark of identification. In ecclesiastical lan­ guage the same term was in early use to signify an official formula of faith, which was like the distinctive badge of the Christian. The most ancient and most important of all is the Symbol of the Apostles, which re­ cently has given rise to animated dis­ cussions among critics from every sector. The- question presents many diffi­ culties of detail, but substantially is resolved as follows. In the West, from the first half of the second century there had been in use a brief formula, called regula fidei, which served for the administration of baptism and for catechesis (cf. St. Justin and St. Irenaeus, later Tertullian). This for­ mula, proper to the Roman Church, is found in Greek in the letter of Marcellus of Ancyra to Pope Julius (337), and in Latin in Nicetas of Remesiana (fifth century) and Rufinus of Aquilea (c. 400), who made a commentary on it, mentioning an ancient tradition according to which that formula was composed at the order of Jesus Christ by the Apostles as they were on the point of dispersing for the evangelization of the world. As regards the East, the matter is not clear, but it is certain that the Easterners had no fixed for­ mula up to the fourth century, when the Council of Nicaea promulgated its Symbol, which is an enlarged ver­ sion of the Roman formula. Based on these and other data, some critics hold that the first Symbol of Faith was born at Rome, probably through the work of St. Peter and St. Paul, in a concise form, express­ ing only the mysteries of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Passion and death of our Lord. From Rome the Symbol spread throughout the world, undergoing various changes and ad­ ditions, as can be seen in the accurate collections made by Denzinger {DB, i ff.). Today we have two versions of the Symbol in use in the Church: the Roman-Gallican (for catechetics and private recital) and the NiceneConstantinopolitan (for the Mass), which was composed following the great Trinitarian heresy of Arius. Be­ sides these two principal forms there are other less solemn ones, among them the so-called Athanasian Symbol (which is not of St. Athanasius), a limpid synthesis of Trinitarian and Christological doctrine, which the Church has inserted in the Breviary. BIBLIOGRAPHY Batiffol, "Apôtres (Symbole des)," DTC. Cavré, Manual of Patrology, trans. Howitt, Vol. t (Paris, Tournai, Rome, 1936), pp. symbolism 276 37-42. Dunlop, Account of AU the Ends and Uses of Creeds and Confessions of Faith (Lon­ don, 1724). Jenner, “Creed (Liturgical Use of)," CE. Lucas, “Creed,” CE. McDonald, The Symbol (New York, 1903). Michel, "Symboles," DTC. Schaff, A History of the Creeds of Christendom (London, 1878). Tixf.ront, History of Dogmas, trans. H.L.B., Vol. I (St. Louis, 1910), pp. 142-148. Vacandard, “Apôtres (Symbole des),” DA. symbolism (from Gr. σΰμβολον — sign, mark, badge). A representation, through a sign or formula, of some truth which transcends the sensible world or even the common intellectual world. Symbolism has always been in use both in civil custom (e.g., flag, symbol of the fatherland) and, even more abundantly, in religious prac­ tices. Perhaps the Egyptian is the most symbolic of religions; also the mystery religions (Eleusis, Isis, Mithra, etc.), flourishing shortly before and after the beginning of the Christian era, have a remarkable symbolism in their rites. Christianity adopted and de­ veloped, especially in its liturgy, the symbolic character already current in the Synagogue under the influence of the ancient revelation, and did not disdain to use even pagan symbolic ceremonies, purifying them from any shadow of superstition. Actually, symbolism is dominant in all the sacramentary life of the Church. But with the modernists, symbolism became an abused and equivocal word and concept (see modernism'), when they applied it to dogma {q.v.}. Ac­ cording to them, a dogma or dog­ matic formula, defined by the ecclesi­ astical magisterium, has not a theo­ retical value, i.e., a value adequate to the object which is signified, but only a symbolical and practical value, i.e., it is meant to be only the symbolic interpretation of a religious sentiment or fact, which becomes a rule of ac­ tion. For example, when the Church defines the paternity of God, this ex­ pression does not have the value of a theoretical truth, because we cannot know what God is in Himself, but represents symbolically God as a Father, in order that we may behave toward Him like sons. Thus modern­ ism tried to depreciate and eliminate the entire doctrine of faith, as de­ termined in dogmatic formulas. It is true that dogmatic language, being merely human and finite, can express divine things, not adequately, but only analogically (see analogy)·, it is, however, a miscomprehension and error to confuse the analogical with the equivocal, and thus fall into agnosticism {q.v.). When we say in the Creed that the glorious Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, the expression is to be understood in a figurative, symbolic sense, but by way of figure and symbol it encloses a sure and certain truth, namely: Christ, as incarnate Son of God, has in com­ mon with the Father regal glory, dignity, and power, in which also His humanity shares. Therefore, every dogma expresses primarily a truth to be believed, and, as a consequence, a rule of action; and its practical as­ pect is efficacious in direct proportion to the sureness and the firmness of its theoretical character. The Church, therefore, conformed to her principles in condemning the pragmatic symbol­ ism of modernism with respect to dogma. Cf. the Decree of the Holy Office {Lamentabili), DB, 2022 and 2026. Pius XII in his encyclical Hu­ mani generis warns against a tend­ ency among Catholic theologians to exaggerate symbolism. See dogma. BIBLIOGRAPHY Chossat, “Modernisme," DA. Doronzo, De sacramentis in genere (Milwaukee, 1946), Index Analyticus: “Symbolismus.” Gardeil, Le donné révélé et la Théologie (Juvisy, 1932). Garrigou-Lacrance, Le sens commun, Isi philosophie de l’étre et les formules dog­ matiques (Paris, 1922), p. 299 f. Jenner, Christian Symbolism (London, 1910). Thurs­ ton, "Symbolism,” CE. synod. See council. 277 T Taborites. See vision, beatific. teaching Church. See "Ecclesia discens." temperance. See virtue. temptation. An experiment made on a person to test his capacity, virtue, inclinations (St. Thomas'). Tempta­ tion can have a good or an evil pur­ pose. In Holy Scripture we read oftentimes that God tempts men; e.g., He induces Abraham to immolate his son in order to test his fidelity. Man also can tempt his fellow for good or for evil. But, strictly speaking, in Catholic doctrine temptation is proper to the devil, who, as St. Ambrose says, semper invidet ad meliora tendentibus (“always envies those striving for higher things”). It is a truth of divine faith that the devil tempts men to evil: Jesus Himself in the “Our Father” has us pray for this purpose, among other things, that God may not lead us into temptation. St. Peter describes vividly the threats of the tempter: “Be sober and watch: be­ cause your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour” (i Pet. 5:8). The most disastrous temptation was that of Satan in the form of a serpent which brought about the fall of our first parents and of all humanity (Gen. 3). After considering the fact of temp­ tation, theology goes on to a study of its mode. St. Thomas makes a fine and profound analysis of the influence of the angelic spirit on the human being. An angel can influence another angel intellectually by strengthening the intellective power of the other, temptation and thus manifesting a truth which he, as a superior angel, knows more perfectly. With respect to the will, an angel can influence another less de­ cisively, because its influence is re­ stricted to presentation of the appetible object which, unless it is the supreme good, does not determine infallibly the will. Besides, God alone can move interiorly the angel’s will, because God alone is Maker of the will and of its natural inclination. Based on these principles, St. Thomas proves that the devil can influence the human intellect, not by directly producing or arousing its thoughts, but by exciting the imagina­ tion and, therefore, the phantasms, on which the intellect works. The devil can also exercise his influence on the will in two indirect ways, namely, either by way of persuasion, pre­ senting to the will through the imag­ ination and the intellect an appetible object, or by exciting the passions which solicit and disorientate the will. All this, however, is only an external influence, because internally it is God alone who always moves. Under any kind of diabolic influence the will does not lose its freedom and, there­ fore, tempted man is always respon­ sible for his sin. He can and must resist, with the help of divine grace, as the Church teaches against the false doctrines of Molinos (DB, 1237, 1257, 1261 ff.). See Molinosism. Original sin makes human nature more susceptible to temptations, es­ pecially more serious ones; but God bestows on the man of good will grace proportionate to his needs and does not permit that he be tempted above his powers, as St. Paul attests (1 Cor. 10:13). Christ, too, was tempted by the devil; but His temp­ tation was merely exterior and could not affect even the sensitive life of His soul, because His senses and pas­ sions were altogether subject to reason (see propassions). Tertullian 278 BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 3; III, q. 41. Boyer, De Deo creante et devante (Rome, 1940), p. 417 ff. Brouillard, “Tenta­ tion," DTC. Pesch, De Deo creante et devante (Freiburg i.-Br., 1925), n. 480 ff. Tertullian. See “Outline of the His­ tory of Dogmatic Theology” 301); traducianism. (p. Testament, New (see Bible). The body of 27 books relative to the his­ tory of Christ and His revelation and to the early years of the Church. By analogy with the books of the Old Testament (q.v.) they are divided into three categories: Historical Books: 1. Gospel according to St Matthew (28 chs.) 2. Gospel according to St. Mark (16 chs.) 3. Gospel according to St. Luke (24 chs.) 4. Gospel according to St John (21 chs.) 5. Acts of the Apostles (28 chs.) Didactic Books: a) Epistles of St. Paul 6. To the Romans (16 chs.) 7. i to the Corinthians (16 chs.) 8. 2 to the Corinthians (13 chs.) 9. To the Galatians (6 chs.) 10. To the Ephesians (6 chs.) 11. To the Philippians (4 chs.) 12. To the Colossians (4 chs.) 13. i to the Thessalonians (5 chs.) 14. 2 to the Thessalonians (3 chs.) 15. 1 to Timothy (6 chs.) 16. 2 to Timothy (4 chs.) 17. To Titus (3 chs.) 18. To Philemon (1 ch.) 19. To the Hebrews (13 chs.) b) Epistles of the other Apostles, or Catholics 20. Of St. James (5 chs.) 21. i of St. Peter (5 chs.) 22. 2 of St. Peter (3 chs.) 23. i of St. John (5 chs.) 24. 2 of St. John (1 ch.) 25. 3 of St. John (1 ch.) 26. Of St. Jude (1 ch.) Prophetic Book: if. The Apocalypse (22 chs.) All the books are occasional writ­ ings, but have a unique theme: the story of human redemption in its realization and in its immediate and future developments. As regards the Gospels, see that entry. The Acts, written by the author of the third Gospel, offer in their lines and prin­ cipal features the history of the foundation and spread of the Church, first in the Jewish circles and later in the field of paganism, focusing the narrative around the two great figures of Peter and Paul. The greater part of the apostolic epistolary is due to Paul, the most versatile, profound, and powerful writer of the New Testament. Thirteen of his letters bear, according to Greco-Roman usage, the name of the writer in the initial greeting, and the fourteenth (Epistle to the Hebrews) is attributed to him by Tradition. Their character is multifarious (from a theological treatise down to a simple letter of recommendation) and, despite their origin from particular circumstances regarding a community or an indi­ vidual, they are permeated with such a wave of divine eloquence, such full­ ness of truths and of moral teachings, that they become for us a source of spiritual enlightenment, full of life and actuality. The epistles of the other Apostles are called catholic (i.e. universal) because they have a more general destination; they bear, how­ ever, the same character of occasional writings and of theological richness. The Apocalypse of St. John is the only prophetic book of the New Testament. It opens with seven mes­ sages to the seven churches of Asia Minor and goes on to present, under the form of complicated and phantas­ magorical visions proper to the apoca­ lyptic literary style, the vicissitudes of the struggle between paganism and ultimately victorious Christian truth. All the books of the New Testa­ ment were written and preserved in the Greek language, except Matthew’s Gospel, which was originally com­ posed in Aramaic, the language spoken by the Jews in Palestine; it was, however, soon translated into Greek. All traces have been lost of the Aramaic original. 279 To date, more than 4000 codices of the Greek text of the New Testament are known. Their most ancient frag­ ments, written on papyrus, are traced to the first decades of the second century. Parchment came into use in the fourth century for the transcrip­ tion of the holy text, and paper from the tenth century. The current divi­ sion of the New Testament into chapters (as well as of the Old Testa­ ment) dates from 1214, while the division into verses dates from 1555 and is the work of Robert Stephanus. BIBLIOGRAPHY Durand, “Testament (The New),” CE. Gigot, Outlines oj the N. T. Hist. (New York, 1898). Hôpfl, Gut, Introductio speci­ alis in N. T. (Rome, 19389. Jacquier, His­ toire des litres du H. T., 4 vols. (Paris, 19241928). Lattev, The New Testament (Cam­ bridge, 1937). Seisenberger, Practical Hand­ book, for the Study of the Bible (New York, 1933). Simon, Scripture Manual, Vol. 2 (New York, 1943), General and Special Introduction to the N. T. Stbinmuller, A Companion to Scripture Studies, Vol. 3 (New York, 1943), cf. bibliography on pp. 1-12. See under Bible. Testament, Old (see Bible). The body of 45 books which constitute the first part of the Bible and contain the history of the ancient revelation and of the preparation of men, through the people of Israel, for the coming of the Messias. The following is a list of the books and their order, as designated by the Council of Trent in 1546 (see Canon of the Bible). Historical Books: 'Books of Moses, 1. Genesis (50 chs.) called Pentateuch 2. Exodus (40 chs.) ■ (five parts), and 3. Leviticus (37 chs.) by the Hebrews, 4. Numbers (36 chs.) 5. Deuteronomy (34 < ;.) (TAe Law. 6. Josue (24 chs.) 7. Judges (21 chs.) 8. Ruth (4 chs.) 9. 1 of Samuel or 1 of Kings (31 chs.) 10. 2 of Samuel or 2 of Kings (24 chs.) 11. i of Kings or 3 of Kings (22 chs.) 12. 2 of Kings or 4 of Kings (25 chs.) 13. I of Paralifximenon or Chronicles (29 chs.) 14. 2 of Piiralipomenon or Chronicles (36 chs.) Testament, Old 15. 1 of Esdras (10 chs.) 16. 2 of Esdras or Nehemias (13 chs.) 17. Tobias (14 chs.) 18. Judith (16 chs.) 19. Esther (16 chs.) Didactical or Sapiential or Poetic Books: 20. Job (42 chs.) 21. Psaltery or Psalms (150 psalms) 22. Proverbs (31 chs.) 23. Ecclesiastes (12 chs.) 24. Canticle of Canticles (8 chs.) 25. Wisdom (19 chs.) 26. Ecclesiasticus (51 chs.) Prophetic Books: a) Greater Prophets 27. Isaias (66 chs.) 28. Jeremias (52 chs.) 29. Lamentations (5 chs.) 30. Baruch (6 chs.) 31. Ezechiel (48 chs.) 32. Daniel (14 chs.) b) Lesser Prophets 33. Osce (14 chs.) 34- Joel (3 chs.) 35. Amos (9 chs.) 36. Abdias(ich.) 37. Jonas (4 chs.) 38. Micheas (7 chs.) 39. Nahum (3 chs.) 40. Habacuc (3 chs.) 41. Sophonias (3 chs.) 42. Aggeus (3 chs.) 43. Zacharias (14 chs.) 44. Malachias (4 chs.) Continuation oj the Historical Books: 45. I—2 Machabccs (16 chs.— 15 chs.) The Old Testament is a harmoni­ ous collection of books of various authors and epochs, staggered over a period of time running from the sixteenth to the second centuries B.C. The historical books begin their narrative from the origins of the universe and of man, centering on events relative to the people of Israel from its origins as a nation down to its catastrophe and its attempts at Restoration (175-135 b.c.). The ac­ count is neither continuous nor homogeneous and presents notable gaps. The next group of books is called didactical, because their purpose is the instruction of the reader, or sapiential, because their principal theme is wis­ dom conceived as perfect knowledge Tetragrammaton 280 and faithful religious practice, or poetic, because of their literary form. The prophetic booths collect bio­ graphical episodes and résumés of dis­ courses of the prophets which God sent between the eighth and the fifth centuries B.C. to preserve Israel in the faith and to rekindle the Messianic hopes (see prophet; Messias). The books of the Old Testament are nearly all written and preserved in the Hebrew language; some pas­ sages of Daniel and of Esdras and some sporadic verses of other books are written in Aramaic. Some books were written originally in Greek (Wisdom and 2 Machabees), while of others the originals have been lost and have come down to us in the Greek translation (1 Machabees, Baruch, Judith, Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, of which two thirds of the original text was found in the last years of the past century). The books of the Old Testament were written on papyrus or, to obtain greater durability, on parchment cut in the form of strips wound around sticks. At the present time about 3000 manuscripts of the Hebrew text are known, of which the most ancient dates from the ninth century A.D. The text we read today received its definite form in the first century B.C. and cor­ responds satisfactorily to the original (see Masoretic). The current division into chapters dates from a.d. 1214 and is due to Stephen Langton; the division into verses dates from 1528 and is the work of Sante Pagnino. The Old Testament forms an insep­ arable unity with the New, of which it was “the figure” (1 Cor. 10:6-11). It was the “pedagogue” which led Israel to Christ (Gal. 3:24), who was the end of the Old Testament (Rom. 10:4). Containing the multiple and fragmentary communications of the ancient, divine revelation, it neces­ sarily postulates the New Testament which illumines and completes it with the full revelation brought by the Son of God (Heb. 1:1-2). St. Augus­ tine says: “In the Old Testament is hidden the New and in the New the Old is manifested” ( Quaest. in Hept., 2, 73)· BIBLIOGRAPHY Amann, “Testament (ancien et nouveau),” DTC. Coppens, The Old Testament and the Critics (Paterson, 1942). Dennefeld, Histoire des liares de I'A.T. (Paris, 1929). Gicot, Gen­ eral Introduction to the Studies of the Holy Scripture (New York, 1905). Merk, “Testa­ ment (The Old),” CE. Newton, Notes on the Covenant (Cleveland, 1934). Ricciorn, Dalia Bibbia (Bologna, 1921); Storia d'lsraele, 2 vols. (Turin, 1932-1934). Steinmueller, Some Problems of the Old Testament (Mil­ waukee, 1936); A Companion to Scripture Studies, Vol. 2 (New York, 1942), cf. bibli­ ography on pp. 1—4. See under Bible. Tetragrammaton (Gr. τϊτραγράμματον— of four letters). It indicates the name by which God is commonly designated in the Hebrew Bible (about 6823 times). It consists of four letters: J H W H and is read Jahtveh. While other names signify the nature of God (e.g., 'el, ’elohim), this one designates His very person and is the most holy and incommunicable name. After the exile (fifth century B.C.) the Hebrews, out of reverence, avoided pronouncing it; at the time of Christ it was licit for the high priest alone to mention it during the solemn annual ceremony of the expiation. After the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem (a.d. 70), the sacred name was substituted in the Bible by /idonai (My Lord) and Elohim (God). The four original letters were preserved, but there were added to them the vowels of the other two names which were pronounced by the reader, substituting the consonants: in the Bible Jehovah or fehotvih were written, but one read /Idonai and Elohim. By ignorance of such substi­ tution the erroneous reading Jehovah 281 entered into use in the fourteenth century. The Tetragrammaton was revealed by God to Moses as a new name, when He entrusted to him the task of freeing the people from the slavery of Egypt (Exod. 3:13-16; 6:3-8). Its meaning is given by Exodus 3:14: “God said to Moses: 1 am who am. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the chil­ dren of Israel: he who is, hath sent me to you.” The name, in fact, de­ rives from the Hebrew root HJH {hajah) or HWH (hawah) and is the first person singular of the imperfect tense, improperly so called, and which would better be called preformative on account of its morphological property of being formed from the root by means of a preforming letter /. From the verbal sentence “I am who am,” spontaneous passage was made to the name represented by the third person: JaHWeH — “he who is,” which signi­ fies: He who truly is, He whose essential property is to be (see essence, divine). Some authors derive the name from the causal form of the verbal root, obtaining the meaning: “He who gives being,” i.e., “the Creator.” In all the vast domain of the Semitic languages, to which the He­ brew belongs, no other divine name is formed from a verb, especially from a preformative tense; all the other names are of noun formation, for the most part substantive. This shows that the Tetragrammaton is not a spontaneous product of the popular religion or an invention of men; it is, as the Bible says, direcdy revealed by God. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ceuppens, Theologia biblica, Vol. I (Rome, >938), pp. 19-32. Maas, “Jehovah," CE. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, I God: His Knotvability, Essence, Attributes (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 134-143. Vaccari, "lahve e i nomi divini nelle religioni semitiche," Biblica, 17. (193$), pp.· i-lp.. theandric operation theandric operation (from the Gr. (?eos — God, and άνήρ, άνδρός — man, hence, human-divine, godly-manly). The expression θ(ανδρική is found for the first time in a letter of Pseudo­ Dionysius (end of the fifth and be­ ginning of the sixth centuries), to a monk, called Cajus, and signifies the complex activity of Christ, God and man at once. It naturally led the mind to a monophysitic interpretation (see Monophysitism), suggesting the idea of a mixed and hybrid action, confusedly human and divine. Since Monophysitism had been condemned by the Council of Chalcedon (451), the ambiguous formula “theandric operation” was rejected by Catholic writers (St. Maximus Confessor), and by the Lateran Council of 649 {DB, 268). St. John Damascene later on adopted and defended theandric op­ eration as an orthodox expression. In reality that formula, rightly under­ stood, has a correct dogmatic sense: Since there are two distinct natures in Christ, there are also two series of operations, the one divine (to create, to conserve the being of creatures), the other human (to speak, to move around). But the human nature, sub­ sisting in the person of the Word, is sustained by it in being and operation. Therefore, every human operation of Christ can be called also divine as proper to the Word, which is the acting principle not only of the divine activity, but also of the human. More­ over, the Word used and still uses His humanity, as an instrument, for certain divine actions, e.g., in working miracles; therefore, also these actions are righdy called theandric. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 19, a. 1. Billot, De Verbo Incarnato (Rome, 1922), p. 323 ff. Maric, Pseudo-Dionysii Areopagitae formula christologica celeberrima de Christi activitate theandrica (Zagreb, 1932). Michel, "Thcandriquc (Opération),” DTC. Pom.^- theodicy 282 Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, IV Christology (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 161-165. theodicy (Gr. 0eos— God, and δίκη — justice). This term was used for the first time by Leibnitz in his work Essai de Theodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et Γ origine du mal (Amsterdam, 1710). He chose this term, restricted to the divine attribute of justice, in view of the character and scope of his essay; but later it was used as the equivalent of the other truly classical term: natural theology. In this sense, the­ odicy is the science of God and of divine things, acquired through the natural light of reason. It is distinct from true and proper theology (q.v.) because it prescinds from divine rev­ elation and faith. Through the study of the external world and of man, theodicy dem­ onstrates rationally not only the exist­ ence of God, but also many of His properties and attributes which are reflected in created things. Therefore, theodicy is the apex of philosophy as well as a part of apologetics (q.v.). BIBLIOGRAPHY Aveling, The God of Philosophy (London, 1906). Brosnan. God Infinite and Reason (New York, 1928). Hettinger, Natural Re­ ligion (New York, 1890). Hontheim, Theodicea (Freiburg, 1926). Joyce, Principles of Natural Theology (London, 1923). Kempf, "Theodicy,” CE. Palumbo, Theodicea (Rome, 1940). theology (Gr. 0eov— God, and λόγον — discourse). The science which, through the combined lights of reason and divine revelation, treats of God and creatures in relationship to God. This is supernatural theology, which involves revelation on the part of God and faith on the part of man. It considers everything in the light of the Divinity, which is its formal object and its soul. As such it is dis­ tinguished from theodicy, a purely rational science of God. Theology begins with fundamental principles taken without discussion from the sources of revelation (Holy Scripture and Tradition, interpreted by the living magisterium of the Church) and, analyzing and com­ paring them with the principles of reason, develops all their richness into a body of derived truths, which are called theological conclusions. The­ ology, therefore, has the character of a true science, which derives from the science of God Himself, as a finite radiation of it. Divisions: (a) Positive theology, which studies the data of revelation with a critico-historical method, (b) Speculative theology, which plumbs those data with the light of reason illumined by faith, revealing in ex­ plicit concepts their virtual content. According to the unitary conception of the Middle Ages, all ecclesi­ astical knowledge is substantially theology, burgeoning forth from the sacred page, i.e., on the revealed word of God. A wonderful example of this unity is the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, which embraces everything from exegesis to law. Later, especially from the sixteenth century, the various disciplines (exe­ gesis, patristics, history, archaeology, liturgy, law), began to be separated from the main block of theological science, which is constituted by the doctrine of faith (dogmatic theology) and the doctrine of morals (moral theology); finally moral theology, too, was distinguished» from dogmatic theology (seventeenth century). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 1. Brouillard. “Théologie Morale.” DA. Congar, “Théologie.” DTC. Fenton, The Concept of Sacred Theology (Milwaukee, 1941), pp. I180. Gardeil. Z-e donné révélé et la Théologie (Juvisy, 1932). Garrigou-Lagrange. De Reve­ latione (Paris, 1926); The One God, trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1943). pp. 39-92. Hall. Introduction to Dogmatic Theology (New York, 1907). Poule, "Theology (I Dogma­ 283 tic),” CE. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, I God: His Knowability, Essence, and At­ tributes (St. Louis, 1911), pp· 1-14. Rabeau, Introduction à l’étude de la Théologie (Paris, 1926). Scheeben, The Mysteries of Chris­ tianity, trans. Vollert (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 733-796. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), PP· 35-37· Theopaschism (Gr. Ow— God, and πάσχω — I suffer). It is an error of Monophysitic origin begun in the fifth century through the work of the monk Peter Fullo, who added the words Qui crucifixus es pro nobis (“Who wast crucified for us”) to the formula Sanctus Deus, Sanctus Fortis, Sanctus Immortalis. The words can be understood in an orthodox sense, be­ cause truly the Word (God) was crucified, according to the human nature. But in that epoch the addition was an expression of the heresy of Eutyches, who taught the absorption of the human nature in the divine, which therefore was the only one remaining to suffer and die. BIBLIOGRAPHY See under Eutychianism. Theotocos. See maternity, divine. Thomas Aquinas. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 302); Thomism. Thomism. In the proper sense it is Thomism ically participated in varying degrees in creatures, in which it is really dis­ tinct from essence. 2. Sane dualism: God really dis­ tinct from the world, but also im­ manent in it by His presence and by His power which conserves the being of created nature and moves it to action. The created being is a syn­ thesis of act and potency which tends to become actuated more and more under the influence of natural causes. The material world is com­ posed of matter and form (hylomorphism); man, of soul and body, which, however, are substantially united in one sole being. Such com­ position is attributed also in the super­ natural order to the sacraments, in­ strumental causes of grace. Likewise. nature is really distinct from person, which is constituted by its own sub­ stantial act (fruitful application to the mysteries of the Trinity and of the hypostatic union). Finally, a real distinction between substance and ac­ cidents (application to the mystery of the Eucharist). 3. Intellectualism: primacy of the intellect over the will and senti­ ment; frequent use of natural reason in theology, subordinate, however, to revelation and faith. Rational view of the world and its laws: harmony between the laws of being and the laws of thought. Objectivity of our knowledge in the light of being. 4. Sharp distinction between the natural and the supernatural orders; the one is elevated to the other by way of obediential potency (pantheism and false mysticism are eliminated). the doctrinal system of St. Thomas; in a broad sense it includes the inter­ pretation of his thought in the phil­ osophical and theological fields. Since it is not possible to give here, even BIBLIOGRAPHY briefly, an adequate, synthetic view of D’Alês, “Thomisme,” DA. Garrigou-LaThomism, we will mention only some grange, “Thomisme,” DTC; The One God, of its fundamental characters: trans. Rose (St. Louis, 1943), PP· r~37· On I. Moderate realism, proper to the importance and significance of the Theo­ logical Summa of St. Thomas and his meth­ Greek philosophy through the work ods. Gilson, Thomisme (Paris, 1927). Hor­ of Aristotle; primacy of the absolute vath, I-a sintesi scientifica di S. Tommaso and subsisting being in God, analog­ (Turin, 193a). Kennedy, "Thomism," CE. Toletus 284 Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, VII Grace (Actual and Habitual) (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 231-248. Villeneuve, "Ite ad Thomatn," Angelicum, 13 (1936), pp. 3-23; “Le Thom­ isme avant et après l'encyclique ‘Aeterni Pa­ tris,’" Rev. Dornin., 26 (1929), pp. 273-282, 339-354. 478-496· Toletus. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 303). tonsure (Lat. tonsura, from tondere — to cut, to shave, to clip). A sacred ceremony, consisting in cutting the hair of the head, by which the Church intends to segregate the aspirant from the world, dedicate him to the divine cult, and render him capable of juris­ diction and of ecclesiastical benefices. It is not an order, but a kind of preparation for receiving holy orders; as man is prepared for baptism by means of exorcisms and for matri­ mony by means of sacred engage­ ments, so it is convenient that he be prepared for the service of God and holy orders by means of tonsure (cf. DB, 958). Through this ceremony, the can­ didate becomes a cleric and enjoys the privileges of the ecclesiastical forum and of the canon. The priv­ ilege of the forum exempts the cleric from subjection to lay courts and puts him under the ecclesiastical court; the privilege of the canon prohibits vio­ lence against the cleric and punishes with excommunication any one who dares to strike him suadente diabolo, namely, unjustly or with malice. The origin of tonsure can be traced definitely to the fourth or fifth cen­ tury, when the Church was no longer hampered in the free exercise of divine cult, and hence was able to give it a determined organization and to distinguish with particular signs the persons regularly deputized to it. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, Supple­ mentum, q. 40, a. i, a) Orig­ inal justice (see innocence) was in him as an accidental perfection of the human species, which united man­ kind to God. (c) Adam broke this bond voluntarily and deprived the nature that was in him of such ac­ cidental perfection. () God is The expression is, however, more an­ one and unique numerically, because cient: used in the Roman Synod ai He is subsisting Being Itself, there­ 495 {Vicarium Christi te videmus), fore infinite; now it is absurd to it was taken up by St. Peter Damian admit more than one Infinite. at the time of the investiture struggle Let us make the supposition of two in opposition to the imperial polemi­ Infinites, A and X, with their pos­ cists, who attributed to the emperor the sible relationships: title Vicarius Dei. St. Bernard finally (i) A = X; (2) AX. used the expression with particular In the first case, A and X being insistence and applied it to the pope equal would not be infinite because both in his celebrated work De Con­ inferior to their sum total; in the sideratione, dedicated to his former second case, A less than X would be disciple Pope Eugene III, and in his finite; in the third case, X less than A letters. The authority of St. Bernard would be finite. All this proves mathe­ influenced not only authors like John matically — not to mention meta­ of Salisbury, St. Thomas of Canter­ physics— the absurdity of all forms bury, Gerhoh of Reichersberg, and of polytheism, as well as of pantheism Queen Eleanor of England, but also which, by identifying God with the Innocent III, the first pontiff who world, collection of many beings, falls used to a great extent that magnificent back necessarily into a form of title whose dogmatic rightness and polytheism. value is evident from all that is con­ The Trinity does not destroy the tained under the entry, Roman pontiff. unity of God, because unity is in the order of the absolute, while the Trin­ BIBLIOGRAPHY ity is in the order of the relative (see Maccarone. Chiesa e Stato nella dottrina Trinity). di Innocenzo III (Rome, 1940), pp. 34-47. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 2. Sertillanges, St. Thomas d'Aquin (Paris, 1925), p. 208; Les sources de la croyance en Dieu (Paris, 1928), Chs. 1-3. Garrigou-Lagrange, The One God, trans. Rose (St. Louis. 1943), pp. 293—305. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), PP· 79-82, 91-93. Rivière, Le problème de l’Eglise et de l’état au temps de Philippe Le Bel (Louvain, Paris, 1926), pp. 435-44°· Sec under pope; Roman pontiff. Victoria (de). See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 3°3)· virginity of Mary. Virginity, in the vain observation. See superstition. Vasquez. See “Outline of the His­ tory of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 303). Vega. See “Outline of the History of Dogmatic Theology” (p. 303). vicar of Christ. The title used since proper sense, is the physical integrity of the organs of generation. On sev­ eral occasions the virginity of Mary was the target of heretics: first the Jews spread evil tales on the con­ ception and birth of Jesus; they were followed by Cerinthus and Celsus, and later in the fourth century by other heretics, such as the Antidicomarians (q.v.), refuted by Epiphanius; Jovinianists, condemned in the Roman Synod of 390; Bonosus, re­ virtue 294 proved by Pope Siricius; Helvidius, impugned by St. Jerome. The Luther­ ans and the Socinians re-echo the ancient errors, while the modern rationalists hold the virginity of Mary to be a myth. It is a truth of Catholic faith that our Lady maintained her state of perfect virginity at all times: before the birth, in the birth, and after the birth of Christ. The Apostles’ Creed says: “Born of the Virgin Mary”; in the most ancient liturgies the title Mary άατταρθίνο^ (always-virgin) is frequent. In the Roman Council of 649 (under Martin I) Mary is defined immaculate, always a virgin, who conceived without man’s seed and remained intact even after childbirth {DB, 256). “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (Isa. 7:14). This text is certainly Messianic, and hence the Virgin is Mary; in Hebrew the reading is alma or {ha'halmah), which the rationalists say should be trans­ lated young woman, and not virgin, which would be expressed in Hebrew by bethulla or betullah. But biblical usage justifies the meaning “vir­ gin” for alma, as is evident from the versions (the Seventy translate ή παρθένος— virgin). The context also requires that sense, for a prodi­ gious event is prophesied. The Gospel quotes this prophecy (Matt. 1:18-23) and relates with precise details the virginal conception of Jesus by virtue of the Holy Spirit. Christ putabatur (was thought or reputed to be) the son of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Luke, with delicate shading of language, suggests that the childbirth of Mary did not violate her virginity (2:7). The Fathers see the virginity of Mary after childbirth in the prophecy of Ezechiel: “This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it” (44:2). Tradition is unani­ mous in defending the perpetual vir­ ginity of Mary: St. Augustine affirms {Sermo, 186): “a virgin conceiving, a virgin bearing, a virgin pregnant, a virgin with child, a virgin forever.” The theological reason is in the divinity of the Word and in the di­ vine maternity of Mary, to which any corruption was repugnant. Nor does the title first-born given to Jesus create any difficulty; it is evident from documents that this word signified the first born, even when there were no other children. The brothers of Jesus, of which the Gospel speaks (Matt. 12:46; Luke 8:18), are only His relatives, accord­ ing to the Hebrew use of the word. BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Ill, q. 28. Conway, The Virgin Birth (New York, 1924). Merkelbach, Mariologia (Paris, 1939), pp. 216-263. Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, VI Mariology (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 83—104. Scheeben, Mariology, trans. Geukers, Vol. 1 (St. Louis, 1940), pp. 61-131. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 517-523. Vosri, De conceptione virginali Jesu Christi (Rome, >933)· virtue. An operative habit which St. Thomas, following Aristotle, defines: “A good quality of the mind, by which we live rightly and which no one can use for evil.” To virtue is opposed the bad habit, which is called vice. The natural virtues are acquired by the constant repetition of good acts, and are distinguished into intellectual virtues {dianoetic) and moral virtues (ethic). The fundamental virtues, called also cardinal {cardo — hinge), are four: (1) Prudence: “right reason of actions to be done” {recta ratio agibilium), or the choice and order of means with respect to the end. It is the queen of the cardinal virtues and resides in the intellect. (2) lus 295 tice: “the constant and perpetual will of rendering to everyone his right.” A habit which inclines the will to do what it ought, according to reason. It is a social virtue (i.e., having refer­ ence to others). (3) Temperance: moderates the concupiscible appetite (passion of sense pleasure). (4) Forti­ tude: moderates and strengthens the irascible appetite against difficulties. The supernatural virtues are habits infused by God in the faculties, to­ gether with sanctifying grace which is, however, infused in the very es­ sence of the soul. According to the common doctrine, the moral virtues listed above are to be placed also among the supernatural virtues; they are ordained to perfect and elevate the corresponding natural virtues. However, the principal in­ fused virtues are the theological vir­ tues, so called because they have God as their formal object (while the moral virtues have a finite good for their object). The theological virtues are three: (1) Faith, which inclines the intellect (and the will) to adhere firmly to the revealed word of God (see faith'). (2) Hope, which inclines the will to trust in the good and omnipotent God for the obtaining of eternal life and the graces to merit it. (3) Charity, which inclines the will to love God for Himself, as well as ourselves and our neighbors for God’s sake. It is the queen of the theological virtues, for it unites us to God, as God and as present. Since its proper and most formal object is God, as supreme end, charity may be con­ sidered, with St. Thomas, as the form, mother, root, and motor of all the other virtues — a thought amply de­ veloped by St. Paul (1 Cor. 13; see charity'). Charity is intimately connected with sanctifying grace" and, therefore, they are infused together and, through sin, arc lost together. Faith and hope, on the contrary, can remain in the sinner vision, beatific without grace and charity; in such case they are called inform faith and hope (i.e., without the form of char­ ity), while they are called formed when they are united with charity. At the moment of the infusion of grace all the virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit are also infused (see gifts of the Holy Ghost). Cf. Council of Vienne {DB, 483) and Council of Trent {DB, 800). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I-Π, qq. 61-62. Billot, De virtutibus infusis (Rome, 1928). Bonomelli, Martindale, A Doctrine of Hope (London, 1921). Michel, “Vertu,” DTC. Otten, A Manual of History of Dogmas, Vol. 2 (St. Louis, 1915), pp. 253-271. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, ed. Smith, 2 vols. (New York, 1949), pp. 622-654. Ullathorne, Groundwork of the Christian Virtues (London, 1888). Waldron, "Virtue,” CE. vision, beatific. The supernatural end to which God has willed to destine man gratuitously, elevating him by grace to an activity propor­ tionate to that end. The beatific vision consists in the immediate and intui­ tive contemplation of the divine es­ sence, of which the human intellect is made capable by the light of glory, which is a supernatural power infused in the blessed by God, proportionately to the degree of sanctifying grace possessed by each one of them at the moment of death. This vision, su­ preme term of the whole supernatural economy, is clearly enunciated in Holy Scripture: “We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known” (1 Cor. 13:12). From this last sentence it is evident that the beatific vision is a participation of the knowl­ edge of God. St. John, also: “We shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). Although impossible in the natural order, the beatific vision is not absurd in the supernatural order, because the adequate object of our cognition is voluntarism 296 being, and God as being, however transcendent, is not extraneous to that object; therefore the human intellect can be elevated through divine power to the point of reaching the essence of God, although, on account of its natural limitation, it cannot exhaust all the intelligibility of that essence. The theologians say that the blessed see God totum sed non totaliter (“whole but not wholly”) and, more­ over, they see Him in diverse degrees of intensity, according to the power of the light of glory proportionate to grace. Nevertheless, they are all equally happy, because each one sees as much as he is able to see. The primary object of the intuitive vision is God in His unity and trinity and in His attributes; created things are the secondary object, seen in the divine essence, being an effect and an imitation of it. The Palamites (from Gregory Palamas, f 1359, schismatic archbishop of Thessalonica) distin­ guished in God essence and power, maintaining that the blessed see only a divine power, which is the un­ created splendor that shone on Christ on Mount Thabor (whence the name of Taborites). The doctrine of the Church on the beatific vision is de­ fined in the Constitution Benedictus Deus of Benedict XII (DB, 530), and in the Councils of Vienne and Florence (DB, 475, 693) (see beatitude). BIBLIOGRAPHY St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, q. 12. Michel, “Gloire,” DTC; “Intuitive (vision)," DTC. Sartori, La visione beatifica (Turin, 1927). Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christian­ ity, trans. Vollert (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 651694. Terrien, Le grâce et la gloire (Paris, 1897). voluntarism. A system or a philo­ sophical tendency which overrates the function of the will. It is generally opposed to intellectualism. Plato, not­ withstanding his exaltation of his noetic world, assigns the primacy to the subsisting idea of good and creates the dialectics of love for the con­ quest of good and truth. Through the works of Plotinus he influences the thought of St. Augustine, who, although an intellectualist, accentuates the activity and the importance of the appetitive and affective faculty. St. Bonaventure and the Franciscan School, influenced by St. Augustine, assert the primacy of the will in this life and in the other, subordinating the intellect to the will. Under the in­ fluence of Aristotle the intellectualistic current, headed by St. Thomas, stands for the primacy of the intellect, placing beatitude essentially in an act of intuitive knowledge and con­ templation, while Scotus assigns it to an act of love. The intellectualism and voluntarism of the Scholastics are not exactly two opposite systems, mutually exclusive, but two positions, two trends in the investigation of the same truth and in the construction of doc­ trinal systems. St. Thomas has written wonderful pages on the will and love, as Scotus has done on the intellect and truth. In modern times, on the contrary, exclusivistic trends have developed in the lines of intellectualism and vol­ untarism. Kant (see Kantianism) opens the way for this conflict when he seeks, in his Critique of Practical Reason, to rebuild by way of the will, of sentiment, and of faith what he had nullified in his Critique of Pure Reason. From Kantian practical reason stems the fideism of Herder and Jacobi, and the sentimentalism of Schleiermacher. Arthur Schopenhauer (ψ i860) builds his philosophy on the concept of a will as a blind ap­ petite, unintelligent and unintelligible, which in man manifests itself as the will to live, always unsatisfied (pes­ simism); analogous is the philosophy of E. Hartmann (f 1906), who a-5- 297 signs an unconscious will, always avid of unattainable felicity, as principle of the life of the universe. Against these two pessimists, Nietzsche (■f 1900) affirms his optimistic vol­ untarism with the theory of the super­ man, who must struggle and triumph over the weak and inept. G. Wundt, too (Ί* 1920), a celebrated psycholo­ gist, reduces the life of man and of the universe to a universal will, in perpetual evolution and transforma­ tion of its reality. In religion, the voluntaristic tendency manifests itself in pragmatism () personality: “And the Word was with God”; (c) divine nature: “And the Word was God”; ( Maximus Confessor (·{■ 662), Sophronius (f 638), and finally with John Damascene (Ÿ 749), who aptly summarizes the doctrine of the Greek Fathers. 2. Scholastic Epoch (systematic synthesis). This era begins in the eleventh century with St. Anselm, called the Father of Scholasticism, who opened the way for a fruitful speculation on dogmas by stressing the use of reason in the sphere of faith. Following in the footsteps of St. Augustine, he was inspired by the motto, fides quaerens intellectum, i.e., holding firmly to the divine truth by lively and unconditioned faith, he sought to penetrate its content by exercising all the power and all the resources of natural intelligence. The work of St. Anselm has two aspects: one, supernatural (mystical adhesion to truth), the other human (dialectical elaboration of the faith). Hence, the two trends that dominate in turn all Scholasticism: the mystic current of Augustinian inspiration, which, through St. Bernard and the French school of St. Victor (Hugh and Richard), passes in the twelfth century into the Franciscan Order and culminates in the teaching of St. Bonaventure; the dialectic current, which threatens to degenerate in Abelard (the strongest philosopher of the twelfth century), but is happily tempered by Peter Lombard, the author of four books of Sentences, in which is gathered and winnowed the choicest growth of patristic doctrine (this work is the basic text on which the later Summae 'Theologicae are modeled). Thus moderated by the force of the authority of the Fathers, the dialectical trend grows increasingly stronger and more decided under the impulse of Aristotelianism incorporated into Scholasticism through Arabic philosophy (Avicenna, Averrocs), and triumphs first with Albert the Great, and then with the greatest of the Scholastics, St. Thomas Aquinas. With St. Thomas we reach the thirteenth century, when Italy was a veritable History of Dogmatic Theology 303 springtime of life, thought, and art. It is the age of St. Francis of Assisi, of Giotto, and of Dante, when the most beautiful of cathedrals flourish under blue Italian skies. The marvelous Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas is in the field of philosophy and theology what the Divine Comedy is in the field of art and literature: it can be said that Dante translates into poetry the robust thought of St. Thomas. With the Englishman Duns Scotus, called the Subtle Doctor on account of his acumen, dialecticism touches its zenith and quickly afterward degenerates into formalism that marks a period of decadence in Scholasticism (fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries). Humanism and the Lutheran Reformation threw discredit on Scholasticism, which, however, did not die out, but, on the contrary, girded itself for a rebirth through John Capreolus (■{· 1444), called the Prince of Thomists because of his lively defense of the thought of St. Thomas. This upsurge received still greater impetus through the influence exercised by two classical commentaries on the two Summae of St. Thomas, made by the powerful genius of Tommaso de Vio (Cajetan) (■}· 1534), who wrote the commentary on the Summa Theologica, and of Francesco de Silvestris (Ferrariensis) (ψ 1526), who produced the commentary on the Summa Contra Gentiles. 3. Modern Epoch (analyticism). After the Council of Trent Scholasticism, and especially Thomistic doctrine, resumed its upward movement, thanks to great theologians, most of them Spanish: Francisco de Victoria, Melchior Cano, Dominic Soto, Dominic Bafiez, Diego Alvarez, Bart. Medina, John of St. Thomas, all of the Dominican Order; Francisco Toledo, Luis Molina, Gregorio de Valencia, Gabriel Vasquez, Francisco Suarez, of the Society of Jesus; A. Vega, Fr. Herrera, Bart. Mastrius, Fr. da Mazzara, of the Franciscan Order. But Lutheranism obliged the theologians to defend the correct interpretation of Holy Scripture and the doctrinal patrimony of the Fathers; hence the large development of exegesis and of the historical element of theology, as well as of its polemic character. In this triple field the Jesuit theologians deserve the great­ est credit: it suffices to mention the great controversialist, Card. Bellarmine (•f· 1612), the exegetes Salmeron and Maldonatus, and D. Petavius (■{· 1652), who collected methodically the dogmatic thought of the Fathers in four volumes. In the eighteenth century there was another period of decadence, from which Scholastic theology rose after the French Revolution, at the beginning of the past century. This revival was characterized by a renovation of Scholasti­ cism upon contact with modern philosophy and by a flourishing of positive theology in harmony with progress in historico-biblical studies. The restoration began in Germany with Kleutgen and Liebermann, and gained strength in Italy with the Jesuits, John Perrone ("f· 1876), Dom. Palmieri, and Camillo Mazzella, professors at that same “Collegio Romano” which has been made illustrious more recently by the teaching of Franzelin and Billot, the former outstanding in positive theology, the latter, in speculative. Neo-Thomism and Neo-Scholasticism have gained ground in all the Catholic universities; inculcating the grandeur of the classical, speculative theology, they call back to saner traditions philosophical thinking, lost in the labyrinths of the conflicting trends of the nineteenth century. On the other hand, our positive theology has gained decided strength against rationalistic criticism. It integrates and illuminates with new light profound, medieval speculation, through serious exegetical, patristic, and historical study and research. Conclusion. Theology born with patristics has its first milestone in the work 304 History of Dogmatic Theology of St. Augustine; with Scholasticism it attains the highest peaks of acute and serene speculation, in full harmony of reason with faith (St. Thomas). It is shaken profoundly by Humanism and the Lutheran Reformation and rises with a polemic and positive historical character (sixteenth and seventeenth centuries); then it loses its compact unity, due to the apologetic exigencies of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century. On contact with philo­ sophical, historical, and biblical rationalism, it resumes its march on new roads, in an endeavor to put its precious and classical content in harmony with the require­ ments and forms of modern thought. The reform of ecclesiastical studies, urged by Pius XI in his constitution, Deus Scientiarum Dominus, has stepped up the rhythm of ecclesiastical studies which are marching with efficacious methods toward new progress in the understanding and illustration of the immutable divine truth. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allievo, Disegno di storia della Teologia (Turin, 1939). Bellamy, La Théologie catholique au XIX siècle (Paris, 1904). Cayré, Manual of Patrology, trans. Howitt, Vol. 2 (Paris, Tournai, Rome, 1940), Book IV. Fenton, The Concept of Sacred Theology (Milwaukee, 1941), pp. 181-264. Grabmann, Die Geschichte der scholatischen Methode, 2 vols. (Freiburg i.-Br., 1909-1911). Otten, A Manual of History of Dogmas, Vol. 2 (St. Louis, 1925), pp. 1-27. Pohle, “Theology (I Dogmatic),” CE. Zybura, Present-Day Thinkers and the New Scholasti­ cism (St Louis). INDEX OF ENTRIES Abelard, i, 302 absolution, see penance Acacians, 1 accidents, eucharistie, see eucharistie accidents acolythate, 1 action, divine, see operation, divine Act, Pure, 2 acts, notional, see notions, divine ad extra, ad intra, see operation, divine adoptionism, 2 f adoption, supernatural, 3 Adventists, 3 f aeons, see Gnosticism Affairs, Extraordinary Ecclesiastical (Congre­ gation of), see Holy See Agnoetism, 4 agnosticism, 4 f Albert the Great, 5, 302 Albigenses, 5 f allegorism, 6 f Americanism, 7 f Anabaptists, 8 analogy, 8 f Anaphora, see Canon of the Mass anathema, 9 f angel, 10 f Anglicanism, 11 f Anglican orders, 12 animism, 13 Anomoeanism, 13 Anselm, 14, 302 anthropomorphism, 14 Antichrist, 14 f Antidicomarians, 15 antitype, see senses of Scripture Aphthartodocetism, see Docedsm Apocrypha, 15 f Apollinarianism, 16 f apologetics, 17 apologists, 18, 301 apostasy, see infidels Apostles, see members of the Church apostolicity (mark of the Church), 18 appropriation, 18 f a priori, a posteriori, 19 apriorism, 19 f Aquarians, 20 Arianism, 20 f Aristides, 21, 301 articles, fundamental, 21 articles of faith, 21 f Artotyrites, 22 ascetics, asceticism, 22 f aseity, see essence, divine aspersion, see baptism Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, 23 f ataraxia, see suffering Athanasius, 24, 301 f atheism, 24 Athenagoras, 24, 301 attention, 25 attributes of God, 25 f attrition, see contrition audients (auditors), see catechumen Augustine, 26, 302 Augustinianism, 26 f authenticity, 27 babies deceased without baptism, 27 f Baianism, 28 Banez, 28, 303 Bannesianism, 28 f baptism, 29 ff Barnabas, 31, 301 Basil, 31, 301 f beatification, 31 beatific vision, see vision, beatific beatitude, 31 f Beghards, 32 Bellarmine, 32, 303 Berengarian heresy, 32 f Berengarius, see Berengarian heresy Bernard, 33, 302 Bible, 33 f Billot, 34, 303 bishops, 34 f body, human, 35 Body, Mystical, see Mystical Body Bogomile, 35 f Bonaventure, 36, 302 Breviary, see liturgy Buddhism, see suffering bull, 36 Cajetan, 36, 303 Calvinism, 36 f Cano, Melchior, 37, 303 canonization, 37 f Canon of the Bible, 38 Canon of the Mass, 38 f Capreolus, 39, 303 Carlostadius (Carlstadt), see Presence, Rea] Eucharistic (fact) catechesis, 39 f catechumen, 40 catholicity (mark of the Church), 40 f causality of the sacraments (fact), 41 f causality of the sacraments (mode), 42 f cause, causality, 43 f celibacy of the clergy, 44 305 index of entries censures, ecclesiastical, see penalty censure, theological, 45 character, sacramental, 45 f charism, 46 f charity, 47 f chiliasm, see millenarianism chirotony, see imposition of hands Chrysostom, 48, 302 Church, 48 f circumcision, 49 f circumincession, 50 Clement Alex., 50, 301 Clement Rom., 51, 301 clergy, 51 cleric, see clergy; hierarchy communicatio idiomatttm, 51 f Communion, eucharistie, 52 f Communion of Saints, 53 companation, see transubstantiation competents, see catechumen comprehensors, 53 f conclave, 54 concourse, divine, 54 i concupiscence, 55 f confession, sacramental, 56 f confessions of faith, see Symbol confirmation, 57 f congregations, Roman, see Holy See congruism, 58 f conscience, 59 f conservation, 60 Consistorial Congregation, see Holy Sec consortium, divine, 60 f consubstantial, 61 f contemplation, 62 f contrition, 63 Co-Redemptrix, 63 f cosmogony, 64 f council, 65 f creation, 66 f creationism, 67 credibility, see apologetics Creed, see Symbol cross, 67 f cult, 68 f Cyril Alex., 69, 301 Damascene, 69, 302 damned, 69 f death, 70 Decalogue, 70 f de condigno, see merit de congruo, see merit definition, dogmatic, 71 f deism, 72 demon, devil, 72 f deposit of faith, 73 f descent of Christ into hell, 74 desire of God, 74 f destiny, 75 f deuterocanonical, see Canon of the Bible devotion, 76 f diaconate, 77 306 Diaspora, 77 f diocese, 78 diptych, see Canon of the Mass discens Ecclesia, see Ecclesia discens divination, see superstition divinity of Jesus Christ, 78 f divorce, 79 f docens Ecclesia, see Ecclesia discens Docetism, 80 Doctors of the Church, 80 f dogma, 81 Donatism, 82 Easter, see Pasch Ebionites, 82 f Ecclesia discens, 83 Ecclesia docens, see Ecclesia discens ecstasy, 83 f efficacy of the sacraments, see causality of the sacraments (fact) elect, 84 i elevation (to supernatural order), 85 f empiricism, 86 Encratites, 86 f encyclical, 87 end, ultimate, 87 f energumeni, 88 Enlightenment, see Illuminism epiklesis, 88 f episcopate, see bishops; hierarchy; orders, holy eschatology, 89 f essence, divine, 90 eternity, 90 f Eucharist, 91 f eucharistie accidents, 92 Eutychianism, 92 f evil, 93 f evolutionism, 94 f ex cathedra, see infallibility exegesis, 95 exemplary cause, 95 f existentialism, 96 ex opere operato, 97 exorcism, 97 exorcistatc, 97 f experience, religious, 98 f expiation, 99 f extreme unction, too f extrinsicism, see justification; Redemption faith, toi f faith, articles of, see articles of faith fatalism, see destiny; freedom Father, 102 Fathers, Apostolic, 102, 301 Fathers of the Church, 102 f fear, see gifts of the Holy Ghost Ferrariensis, 103, 303 fetishism, 103 fideism, 103 f Filioque, 104 final cause, 104 f fomes peccati, see concupiscence; Immaculate 307 Conception foreknowledge, see prescience form, 105 fortitude, see gifts of the Holy Ghost; virtue forum internum — forum externum, see hierarchy Franzelin, 105, 303 Fraticelli, 105 f freedom, 106 f freedom of Christ, see will of Christ free thought (free inquiry), 107 f fruits of the Mass, 108 future, futurible, see prescience Gallicanism, 108 f genealogy of Christ, 109 f generation, see Only-Begotten; procession, divine; Son gift, see charism gifts of the Holy Ghost, itof gnosis, see Gnosticism Gnosticism, 111 f God, naf goodness, see perfection Gospels, 113 ff government of God, 115 grace, usf grace, actual, 116 grace, efficacious, 116 f grace, habitual, nyf grace, necessity of, 118 f grace, sacramental, liçf grace, sufficient, 120 f Gregory Nazianzus, 121, 301 Gregory of Nyssa, 121, 301 Gregory the Great, 121, 302 hagiographer, 121 Heart of Jesus, 121 f heaven, see paradise hell, 122 f heresy, 123 hermeneutics, 123 f heterodox, see orthodox hierarchy, 124 f holiness (mark of the Church), see sanctity (mark of the Church) holiness of Christ, see sanctity of Christ Holy Ghost, 125 Holy See, 126 f Homoousian, see consubstantial hope, see virtue Hugh of St. Victor, 127, 302 hylomorphism, sacramental, see matter and form (of the sacraments) hyperdulia, see cult hypostatic union, 127 f iconoclasts, 128 idealism, 128 f idolatry, 129 f idolothyte, 130 Ignatius, Martyr, 130, 301 index of entries illumination of the agonizing, see death; infidels llluminism, 131 image, 131 f Immaculate Conception, 132 f immanence (medtod of), see apologetics; immanentism immanentism, 133 f immensity, see infinity immolation, see Mass; sacrifice of Christ immortality, 134 f immutability, 135 impanation, see transubstantiation impeccability, 135 f impenitence, 136 imposition of hands, 137 Incarnation, 137 f incorporation, mystical, see Mystical Body indefectibility (of the Church), 138 Index (of prohibited books), 138 f indifferentism, 139 f indissolubility, see divorce indulgences, 140 f indwelling of the Holy Trinity, 141 f inerrancy of the Bible, 142 infallibility of the pope, 142 f infants, see babies deceased without baptism infidels, 143 f infinity, 144 f influence, divine, see concourse, divine infusion, see baptism Ingenitus, see Father innocence (state of), 145 Inquisition, 145 ff inspiration, 147 f integrity (gift and state), 148 intellect, see gifts of the Holy Ghost intellectualism, 148 f intention (of the minister of the sacraments), 149 f intercession (of the saints), 150 f interdict, 151 f investiture, 152 Irenaeus, 152, 301 Jahweh, see Tetragrammaton Jansenism, 153 Jehovah, see Tetragrammaton Jerome, 153, 302 Jesus Christ, 153 ff John of St. Thomas, 157, 303 judgment, divine, 157 f jurisdiction, see hierarchy justice, 158 f justice, original, see innocence (state of) justification, 159 Kantianism, 159 f kenosis, 161 kingdom of God, 161 Kingship of Christ, 161 f knowledge, divine, see science, divine knowledge of Christ, see science of Christ index of entries 308 latria, see cult law, 162 f learning Church, see Ecclesia discens lectorate, 163 Leontius Byzantinus, 163, 302 Leo the Great, 163, 302 liberalism, 163 f liberty, see freedom liberty of Christ, see will, divine; will of Christ liberty of thought and inquiry, see free thought Liebermann, 164, 303 limbo, 164 f liturgy, 165 f loci theologici, 166 f Logos, 167 Lombard, Peter, 168, 302 lumen gloriae, 168 Lutheranism, 168 ff Macedonians, 170 magisterium of the Church, 170 f Maldonatus, 171, 303 man, 171 f Manichaeism, 172 f manism, see animism Marathonians, see Macedonians Marcionism, 173 f marks of the Church, 174 f martyrdom, 175 Mary, 175 ff Masoretic, 177 Mass, 177 ff Mastrius, 179, 303 materialism, see pantheism maternity, divine (of the Blessed Virgin), 179 f maternity, spiritual (of the Blessed Virgin), 180 matrimony, 180 f matter and form (of the sacraments), 181 f Maximus, Confessor, 182, 302 Mazzella, 182, 303 mediation, 182 f Mediatrix, see Co-Redemptrix; mediation Medina, 183, 303 members of the Church, 183 f Mennonitcs, see Anabaptists merit, 184 f Messias, 185 metempsychosis, 185 Methodists, 185 f millcnarianism, 186 f minister, 187 f miracle, 188 missal, see liturgy mission, divine. 188 f missionology, 189 f modalism, 190 modernism, 190 f Molina, see Molinism Molinism, 191 f Molinosism, 192 f monarchianism, see modalism monergism, 193 monism, 193 f Monophysitism, 194 monotheism, 194 Monotheledsm, 194 f Montanism, 195 f Mopsuestenus (Theodore of Mopsuestia), see Nestorianism motion, divine, see concourse, divine mystery, 196 Mystical Body, 196 f mystics, mysticism, 197 f naturalism, see rationalism nature, 198 f neophyte, 199 Nestorianism, 199 f New Testament, see Testament, New noematics, see senses of Scripture nominalism, 200 notions, divine, 200 f obediential potency, 201 obex (obstacle to grace), 201 f oblation, see sacrifice Oecolampadius, see Presence, Real, Eucharistic (fact) oils, holy, see extreme unction Old Testament, see Testament, Old omnipotence, 202 Only-Begotten (Unigenitus), 202 f ontologism, 203 f operation, divine, 204 operation, theandric, see theandric operation orders, Anglican, see Anglican orders orders, holy, 204 ff Oriental Church (Congregation of the), see Holy See Origen, 206, 301 Origenism, 206 original justice, see innocence (state of) original sin, see sin, original orthodox, 206 f ostiariate, 207 pagans, see infidels pain, see penalty; suffering Palamites, see vision, beatific Palmieri, 207, 303 pantheism, 207 f paradise, 208 Parousia, 208 f participation, see analogy Pasch, 209 f passibility of Christ, see Docetism; propassions passion of Christ, 210 f Patripassianism, see modalism; monarchianism Pclagianism, 211 penalty, 211 f penance, 212 ff perfection, 214 309 Perrone, 214, 303 perseverance, final, 214 f person, 215 f Pctavius, 216, 303 Phantasiasts, see Docetism Pietism, 216 piety, see gifts of die I lol y Ghost Pneumatomachists, see Macedonians Polycarp, 216, 301 polytheism, 216 t pontiff, Roman, see Roman pontiff Pontifical, Roman, see liturgy pope, 217 f porter’s office, see ostiariatc positivism, 218 f power of Christ, 219 power of jurisdiction, see hierarchy power of orders, see hierarchy pragmatism, 219 f prayer, 220 f predestinarianism, 221 predestination, 221 f predetermination, see concourse, divine; grace, efficacious; Bannesianism premotion, divine, see concourse, divine presbyter, 223 prescience (foreknowledge), 223 f presence of God, 224 f Presence, Real, Eucharistic (fact), 225 f presence, real, eucharistie (mode), 226 f preternatural, 227 f priest, see presbyter priesthood of Christ, 228 priesthood, participated, see orders, holy primacy of St. Peter, 228 ff Priscillianism, 230 privilege, see law procession, divine, 230 f Propaganda Fide (Congregation of), see Holy See propassions, 231 prophecy, 231 f prophet, 232 Protestantism, 232 f protocanonical, see Canon of the Bible protoevangclium, 233 f providence, divine, 234 f prudence, see virtue punishment, see penalty purgatory, 235 Puritanism, 235 f Quakers, 236 quiedsm, 236 f rationalism, 237 f Real Presence, see Presence, Real, Eucharistic (fact and mode) Rebaptizers, see Donatism Redemption, 238 f relation, divine, 239 f religion, 240 f Religious (Congregation of), see Holy See index of entries resurrection, general, 241 Resurrection of Christ, 241 f revelation, 242 f reviviscence of merits, 243 reviviscence of the sacraments, 243 f Richard of St. Victor, 244, 302 rite, 244 f Rites (Congregation of), see Holy See Ritual, Roman, see liturgy Roman pontiff, 245 f Sabcllianism, see modalism sacramentels, 246 f Sacramentarians, see Presence, Real, Eucha­ ristic (fact) Sacraments (Congregation of), see Holy See sacraments (institution of), 247 f sacraments (nature of), 248 f sacraments (number of), 249 f Sacrifice, Eucharistic, see Mass sacrifice of Christ, 250 Salmeron, 250, 303 sanctification, 250 f sanctity (mark of the Church), 251 f sanctity of Christ, 252 f satisfaction of Christ, 253 satisfaction, sacramental, 253 f schism, 254 Schools of Alexandria and Antioch, 254, 301 science, divine, 254 f science of Christ, 255 f Scotus, 256, 303 Scripture, Holy, see Bible seal of confession, 256 f Semi-Arians, 257 Seminaries (Congregation of), see Holy See Scmi-Pelagianism, 257 f senses of Scripture, 258 sentiment, religious, 259 septenary, sacramental, see sacraments, num­ ber of sigillum sacramentale, see seal of confession sign, 259 f simplicity of God, 260 f sin, original, 261 f sin, personal, 262 skepticism, 263 solidarity, see Mystical Body; satisfaction of Christ Son, 263 f Sophronius, 264, 302 soteriology, 264 f Soto, 265, 303 soul, 265 f Spirit, Holy, see Holy Ghost spiritism, 266 f State and Church, 267 ff Suarez, 269, 303 subconsciousness, 269 f subdiaconate, 270 subjectivism, 270 f subordinationists, 271 subsistence, see hypostatic union Taborites, see vision, beatific teaching Church, see Ecclesia discens temperance, see virtue temptation, 277 £ Tertullian, 278, 301 Testament, New, 278 f Testament, Old, 279 f Tetragrammaton, 280 £ theandric operation, 281 £ theodicy, 282 theology, 282 f Theopaschism, 283 Theotocos, see maternity, divine Thomas Aquinas, 283, 302 Thomism, 283 f Toletus, 284, 303 tonsure, 284 Tradition, 284 £ traditionalism, 285 traducianism, 285 f transmission of original sin, 286 f transubstantiation (fact), 287 ff transubstantiation (mode), 289 Trinity, 289 f tritheism, 290 f truth, 291 type, see senses of Scripture Ubiquitarianism (Ubiquitism), see kenosis ubiquity, see infinity; presence of God Unigenitus, see Only-Begotten union, hypostatic, see hypostatic union Unitarianism, 291 f unity (mark of the Church), 292 unity of God, 292 f vain observation, see superstition Vasquez, 293, 303 Vega, 293, 303 vicar of Christ, 293 Victoria, 293, 303 virginity of Mary, 293 f virtue, 294 f vision, beatific, 295 i voluntarism, 296 f Vulgate, 297 Waldenses, 298 will, divine, 298 f will of Christ, 299 wisdom, see gifts of the Holy Ghost Word, 299 f worship, see cult Yahweh, see Tetragrammaton rratemitos Sa-ceriotatis 5 ancti Tetri substance, 271 f suffering, 272 f supernatural, 273 superstition, 273 f suppositum, see person Syllabus, 274 f Symbol, 275 f symbolism, 276 synod, see council 310 (Bibliotheca index of entries