The Ex Laodicea blog has a post The 'Faith Movement', filed with the tag "modernism" which raises a number of matters, some of which I will address in due course as time permits. For those interested, the pamphlets "Philosophical Perspectives" deal with some of the questions raised. Here, I will deal with just one of them, namely the character of the 24 theses set out in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Studies in 1914 (DS 3601-3624).
Aelianus says that the 24 theses were
[...] enforced by the Code of Canon Law in 1917. This provision and its centrality was reasserted by Pius XII in his 1950 Encyclical Humani Generis §16-18 in a passage cited by Vatican II’s Decree Optatam Totius §15 when it prescribes the Perennial Philosophy for the training of Priests.later he says:
The Twenty Four Theses define the indispensable minimum core of this Perennial Philosophy without which only the verbal form of the Church’s doctrine remains with the content removed. Stat crux dum volvitur orbis...Therefore the Faith Movement's central ideas are incompatible with Catholic teaching.
Distinguo.
The philosophia perennis is essential. The 24 theses are not imposed as of obligation.
My references are taken principally from the very helpful introduction to the Decree in Denzinger-Schonmetzer itself.
The philosophia perennis is indeed taught by the Church as the essential basis of Catholic theology. However, various protestations were made and dubia sent in to the Congregation by those who considered that the Decree might infringe the legitimate liberty of teachers in schools that were less "Thomist", to hold other opinions. Therefore in 1916, the same Sacred Congregation of Studies said that the 24 theses expressed the genuine doctrine of St Thomas and that they were safe directive norms. This indicated that the Congregation did not intend to impose them as of absolute obligation upon the various schools.
In 1917, Pope Benedict XV wrote to the General of the Jesuits, Fr Vladimir Ledochowski saying that he had judged rightly in saying that there was no obligation imposed of holding all of the theses, and that if the Jesuits were to dispute various customarily disputed questions they should not fear that by doind so they were giving less than proper obsequium to the Roman Pontiff.
(The introduction in Denzinger-Schonmetzer continues with a number of other references to allocutions from Pius XI and Pius XII which I will look up in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis when I next have access to it.)
As for Humani Generis, the paragraphs cited refer to tentatives named by Pius XII as "the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system" (n.15) and he refers to those who have contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians. He does not say that the 24 theses are of obligation.
Aelianus also draws up Optatam Totius n.15 in support. Therefore I will quote it:
The philosophical disciplines are to be taught in such a way that the students are first of all led to acquire a solid and coherent knowledge of man, the world, and of God, relying on a philosophical patrimony which is perennially valid and taking into account the philosophical investigations of later ages. This is especially true of those investigations which exercise a greater influence in their own nations. Account should also be taken of the more recent progress of the sciences.So: no 24 theses and in fact an encouragement to take account of the recent progress of the sciences. Which is what the Faith Movement attempts to do in complete fidelity to the Church's magisterium.
It is important that the philosophia perennis is given its proper place in the Church and the Faith Movement does not dispute this at all. The discussions about materia prima, substance and accident, intellectus agens, co-relative substance etc. are a part of this respectful approach to the philosophia perennis.
For those who have Latin and would like to look up the references, I will quote the introduction from Denzinger for the record. I will put it in small print for the sake of my regular readers' scrolling speed. If you are interested, you can enlarge the font size in your browser or cut and paste the text to read it more comfortably in a Word Processor or something:
3601-3624: Decr. S. Cgr. Studiorum, 27 Iul.1914
Pius X in Motu Proprio “Doctoris Angelici”, 29. Iun. 1914, scholis philosophicis Italiae praeceperat, ut, “principia et maiora Thomae Aquinatis pronuntiata sancte teneantur”. Inde quidam Thomistae ansam arripuerunt, ut ex disciplina metaphysica 24 theses ab iisdem propugnatas S. Studiorum Congregationi “examinandas” proponerent. Aliis videri potuit, ut hae theses, vi approbationis et promulgationis, obtruderentur scholis minus Thomisticis contra earum convictionem, et libertatem tuendi alias sententias auferrent. Cum ob eam rem protestations et dubia commoverentur, eadem Congregatio 7. Mart. 1916 declaravit: “Omnes illae 24 theses philosophicae germanam S. Thomae doctrinam exprimunt, eaque proponantur veluti tutae normae directivae” (AAS 8 [1916] 157). Non ergo absolutam obligationem imponunt, sicut neque exigitur ad “adhaerendum Sancto Thomae”, ut quis systema doctrinale S. Thomae qua totum adoptet.. Quo latiore sensu hae normae directivae intelligendae sint, elucet maxime ex Ep. Benedicti XV “Quod de fovenda” 19. Mart. 1917 ad Generalem S. I. Wlodimirum Ledochowski, data (Acta Romana S. I. 9 [1917] 318s / ZKTh 42 [1918] 206s):
“Neque minus iucunde animadvertimus aequa te lance rationum momenta perpendisse, quibus quemadmodum oporteat a S. Thomae doctrinis esse, hinc inde disceptando contenditur. Quo quidem in iudicio recte Nos te sensisse arbitramur, quum eos putasti Angelico Doctori satis adhaerere, qui universas de Thomae doctrina theses perinde proponendas censeant, ac tutas ad dirigendum normas, nullo scilicet omnium amplectendarum thesium imposito officio. Eiusmodi spectantes regulam, possunt Societatis alumni iure timorem deponere, ne eo quo par est obsequio iussa non prosequantur Rom. Pontificum, quorum ea constans sententia fuit, ducem ac magistrum in theologiae et philosophiae studiis S. Thomam haberi opus esse, integro tamen cuique de iis in utramque partem disputare, de quibus possit soleatque disputari”.
Conferre iuvat, quae in eandem sententiam protulerunt Pius XI: *3666; Pius XII: Alloc. Ad alumnos 24. Iun. 1939 (AAS 31 [1939] 246; Alloc. ad sodales O. Pr. 22 Sept. 1946 (AAS 38 [1946] 387) et maxime Alloc ad membra Univ Gregorianae occasione iubilaei quarti saeculi expleti, 17. Oct. 1953 (AAS 45 [1953] 684-686).
[Feel free to point out any transcription errors.]
48 comments:
Fascinating.
I wonder what you think of the comment I left at the original blog. The blogger was saying that unless one accepted the distinction of substance and accident as Truth, one could not hold Transubstantiation:
"With respect to your comment number 9, Aelianus, isn’t that like saying, “They cannot adhere to the belief that the sun rises and sets every day because they believe in the Copernican system and they believe that there is no absolute movement in the universe, as far as is measurable.”?
It seems to me that the question would be: “How do you understand transubstantiation in terms other than those of scholastic philosophy which are yet compatible with it”?
Their proposed understanding might be compatible and it might not."
Hold fast, Father. You're right.
Father,
For those of us unfamiliar with the exact content of St Thomas' 24 Theses, could you point us in the right direction?
Confused in Edinburgh.
The unique thing I found about the Faith Movement is that it was able to make the Catholic Faith present, cohesive and relevant to the modern world we live in (and modern here means a world where massive scientific discoveries have been made over 200 years that have revolutionised physical life) without jettisoning tenets of the faith as modernism has (because they didnt think deeply enough and took short cuts) and as we-must-return-to-the-past traditionalism has (for much the same reason)
Following on from Jeff's comment I always thought that to seek the truth (including those that are outside revealed truth) is a noble pursuit and that there is objectivity to be found there e.g. in some realms of science. Whilst one should not force a false synthesis that is more wishful thinking or compromises truth surely it is a wonderful thing to seek and celebrate the coherence of truths where found? I am no expert on any of this but can't get to grips with the sections in the blog entry and comments where a defence of Thomism seems to imply negative critique of the Faith Movement. I understood that in his Treatise on the Truth of the Catholic Faith, against Unbelievers (Summa de veritate catholicae fidei contra gentiles)Aquinas argues that no demonstrated truth (which can include some aspects of science) is opposed to revealed truth (faith). If 'the way, THE TRUTH and the life' is also He through whom the whole universe was made should we not in fact HAVE AN EXPECTATION that truths of that universe e.g. how it came to be and operates might be discoverable to us?
(this also posted on the original blog that triggered this debate.)
It is important to distinguish between the doctrinal force of the 24 Theses and their canonical status. The 24 Theses were issued to clarify what Pius X meant by ‘the principles of St Thomas’ in his encyclical Doctoris Angelici. The decree promulgating the 24 Theses was cited as a source of Canon 1366, Section 2 of the old Code of Canon Law which read “The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by Professors (in seminaries etc.) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of St. Thomas which they are inviolately to hold.” It is this Canon which Pius XII is defending and which he cites in the sections of Humani Generis cited by Vatican II in Optatam Totius §15 at the words “the philosophical patrimony which is perennially valid”. On 20th December 1965, after the promulgation of Optatam Totius, the Sacred Congregation for Seminaries and Universities issued a clarification to the effect that these words “the philosophical patrimony which is perennially valid” refer to “the principles of St Thomas”. Canon §251 of the new Code simply incorporates this statement of Optatam Totius. The canonical status of the 24 Theses is accordingly unchanged. Indeed, it could be argued that it has been augmented, as the old Code merely attributed them to St Thomas while Vatican II and the new Code identify them with the perennial philosophy. It should also be noted that Optatam Totius talks of “taking into account the philosophical investigations of later ages” it says nothing of the natural sciences, it only speaks of ‘philosophical investigations’ and it says nothing of such investigations’ validity perennial or otherwise merely that they should be taken into account.
However, these canonical matters are far less important than the doctrinal implications of the 24 Theses. Pius X taught that,
“The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church.”
He then issued a decree clarifying what he meant by the Principles of St Thomas in the form of the 24 Theses. This is a teaching; it is not a canonical disciple. The canonical disciple merely applies the teaching. If the regulations were overthrown it would not affect the teaching of St Pius X which would remain, as would Pius XII’s defence of the provisions of the old Code and Vatican II’s description of the principles of St Thomas as ‘perennially valid’. The reason the 24 Theses do not command internal assent is because Pius X merely said they were required in order to understand the meaning of the Church’s dogmas not that they were those dogmas. Nevertheless, it is hardly fitting that a movement which seeks to promote understanding be unable to understand the meaning of the Church’s dogma! Furthermore, Pius X admonishes that the principles of St Thomas are “not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another” it seems to me that a goodly number of these principles are treated by the ‘Faith Movement’ not only as “opinions capable of being debated one way or another” but as false, ‘outdated’ and overthrown. This goes beyond merely ‘taking account’ of modern philosophy as Vatican II and the new Code suggests. As Pius X says that these principles are required to understand the meaning of the Dogmas of the Church, it must amount to a breach of Vatican I’s Canon “If anyone shall have said that it is possible that to the dogmas declared by the Church a meaning must sometimes be attributed according to the progress of science, different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema”
The 24 theses may be found here.
I am at a loss to see how any principle of the Faith Movement could conflict in the slightest way with any of them; nor how any one might be held to be in conflict with any scientific view, since the 24 theses are all metaphysical and do not stray into the scientific realm.
The central allegation against the Faith Movement seems to be that in demonstrating the compatibility of doctrine with currently held scientific theories, its adherents are somehow committed to "adapting the interpretation" of doctrine to science. But this does not seem to me to be necessarily true, and I find myself wondering whether this objection is founded on anything more than an inability to understand the issues involved.
Mark - here is Aelianus' link to the 24 theses (without the introduction to the text in Denzinger.) The title is appropriate (NB "approval") considering the discussion:
Decree of Approval of some theses contained in the Doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas and proposed to the Teachers of Philosophy
aelianus - you do not answer any of the points which I have raised regarding subsequent clarifications of the magisterium of the Church. They do not refer simply to the "canonical discipline" but to what a Catholic may in good conscience teach regarding the principles of St Thomas. You keep saying that we must teach the principles of the philosophia perennis. Nobody disputes that. The dispute in question is whether the 24 theses are necessarily to be held in order to teach those fundamental principles. The Church says that they are not obligatory. you say they are; and then you accuse all the Faith priests of heresy because - according to you - they disagree with them.
[...]after the promulgation of Optatam Totius, the Sacred Congregation for Seminaries and Universities issued a clarification to the effect that these words “the philosophical patrimony which is perennially valid” refer to “the principles of St Thomas”
No mention of the 24 theses then.
Optatam Totius talks of “taking into account the philosophical investigations of later ages” it says nothing of the natural sciences
"ratione quoque habita philosophicarum investigationum progredientis aetatis, praesertim earum quae in propria natione maiorem influxum exercent, necnon recentioris scientiarum progressus..."
You could try and make an argument that the sciences referred to (and distinguished from philosophical investigations by "necnon") refer purely to philosophical sciences but I don't think the argument would have legs.
Denzinger- Schonmetzer presents you with some careful clarifications of the Church's magisterium, why not accept them and drop the charge of heresy?
Father Finigan,
A lot of people who read your blog won't know as much as they'd like to about St Thomas or the Faith Movement. Could you please state whether or not the priests in the Faith Movement accept the teachings of St Thomas, and if they don't then perhaps you could explain why they don't? Then we can all get on with the interesting question of whether or not that makes them Modernists. And then Aelianus and Laodicea can get on with the very boring point of whether or not they are in technical breach of the 1917 CIC (or whatever their point is).
Yours, in Domino,
Oliver McCarthy
“If one considers all this well, he will easily see why the Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy ‘according to the method, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor,’ since, as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly pre-eminent both of teaching students and for bringing truth to light; his doctrine is in harmony with Divine Revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound progress.” - Pius XII, Humani Generis
1.In Doctoris Angelici (1914) Pius X taught that the Principles of St Thomas were required to understand the meaning of the Dogmas of the Church.
2.In Postquam Sanctissimus (1914) Pius X decreed that the 24 Theses were among the more important of the Principles of St Thomas.
3.The 1917 Code of Canon Law, citing Postquam Sanctissimus, decreed that the Principles of St Thomas be defended in seminaries.
4.In 1950 Pius XII defended these provisions in Humani Generis §31.
5.Optatam Totius §15 in 1965, citing Humani Generis §31, decreed that philosophical studies in seminaries be based upon the Perennial Philosophy.
6.The Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities clarified that the phrase ‘the Perennial Philosophy’ refers to the Principles of St Thomas.
7.The 1983 Code reproduced the text of Optatam Totius §15.
Thus, Pius X’s clarification of the meaning of the phrase ‘The Principles of St Thomas’ stands and the 24 Theses remain the only official enumeration by the Church of the content of the Perennial Philosophy and of the Principles of St Thomas which are to be the basis of philosophical studies in seminaries and which have been commended by so many Popes.
These 24 Theses do not command internal assent from the faithful because they are not directly taught. It is simply taught that they are the foundation of the sacred sciences and the students of these sciences are admonished that they will not understand their basic principles (dogma) if they do not adhere to them. The faithful are not obliged to study theology and they are not obliged to give internal assent to these principles. Those who do elect to study theology are taught that they will have little success unless they adhere to these theses but they are not commanded in conscience to give them internal assent. Those who teach philosophy to seminarians are commanded by Canon Law to base their instruction upon the Perennial Philosophy which has been partially described in these theses.
It could be that the ‘Faith Movement’ escapes the charge of changing the meaning of the Church’s Doctrine in accordance with the progress of science. It seems to me that it does not. It seems to me that the best way of demonstrating that it at least intends to preserve that meaning is to adhere to the Theses Pius X taught are necessary to understand the meaning of those doctrines. I am not suggesting that they are morally bound to do so just that the Church teaches that it is foolish not to. It seems to me a reluctance to do so is a bad sign. It also appears there is magisterial warrant for such a suspicion.
“St Thomas’s teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.” – Innocent VI
“All teachers of philosophy and sacred theology should be warned that if they deviate so much as a step, in metaphysics especially, from Aquinas, they expose themselves to grave risk” – St Pius X
Mark, I started on the 24 theses, and got as far as number 1:
"I. Potency and act divide being in such a way that whatever is, is either a pure act, or else coalesces necessarily from potency and act as from its first and intrinsic principles."
I shall try again in the morning, to see if it makes any more sense when sober.
Rev. Father, as to whether "philosophical investigations" includes the natural sciences, were the natural sciences not once referred to as "natural philosophy"? 18th century I think, but I would have to check.
Father, is there any rejection implicit in the philosophy of Fr Holloway of the Thomist definition of truth as the "conformity of the intellect with reality"?
I've been reading a fascinating chapter from Fr Garrigou-Lagrange on the philosophy of Maurice Blondel (who defined truth as "conformity of the mind with human life") where he pinpoints one of the causes of much of the "me-centred" whackiness that we have had to put up with over the last 40 years.
Just cos we share a blog doesn't mean we agree in all points of emphasis and presentation!
Aelianus, I think that you misunderstand the status of the 24 theses and I agree with Fr Tim's dinstinction between the philosophia perennis and the theses themselves. Indeed the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Studies itself makes that distinction clear. What the decree says is not that the 24 theses are the philosophia perennis but that "eas plane continere...principia et pronuntia maiora" of St Thomas's teachings.
I would also want to add that this decree, together with Pope St Pius X's motu proprio Doctoris Angelici, clearly recognises that the philosophia perennis is precisely that: a philosophy and is concerned especially with metaphysics. What it is not is a scientific account of observable physical reality.
I have had a diverting hour or so reading the 24 theses this morning. I had forgotten how useful they are as tools of metaphysical thought. As tools of the interpretation of observed scientific phenomena they are, however, limited. This should not surprise us since they are devised for a different purpose. By way of an analogy, a screw driver makes a poor saw.
As for the point about Eucharistic orthodoxy, it may be worth reminding ourselves that the doctrine of transubstantiation is described by the Council of Trent not as a dogma in itself but as a fitting and proper term to explain the "miraculous change of the whole substance of the bread into the whole substance of the body of Christ…and of the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of His blood" (in Concilium Tridentinum, Decretum de Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento, 1551, in Denz.1642).
I know no priest, no deacon, no religious, no lay person associated with the Faith Movement who believes other than that there is a change in the whole substance of the eucharistic elements into the whole substance of Christ's body and blood. That belief is grounded firmly in the philosophia perennis. That this is allied to a vision of the physical world that seeks to make some sense in the light of the Christian faith of observable physical reality, of the insights of scientific enquiry deepens that belief and underscores the sense of marvel at the mysterium fidei that is the Eucharist. It in no way diminishes that commitment to the philosophia perennis but it does recognise the proper application of expressions of it.
Perhaps. Aelianus, if you were as much of a Thomist as those you accuse of heresy, you'd have made these important distinctions yourself.
At home, I seem to remember I have some more background on the letter to the Jesuit head and definitely a commentary written at the time on each which is fascinating. I am in Linz, where not even the Bishop will know what the 24 Theses are about.
Aelianus - yet again, you give the 24 theses a position that they were not given by the Congregation of Studies when asked, almost immediately, about their status.
the Church teaches that it is foolish not to [viz adhere to the 24 theses].
As I have clearly demonstrated, in the body of the post, "The Church" does not teach that.
Again, in a lengthy comment, you have failed to address any of the points that I have raised.
David - I am sure that we would all agree that truth is the "conformity of the intellect with reality"? and would disagree with Blondel.
Oliver - we would certainly agree with the principles of St Thomas but would take the Scotist line on some questions.
Gillibrand - I'd be very interested in that background material. I agree that it might not be fruitful to take the matter up with the Bishop of Linz :-)
OK, we have covered the 24 theses. But it would be good to know why priests at the Faith conference Masses don't wear chasubles.
Aelianus, here is what Garrigou-Lagrange has to say about the matter - I think you'll agree that he's sound on the 'Thomas question'!
What shall be the binding force of these theses? They are safe norms of intellectual guidance. [1336] This decision of the Congregation, confirmed by Benedict XV, was published March 7, 1916.
The next year, 1917, saw the promulgation of the New Code, which [1337] makes the method, the principles, and the teaching of St. Thomas binding on the professors and students both in philosophy and in theology. Among the sources of this canon the Code cites the decree of March 7, 1916.
Pope Benedict XV, on various occasions, expressed his mind on this point. He approved, for instance, in a special audience, the intention of P. E. Hugon, O. P.: to write a book [1338] on the twenty-four theses. The author of the book [1339] reports that the Pontiff said that he did not intend to impose the twenty-four theses as compelling internal assent, but as the doctrine preferred by the Church. [1340]
Footnotes:
1336 Proponantur veluti tutae normae directivae.
1337 Can. 1366, § 2.
1338 Les vingt-quatre theses thomistiques, Paris, Tequi, 1922.
1339 Ibid.: p. vii.
1340 P. Guido Mattiussi, S. J. had written already in 1917 a work of first importance on this subject: Le XXIV tesi della filosofia di S. Tommaso d'Aquino approvate dalla Sacra Congreg. degli Studi, Roma.
From Reality, Ch. 55
Got this quotation from a short post addressing just this question (rest of the post found at the wonderful Thomistic blog Ite ad Thomam). I think nothing more needs to be said. The stake at Campo de' Fiori will have to wait for another day - though think of it Fr Tim, that could have really increased your carbon footprint!
Father, I have repeatedly addressed all the points you have raised. The clarifications you have mentioned are not relevant to the point at issue. I am not claiming that the 24 Theses bind the faithful or any group of the faithful in conscience. Nevertheless Pius X explicitly taught that,
“The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church.”
He then clarified that these 24 Theses were among those principles. The fact that the Theses themselves do not command internal assent does not change the fact that Pius X taught that “if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church.”
‘Credo ut intellegam’ is good advice but it is the belief not the understanding that is necessary for salvation. It is for this reason that the 24 Theses do not bind in conscience. They are not proposed for belief they are proposed as an (according to Pius X indispensable) aid for understanding what is proposed for belief. It would seem that they are definable because they must by definition be at least implicitly contained in revelation if they are required to understand it. In fact, several of the Theses (e.g. on the soul) in one form or another have already been defined.
There is no need to keep repeating that these Theses do not bind in conscience, that is not the point. The point is this:
Does the Faith Movement seek to alter the meaning of the doctrines of the Church in order to conform them to the progress of Science?
If Pius X is right that the meaning of these doctrines cannot be perceived without adherence to the major theses of St Thomas, how can the Faith Movement escape this accusation if it does not even adhere to these theses or even rejects them?
[As for the gentleman who believes that the Church does not teach transubstantiation I advise him to consult Paul VI’s marvellous encyclical Mysterium Fidei directed against this error. ]
Fr. Finigan--
Do you think the Faith movement actually contradicts the 24 theses? If it doesn't, this whole conversation seems like wasted time, and it doesn't seem like Aelianus, except by unsubstantiated anecdote and general accusation, has established that it in fact does.
Aelianus - what you have repeatedly done is to insist that the Faith movement cannot be doctrinally sound if it does not adhere to the 24 theses. That is not so if they do not "bind in conscience". The various sources that I referred to actually imply much more than that - they imply that it is licit to hold and to teach theses that do not accord with the 24 theses.
Fr Redman - LOL. Yes that is a defect and I hold up my hands.
Anon - yes, that is my next question.
Aelianus - what you have repeatedly done is to insist that the Faith movement cannot be doctrinally sound if it does not adhere to the 24 theses. That is not so if they do not "bind in conscience". The various sources that I referred to actually imply much more than that - they imply that it is licit to hold and to teach theses that do not accord with the 24 theses.
However - shall we move on? Which of the 24 theses do you consider contradicted by the Faith Movement. Perhaps this will get us into discussing some philosophy. I fear that my readers will lose the will to live if this discussion goes on much further in this vein.
Yes, it is interesting to speculate if Pius X had lived how long he would have allowed so-called ‘Scotism’ and ‘Suarezianism’ to serve as camouflage for more sinister theological developments… Oh well God clearly thought it was time to test us. The point is the adherence to the theses and so the intention and capacity to understand the dogmas of the Church. One cannot get away from the fact that Pius X said you can’t even understand the meaning of the Church’s Dogmas without adhering to the theses whatever the disciplinary force Benedict XV decided to give them. This intention is far more important than the specific divergences in fact. I brought up the theses not because they are binding for the faithful but because they provide a handy way of gauging whether or not the ‘Faith Movement’ is (or perhaps more importantly even knows if it is) in breach of the relevant canon of Vatican I. If the ‘Faith Movement’ was happy with all 24 then it would be a good sign they at least didn’t intend to breach the canon, which is a good start. Rather serious epistemological concerns surrounding the virtue of faith would of course remain concerning the use of the empirical sciences in this context even if the meaning of the articles of the faith were fortuitously preserved. Nevertheless, from attending the conferences and dipping into the books I would say the movement seems to diverge from 5, 6, 7 probably 8, possibly 9, 10, 13 & 14 in terminology at least, 16, 20(?), I hope they subscribe to 23 or they are pagans. Anyway, I will leave the adherents of Fr Holloway to decide whether they think they subscribe to the all the 24 Theses or not while I go away and, with considerable reluctance, read the whole of “[‘]Catholicism[‘] – a new synthesis” and decide if I can increase the tally up from 10 or even knock it down a couple. Magna est veritas et praevalebit!
P.S. Someone who had been reading your blog emailed me yesterday to say “a priest-friend told me recently that the late Fr Edmund Holloway had told him that St Thomas believed in consubstantiation because St Thomas believed in accidents, whereas in fact there are no accidents, because at the Consecration, Jesus 'becomes' the host. My priest-friend recalled that he had heard this claim before, so he went and looked it up, and, lo, it comes from Teilhard de Chardin!” This agrees with the position I have heard from a number of members of ‘Faith’ (lay and clerical) when challenged on the compatibility of the movement’s view of substance with the doctrine of transubstantiation. I would also point out to Mr Morgan that it is precisely the distinction between metaphysical thought on the one hand and the interpretation of observed scientific phenomena on the other, which he rightly makes, which is essential to the integrity of the theological virtue of faith and which luminaries of the ‘Faith Movement’ such as Fr Hugh elsewhere on this blog are at pains to deny.
Father, I hold no brief for the Faith movement. I do, however, think Aelianus' position ill-conceived, and inconsistent with any sound reading of para 49 of Fides et Ratio. I wish therefore to congratulate you on your choice of dispute, and your firm and patient handling of it.
Aelianus - The Thomist school produced quite a bit of the aberrant theology of the 20th century.
I'm off on retreat now so will have a look at the theses you mention when I return.
(You will find more grist for the mill in the series of pamphlets Perspectives in Philosophy.)
Fr. Tim,
I followed your link to the Ex Laodicea blog and ploughed through the post and the comments. As an investment banker not a theologian, I have to say that a lot of it was too rarefied for me, but I noticed an interesting point in one of Aelianius's replies, which I reproduce in part below:
"The Papal statements concern the acceptability of the theory of evolution as a hypothesis not of sacred theology but of the experimental sciences. The Popes admit this possibility so long as it does not touch upon points of Doctrine, specifically the immediate animation of the soul, the physical decent of all human beings from one first couple and the special creation of the body of Eve from material taken from the body of Adam. Theories propounded by the natural sciences which contradict these revealed doctrines are unacceptable."
My question is this: do Catholics really have to believe that Eve was literally created using material taken from Adam's body? If we do, it is news to me. (I am a creation-through-divinely-directed-evolution person myself).
"The true origin of marriage, venerable brothers, is well known to all. Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. And this union of man and woman, that it might answer more fittingly to the infinite wise counsels of God, even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties - deeply sealed, as it were, and signed upon it-namely, unity and perpetuity." Arcanum - Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII
On Christian Marriage (1880) §5
Fr. Tim,
“Leo XIII” has done us a service by identifying the reference to the creation of Eve in the encyclical “Arcanum” issued – in 1880 – by his namesake. It saved me a lot of searching on Google. Is this the most recent specific mention of the matter by the Magisterium, I wonder?
My thinking on this whole question has been strongly influenced by a book by Joseph Ratzinger, which I wholeheartedly recommend, called “In the Beginning – A Catholic Understanding of the Story of the Creation and the Fall.” Here is an extract that sums up the Ratzinger view (which I share) on this whole question of how literally we should take the book of Genesis:
“All of this [the account of the creation of Adam and Eve] is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either/or here. We cannot say creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we have just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons came to be, but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in doing so, it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.”
I am certain that Pope Benedict XVI has not changed his mind on this issue in the years since he composed the sermons which formed the basis of the book. Which means that if he were to comment in a future encyclical on how literally Catholics should take the account of the creation of Eve, he would inevitably overrule the statement in “Arcanum” about Eve literally being taken from Adam’s side.
This would not amount to a contradiction in Magisterial teaching. It would instead be a perfect example of the development of doctrine in action as the Magisterium responds over time to ever more sophisticated levels of human knowledge - on a subject that only existed in a very rudimentary and inchoate form back in 1880.
If anyone shall have said that it is possible that to the dogmas declared by the Church a meaning must sometimes be attributed according to the progress of science, different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema
Yes, thank you - we are all familiar with that text. The Faith movement does give the dogmas of the Church a meaning different from that which the Church has understood and understands.
Sometimes people think that because of modern science we have to reject the dogmas of the Church or else to reject the evidence of our senses.
The Faith Movement tries to show that we do not need to do either.
Fr. Tim,
Please don't publish this - it's just my private joke and I don't want to provoke the creationists.
Question: What's the one thing that's worse than the "spirit of Vatican II"?
Answer: The "spirit of Vatican I."
I don’t believe any creationists have commented on this post so far. It is not creationists who are worried about the ‘Faith Movement’ it is orthodox Catholics who do not wish to see their faith shackled to the speculations of amateur biologist/theologians and their mum’s private revelations and take seriously the warnings of the magisterium against those who stray from the metaphysics of St Thomas.
Oh, believe me, certainly creationists are at odds with the Faith Movement.
Your comment is more openly insulting than usual. Many of those involved with Faith are far from "amateurs" in various fields of the natural sciences.
You seem content to ignore the clarifications of the magisterium on the status of the 24 theses.
I was not trying to be insulting. The adjective amateur was intended to qualify biologist. I must say though I have just read ‘God’s Master Key – The Law of Control and Direction’ by Mrs Holloway and all the doctrinal aberrations I have encountered personally (and been told of by others) concerning the Eucharist and the soul are clearly fundamental to the Holloway project. I note Fr Holloway tries to qualify a few of these points in his book but it is too little too late. He is at least honest enough to say what he is about: “a new framework of speculative Catholic philosophy and theology” based upon the elaboration of a private revelation. In contrast we have the repeated endorsements given by the Magisterium to the metaphysics of St Thomas and the warnings of the Magisterium concerning those who depart from them. The twenty-four theses provide a bench-mark (furnished by the Holy See) for measuring departures from these principles. The canonical force of the theses really isn’t very important, and has no effect on the authority of Magisterium’s recommendations and warnings. One does not need to oppose the theory of evolution in order to be worried about the idea of yoking Catholic theology to that theory. It is no use pretending it is just a matter of showing the hypothetical compatibility of such theories with Catholic teaching it clearly goes far beyond that. Holloway clearly makes the theory of evolution absolutely integral to his new framework of speculative Catholic philosophy and theology. You shouldn’t be proud of the fact that Creationists object to the ‘Faith Movement’ they are entitled to their interpretation of Genesis so long as they do not present it as integral to the faith. I do not share their interpretation but at least it has the merit of being arrived at independently of secular intellectual fashion and private revelation.
The canonical force of the theses really isn’t very important, and has no effect on the authority of Magisterium’s recommendations and warnings.
Exactly how are we meant to know the weight of the "Magisterium's recommendations and warnings" other than through the positive legislation of the Holy See?
Holloway clearly makes the theory of evolution absolutely integral to his new framework of speculative Catholic philosophy and theology.
If evolution happened, there are philosophical issues raised. If evolution did not happen, then the Faith Movement's theological project may be cheerfully ditched. Certainly the question of "creationism" is central. Nobody said we were "proud" that creationists disagree with us. But actually, you need to decide whether or not there is a question worth answering here.
It is important to distinguish between the canonical force of the 24 theses and Pius X’s teaching about them. He taught that without them we will not understand the meaning of the words in which the Church’s teaching is expressed. Benedict XV then insisted that they be taught at Catholic educational institutions but did not make them bind in conscience. The Papacy’s legislative authority and its teaching authority are distinct. You decided to phrase the matter “Is the Faith Movement modernist because it does not hold the 24 theses?” which subtly misrepresents what I said. What I said was that the ‘Faith Movement’ is in breach of the canon of Vatican I “If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of science, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.” ‘The Faith Movement’ is in breach formally because what this cannon condemns is the very theological method professed by the movement. It is in breach materially because of its account of the Eucharist and of the Soul . As it happens the specific problems have little to do with the progress (imagined or real) of science and a lot to do with Mrs Holloway’s private revelations. As the movement’s members are perfectly well-intentioned they do not wish to be unorthodox and so they do not consciously repudiate the words of the Church’s teaching on these subjects but rather the content. I brought up the 24 Theses because Pius X explicitly proposed them as a way of ensuring that the meaning of the Church’s teaching is properly understood. After reading ‘God’s Master Key – The Law of Control and Direction’
I see that the errors are a more plentiful than I realised.
The idea that “If evolution happened, there are philosophical issues raised” is not as obvious as you might think. It is important not to confuse species as understood by St Thomas with the way the term is used by modern biologists. Once this confusion is avoided the question of whether evolution happened or not can (without prejudice to the specific doctrine of monogenism) be left to biologists. The great triumph of people like Dawkins is to create the impression that this theory provides a huge problem for the Church. It does not. There is a long and diverse tradition of exegesis for the first two chapters of Genesis. The unitary interpretation promoted by certain protestants in more recent times is a product of their need for the meaning of texts to be obvious in order to buttress the false doctrine of sola scriptura. ‘The Faith Movement’ is misguidedly attempting to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. By giving the impression it does exist it is unnecessarily conceding a vital point to the enemy. It is also in the process playing havoc with a number of rather important doctrines.
I realise that a lot of people who attend these conferences subconsciously ignore the weirder stuff about the ‘Unity Law of Control and Direction’ which limits the damage to some degree. Nevertheless, it is hardly satisfactory.
Aelianus - you may wish that Benedict XV had "insisted that they be taught at Catholic educational institutions" but he did not. You have a strange understanding of conscience if you think that it is necessary to hold them in order to avoid unorthodoxy but that somehow they can be non-binding in conscience.
The legislative authority and the teaching authority of the Holy See are indeed distinct. Here we are dealing with a case in which the legislative authority is alleged to have been used in order to make some particular theses binding. The Holy See made it quite clear that they were not binding. If they are not binding (especially if they are not binding "in conscience") then a philosopher or theologian may hold other views without being ipso facto suspect.
To be honest, it looks to me as though you did not know about the subsequent statements of the Holy See and you have been left trying to defend an indefensible position.
Yet again, the Faith Movement does not assign a sense to the Church's dogmas different from "that which the Church has understood and understands". I think that you would do well to consider the question of theological notes before making such sweeping allegations against us.
The idea that “If evolution happened, there are philosophical issues raised” was obvious to both Newman and Faber well before Vatican I and formed a significant subject of discussion among any major 20th century theologians.
I agree with you, of course, that Protestants have a peculiar difficulty of their own if they hold to a particular interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis. But Dawkins is not quite so foolish. His discussion of the question of "Non Overlapping Magisteria" is very much to the point. I agree with him that it simply won't do.
Aelianus - Doubtless you will post your insulting and ludicrously inaccurate summary propositions of the theology of Fr Holloway on your own blog but I will not give them space here. Of course I do not assent to them and asking me whether I do is beyond the limits of what I would consider common courtesy in debate.
If you had a reasonable case to make, you could make it by representing the position of your opponent accurately and fairly. I do not have time to spend unpicking your ridiculous caricature.
No, the "Faith Movement" is modernist because it says heretical things. Take for example their description of original sin:
"Matter is by nature programmed and deterministic. Spirit is by nature free to accept or refuse the good. Human beings are both body and soul. According to the biblical tradition the first generation of mankind tragically introduced into our nature a wound to our natural integration into control and direction, by the deliberate choice of evil. This wound is then passed on by the material laws of inheritance to every generation."
Matter is not necessarily "by nature programmed and deterministic," and original sin is not "passed on by the material laws of inheritance" as though sin is bodily corruption. I sense materialism or naturalism here, not a bona fide Catholic philosophy.
If you say that original sin is not passed on by the material laws of inheritance, how do you understand the teaching of the Council of Trent that original sin is passed on not by imitation but by propagation?
If you do not think that matter is programmed and deterministic, do you think that it has free will or something?
The Faith Movement is not materialist but has consistently defended the real distinction between matter and spirit against theological trends which tend to deny it.
Nor is it naturalist - rather it has consistently provided philosophical, theological and apologetical materials to demonstrate that God is the origin of all things, not nature.
Again, you say original sin is "passed on by the material laws of inheritance?" There is more than biology in human generation; there is also the infusing of an immortal soul, the death of which is sin. "[T]he soul is the subject of original sin, and not the flesh." (Summa). Also, by propagation and not imitation is meant that one contracts not commits original sin.
Oh yes, the infusion of the soul is not material - plenty of that in Faith literature, methinks. And yes, only the spiritual soul can be the subject of original sin.
Now - we contract and do not commit original sin. And that by propagation, not by imitation (Trent does not consider the absurdity of "committing" original sin.) So: original Sin is something we are born with - passed on.
The explanation of how this is so is problematic. St Thomas in the answer to the second objection in the question you refer to says that original sin is caused by the semen as instrumental cause. "Material laws of inheritance" does not seem to be in compatible with that.
Will you withdraw the charge of heresy and admit that we are in an area of legitimate theological debate?
"If you do not think that matter is programmed and deterministic, do you think that it has free will or something?"
I think matter is "programmed" in the sense that there is a creative logic behind it (Logos); but from humans' perspective and our finite comprehension of it, it is far from deterministic. Our knowledge of the material world is far too limited.
Aha! So we agree that it is intrinsically determined. Our difference seems to be in the ability of the human mind to know the truth. This is certainly a problem for neo-thomism but the Faith movement does not accept the epistemological limitation conceded by neo-thomism.
Matter is determined by Almighty God. Science can legitimately assume this in its account of reality.
Post a Comment