Ecce Verbum
St. Augustine on unity under one Shepherd 🔗Sermo 46 page 283 Small wonder that pride gives birth to division, and love to unity. But our catholic mother is herself a shepherd; she seeks the straying sheep everywhere, strengthens the weak, heals the sick…
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Ecce Verbum
The Sacrifice of the Mass is the noblest act of our religion In it is renewed, in a real but unbloody manner, the Sacrifice of Calvary. Jesus desired to remain with us throughout the centuries in the Blessed Eucharist as our friend, comforter and spiritual…
The meaning of the words of Consecration
The first Mass on earth was the one celebrated by Christ himself at the Last Supper. The words he used then became the essence of the Mystery which is still at the centre of Christian life today.
The full meaning of Christ's words is as follows: This is My Body and My Blood, which I have now mystically sacrificed to God the Father for the whole world. The mystical death is well represented externally by the duality of the Eucharistic forms and the separate forms of consecration.
Indeed, the words of the double consecration of bread and wine are like the sacrificial knife that causes the separation of the Blood from the Body - the killing of the sacrifice offered to God. The separate consecration thus clearly represents the real and physical separation of the Blood from the Body, which was accomplished on the Cross.
With the spiritual sword of the consecratory words Christ destroyed the sacrifice, bringing it into a state where it is true food and true drink.
Every Israelite understood well this way of speaking and the importance of the shedding of blood in the Old Covenant ceremonies. The sacrifice began with the killing of the animal and was completed by the transfer of the blood to the altar. So Christ's blood, which is poured out on the altar, is sacrificial blood but blood cannot be offered without sacrificing the body, since body and blood form one sacrificial act. Therefore, Christ offering his Body and Blood both on the cross and on the altar under the forms of bread and wine is the true lamb sacrificed to God.
By the words used at the Last Supper, Jesus Christ indicated the essence of this mystery, which he commanded his disciples to celebrate in remembrance of him. The link between the Mass and the Sacrifice of the Cross is thus clearly marked by the words of the double consecration used by the Saviour himself.
All the elements which the Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has added to the liturgy of the Mass are thus intended to highlight the truth of Christ's sacrifice, which was bloodily accomplished on the Cross.
Christ, by instituting the Mass, decided that all the faithful should be able to share in His work of redemption and remember what He directly accomplished for their salvation 2,000 years ago. It is truly a remembrance of Himself and of the redemption He accomplished As we participate in the Mass, let us therefore remember how great a mystery it is and strive to make our participation as worthy and appropriate as possible. Through the Eucharist, we can perfectly glorify God and offer him the thanksgiving he deserves, and also propitiation.
The Mass and the Blessed Sacrament are the Church's greatest treasure, for they contain not only God's graces but the Giver of all graces Himself - Jesus Christ, who once offered, and continually offers Himself for us to God for our salvation.
Source: A.J. Nowowiejski, Mass in the Pre-Nicene Period, 1922
#eucharist #liturgy #mass
The first Mass on earth was the one celebrated by Christ himself at the Last Supper. The words he used then became the essence of the Mystery which is still at the centre of Christian life today.
The full meaning of Christ's words is as follows: This is My Body and My Blood, which I have now mystically sacrificed to God the Father for the whole world. The mystical death is well represented externally by the duality of the Eucharistic forms and the separate forms of consecration.
Indeed, the words of the double consecration of bread and wine are like the sacrificial knife that causes the separation of the Blood from the Body - the killing of the sacrifice offered to God. The separate consecration thus clearly represents the real and physical separation of the Blood from the Body, which was accomplished on the Cross.
With the spiritual sword of the consecratory words Christ destroyed the sacrifice, bringing it into a state where it is true food and true drink.
Every Israelite understood well this way of speaking and the importance of the shedding of blood in the Old Covenant ceremonies. The sacrifice began with the killing of the animal and was completed by the transfer of the blood to the altar. So Christ's blood, which is poured out on the altar, is sacrificial blood but blood cannot be offered without sacrificing the body, since body and blood form one sacrificial act. Therefore, Christ offering his Body and Blood both on the cross and on the altar under the forms of bread and wine is the true lamb sacrificed to God.
By the words used at the Last Supper, Jesus Christ indicated the essence of this mystery, which he commanded his disciples to celebrate in remembrance of him. The link between the Mass and the Sacrifice of the Cross is thus clearly marked by the words of the double consecration used by the Saviour himself.
All the elements which the Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has added to the liturgy of the Mass are thus intended to highlight the truth of Christ's sacrifice, which was bloodily accomplished on the Cross.
Christ, by instituting the Mass, decided that all the faithful should be able to share in His work of redemption and remember what He directly accomplished for their salvation 2,000 years ago. It is truly a remembrance of Himself and of the redemption He accomplished As we participate in the Mass, let us therefore remember how great a mystery it is and strive to make our participation as worthy and appropriate as possible. Through the Eucharist, we can perfectly glorify God and offer him the thanksgiving he deserves, and also propitiation.
The Mass and the Blessed Sacrament are the Church's greatest treasure, for they contain not only God's graces but the Giver of all graces Himself - Jesus Christ, who once offered, and continually offers Himself for us to God for our salvation.
Source: A.J. Nowowiejski, Mass in the Pre-Nicene Period, 1922
#eucharist #liturgy #mass
Ecce Verbum
Saint Basil on unwritten teaching and being versed in the institutions of the Church Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have…
Scripture and Tradition
*basic outline
In the Church Christ established the authentic organ of Tradition, which is the apostolic hierarchy. Tradition itself is the proclamation, assisted by the Holy Spirit, of that Revelation which was originally transmitted orally by Christ and the Apostles.
Tradition precedes Scripture in chronological order, for Scripture did not exist from the beginning of the world, but from the beginning there was a Rule to which holy men adapted their faith. Similarly, the Apostolic epistles were addressed to existing churches.
Tradition also precedes Scripture in the order of knowledge in the sense that not Scripture but Tradition contains the totality of revealed doctrine. It is Tradition that determines the proper meaning of Scripture and it is Tradition that states which books are inspired and canonical.
From the beginning, Tradition existed as the only rule of faith, and the Scripture that appeared later could not destroy Tradition as the basic means of proclaiming the revealed doctrine established once and for all for the Church. Holy Scripture It was intended to serve her from the very beginning.
*(Tradition in the strictest sense is Revelation transmitted orally. In a strict but more general sense, Tradition is Revelation passed on orally or in writing).
In the course of time, a certain development takes place in Tradition, but it remains inseparable from the total immutability and unanimity in the understanding of dogmas. In the deposit of faith, nothing may be changed, added or taken away.
The teaching of the apostles may have contained certain general truths in which other, more specific truths were implicitly (not explicitly) contained. The Magisterium had to bring out and clarify the latter when various doubts and errors began to emerge.
In the course of time, in the face of emerging errors, it became necessary to express certain truths explicitly (explicite), i.e. to declare dogmas - specific truths contained inexplicitly (implicitly) in the general teaching of the Apostles.
*(Dogmas are not the proclamation of any new truth to the faith; moreover, they are in themselves unchangeable. Neither the Church, nor the Pope, nor anyone else, has the right to add anything new to the deposit of faith that is not explicitly or implicitly revealed).
Tradition, although it remains the same, was not always framed in the exact same way. As time passed and heresies emerged, it was formulated more and more precisely. We distinguish between the stages in the history of the formulation of dogma: simple belief, speculation and full explanation.
An example of the unfolding of specific truths from general truths are the many dogmas concerning the divine and human nature of Christ, which follow from and implicitly contain the primary fundamental truth that Christ is God-man.
sources: Tradition contra modernism, Card. Louis Billot
#scripture #tradition
*basic outline
In the Church Christ established the authentic organ of Tradition, which is the apostolic hierarchy. Tradition itself is the proclamation, assisted by the Holy Spirit, of that Revelation which was originally transmitted orally by Christ and the Apostles.
Tradition precedes Scripture in chronological order, for Scripture did not exist from the beginning of the world, but from the beginning there was a Rule to which holy men adapted their faith. Similarly, the Apostolic epistles were addressed to existing churches.
Tradition also precedes Scripture in the order of knowledge in the sense that not Scripture but Tradition contains the totality of revealed doctrine. It is Tradition that determines the proper meaning of Scripture and it is Tradition that states which books are inspired and canonical.
From the beginning, Tradition existed as the only rule of faith, and the Scripture that appeared later could not destroy Tradition as the basic means of proclaiming the revealed doctrine established once and for all for the Church. Holy Scripture It was intended to serve her from the very beginning.
*(Tradition in the strictest sense is Revelation transmitted orally. In a strict but more general sense, Tradition is Revelation passed on orally or in writing).
In the course of time, a certain development takes place in Tradition, but it remains inseparable from the total immutability and unanimity in the understanding of dogmas. In the deposit of faith, nothing may be changed, added or taken away.
The teaching of the apostles may have contained certain general truths in which other, more specific truths were implicitly (not explicitly) contained. The Magisterium had to bring out and clarify the latter when various doubts and errors began to emerge.
In the course of time, in the face of emerging errors, it became necessary to express certain truths explicitly (explicite), i.e. to declare dogmas - specific truths contained inexplicitly (implicitly) in the general teaching of the Apostles.
*(Dogmas are not the proclamation of any new truth to the faith; moreover, they are in themselves unchangeable. Neither the Church, nor the Pope, nor anyone else, has the right to add anything new to the deposit of faith that is not explicitly or implicitly revealed).
Tradition, although it remains the same, was not always framed in the exact same way. As time passed and heresies emerged, it was formulated more and more precisely. We distinguish between the stages in the history of the formulation of dogma: simple belief, speculation and full explanation.
An example of the unfolding of specific truths from general truths are the many dogmas concerning the divine and human nature of Christ, which follow from and implicitly contain the primary fundamental truth that Christ is God-man.
sources: Tradition contra modernism, Card. Louis Billot
#scripture #tradition
Ecce Verbum
The Successor of Peter and Biblical Interpretation “The Bishop of Rome sits upon the Chair to bear witness to Christ. Thus, the Chair is the symbol of the potestas docendi, the power to teach that is an essential part of the mandate of binding and loosing…
Tradition vs sola scriptura p.1 - an overview
(This is part 1 of the series. It provides only a general outline of the Catholic Church's teaching on Tradition)
Christ left behind not writings alone, but Christianity. The Apostles, at His command, orally communicated the reality of salvation, and used writing auxiliary, when teaching from a distance.
The Apostolic written word therefore has a substitute function for the spoken word. The writings of the Apostles and their disciples always remain only a partial account and testimony of the whole reality of salvation that Christ and the Apostles communicated to the faithful.
It should, of course, be emphasised that the inspired writings of the Apostles have become a unique monument to their teaching and, at the same time, a bridge between the Apostles and Christians of all times. Hence, the books of the New Testament occupy the fundamental place among the sources of Revelation.
Because of the direct Divine inspiration of the biblical authors, we can truly proclaim that the word written down on the pages of the Bible is the Word of God, and that it is infallible because of the authority of God himself, who can neither lie nor err.
The written word, however, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is neither primary nor completely independent nor the only source revealed doctrine. The written word is secondary to the spoken word, which was first spoken by Christ and then by the Apostles, then written down.
The Apostles established churches (dioceses) and spread the Faith before the New Testament writings were written, and the Gospel was preached publicly by Christ himself, who had not written anything down before (or since). The spoken word was the primary means of communication of the Christian church of the first centuries.
The totality of the doctrine preached by Christ and the Apostles is called the divine-apostolic Tradition, and one of its expressions is the written New Testament, which takes precedence among the other monuments of this Tradition (doctrinal rulings of the Councils, Popes, teachings of the Church Fathers...).
The very juxtaposition of Tradition (written with a capital T - which has its strict meaning in theology) and Scripture is a mistake, since Scripture itself is an expression of that Tradition, i.e. the transmission of the word of God preached by Christ and the Apostles.
The Bible (Written Tradition) and Oral Tradition are not separate and independent sources of the doctrine of the Faith, still less are they opposed to each other. They are the expression and source of a single divine Revelation addressed to all mankind.
In relation to the individual, Scripture and Oral Tradition act as the infallible testimony of Christian Revelation, behind which stands the authority of God himself, who has always revealed His will through intermediaries (prophets, Christ, Apostles).
The infallibility of Oral Tradition flows from the assistance of the Holy Spirit guiding the faith of the whole Church of Christ. In contrast, the infallibility of Scripture flows from the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit on the biblical authors.
It does not follow from what has been written above that the Church has the right to change, or add or subtract, anything from the deposit of Faith. On the contrary, each successive Pope is strictly limited by the previous documents of infallible Tradition (the Bible, the dogmas of the Councils and the Popes) - he is limited by the truths of the Faith.
The Bible is given the priority in the hierarchy of all documents. It is chronologically the earliest written word and, by divine inspiration, is the Word of God, while dogmas are the word of men, although fully in accordance with the Word of God, by divine assistance.
This is confirmed by the documents of the Magisterium of the Church of Christ, Apostolic and Catholic. The Council of Constantinople II (553) emphasises that the continuity of the doctrine transmitted verbally since apostolic times is an expression of Christian legitimacy.
đź”—p.2, sources
#scripture #tradition
(This is part 1 of the series. It provides only a general outline of the Catholic Church's teaching on Tradition)
Christ left behind not writings alone, but Christianity. The Apostles, at His command, orally communicated the reality of salvation, and used writing auxiliary, when teaching from a distance.
The Apostolic written word therefore has a substitute function for the spoken word. The writings of the Apostles and their disciples always remain only a partial account and testimony of the whole reality of salvation that Christ and the Apostles communicated to the faithful.
It should, of course, be emphasised that the inspired writings of the Apostles have become a unique monument to their teaching and, at the same time, a bridge between the Apostles and Christians of all times. Hence, the books of the New Testament occupy the fundamental place among the sources of Revelation.
Because of the direct Divine inspiration of the biblical authors, we can truly proclaim that the word written down on the pages of the Bible is the Word of God, and that it is infallible because of the authority of God himself, who can neither lie nor err.
The written word, however, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is neither primary nor completely independent nor the only source revealed doctrine. The written word is secondary to the spoken word, which was first spoken by Christ and then by the Apostles, then written down.
The Apostles established churches (dioceses) and spread the Faith before the New Testament writings were written, and the Gospel was preached publicly by Christ himself, who had not written anything down before (or since). The spoken word was the primary means of communication of the Christian church of the first centuries.
The totality of the doctrine preached by Christ and the Apostles is called the divine-apostolic Tradition, and one of its expressions is the written New Testament, which takes precedence among the other monuments of this Tradition (doctrinal rulings of the Councils, Popes, teachings of the Church Fathers...).
The very juxtaposition of Tradition (written with a capital T - which has its strict meaning in theology) and Scripture is a mistake, since Scripture itself is an expression of that Tradition, i.e. the transmission of the word of God preached by Christ and the Apostles.
The Bible (Written Tradition) and Oral Tradition are not separate and independent sources of the doctrine of the Faith, still less are they opposed to each other. They are the expression and source of a single divine Revelation addressed to all mankind.
In relation to the individual, Scripture and Oral Tradition act as the infallible testimony of Christian Revelation, behind which stands the authority of God himself, who has always revealed His will through intermediaries (prophets, Christ, Apostles).
The infallibility of Oral Tradition flows from the assistance of the Holy Spirit guiding the faith of the whole Church of Christ. In contrast, the infallibility of Scripture flows from the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit on the biblical authors.
It does not follow from what has been written above that the Church has the right to change, or add or subtract, anything from the deposit of Faith. On the contrary, each successive Pope is strictly limited by the previous documents of infallible Tradition (the Bible, the dogmas of the Councils and the Popes) - he is limited by the truths of the Faith.
The Bible is given the priority in the hierarchy of all documents. It is chronologically the earliest written word and, by divine inspiration, is the Word of God, while dogmas are the word of men, although fully in accordance with the Word of God, by divine assistance.
This is confirmed by the documents of the Magisterium of the Church of Christ, Apostolic and Catholic. The Council of Constantinople II (553) emphasises that the continuity of the doctrine transmitted verbally since apostolic times is an expression of Christian legitimacy.
đź”—p.2, sources
#scripture #tradition
Telegram
Ecce Verbum chat
The Council of Constantinople:
We confess that we keep the faith given in the beginning by the great God and Saviour our Jesus Christ to the holy Apostles and preached by them throughout the world. This faith was confessed by the holy Fathers, explained and…
We confess that we keep the faith given in the beginning by the great God and Saviour our Jesus Christ to the holy Apostles and preached by them throughout the world. This faith was confessed by the holy Fathers, explained and…
Ecce Verbum
Tradition vs sola scriptura p.1 - an overview (This is part 1 of the series. It provides only a general outline of the Catholic Church's teaching on Tradition) Christ left behind not writings alone, but Christianity. The Apostles, at His command, orally…
Tradition vs sola scriptura p.2- arguments from Scripture
Jesus Christ left mankind not the scriptures alone but the Church, which he built on the Apostles: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" [Mk 16:15].
He then said: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned" [Mk 16:16]. Our Lord marks the brief principle that faith comes from hearing and extends through the authority of the Church's apostolic teaching.
From this it follows that Christ, who communicated his doctrine by the living word, recommended a similar way of spreading the faith to the Apostles. If Scripture was to be the only source of Revelation and the authority of the Faith, then all the Apostles should have concentrated at once on writing books.
The Apostles, however, did not focus on systematically writing down the Revelation, but on verbally instructing and proclaiming Christ to the world. With their authority, they also established churches and successors, whom they commanded to continue this mission.
This coincides with Catholic doctrine on the essence of the act of faith (as expressed in the anti-modernist oath by Pope St Pius X, who ordered it to be taken by all priests and bishops before their ordination).
It proclaims: "I sincerely confess that faith is not a blind religious feeling, emerging under the influence of the heart and under the action of a well-disposed will, but a true rational recognition of the truth received externally from listening".
The primary means of transmitting Christian doctrine is therefore the teaching apostolic and catholic Church, built by the Saviour Himself, who told Peter: "You are the Rock, and on this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" [Mt 16:18].
What was transmitted in accordance with Christ's injunction to the world by the Apostles is called the Divine-Apostolic Tradition. Subsequently, this Christian transmission passed orally from the Apostles to their successors (bishops), and was also partly written down (New Testament).
However, Scripture was not conceived as the absolute totality of God's Revelation, as even Scripture itself confirms: "Brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions about which you have been instructed either by the living word or through our epistle" [2 Thess 2:15].
St Paul praises the Corinthians for sticking to his oral teachings: 'I commend you, brethren, for being mindful of me in everything, and for keeping the tradition as I have handed it down to you' [1 Cor 11:2]. The teaching authority is thus in the Apostles (the Church).
At the time this inspired letter was written, the Corinthians had already formed a Christian community and were, after all, holding on to some doctrines handed down by means other than inspired Scripture. Similarly, the other apostolic letters were written to existing churches already having Faith.
Paul further commands his oral teaching to be passed on: 'What you have heard from me through many witnesses, pass on to deserving men of faith, who will also be able to teach others' [2 Tim 2:2]. He explicitly establishes authoritative teachers of the Faith.
Also St John in his inspired letter writes: "There is much I could write to you, but I did not want to use paper and ink. But I hope to come to you and speak to you personally, so that our joy may be full" [2 John 1:12]
Thus, Scripture itself affirms the Catholic doctrine that it is Divine-Apostolic Tradition, i.e. the oral transmission, that is the primary and main way of spreading the faith, and Scripture is a written Tradition which the Church affirms (by affirming that the books as inspired).
In order that the teaching passed on to the next generation would be unchanged and without error, Christ promised the Church's assistance: "Teach them (the nations) to observe all that I have commanded you. And, behold, I am with you (teaching) all the days until the end of the world" [Mt 28:20].
source:Sieniatycki M., Apologetics, or fundamental dogmatics,1932
#scripture #tradition
Jesus Christ left mankind not the scriptures alone but the Church, which he built on the Apostles: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" [Mk 16:15].
He then said: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned" [Mk 16:16]. Our Lord marks the brief principle that faith comes from hearing and extends through the authority of the Church's apostolic teaching.
From this it follows that Christ, who communicated his doctrine by the living word, recommended a similar way of spreading the faith to the Apostles. If Scripture was to be the only source of Revelation and the authority of the Faith, then all the Apostles should have concentrated at once on writing books.
The Apostles, however, did not focus on systematically writing down the Revelation, but on verbally instructing and proclaiming Christ to the world. With their authority, they also established churches and successors, whom they commanded to continue this mission.
This coincides with Catholic doctrine on the essence of the act of faith (as expressed in the anti-modernist oath by Pope St Pius X, who ordered it to be taken by all priests and bishops before their ordination).
It proclaims: "I sincerely confess that faith is not a blind religious feeling, emerging under the influence of the heart and under the action of a well-disposed will, but a true rational recognition of the truth received externally from listening".
The primary means of transmitting Christian doctrine is therefore the teaching apostolic and catholic Church, built by the Saviour Himself, who told Peter: "You are the Rock, and on this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" [Mt 16:18].
What was transmitted in accordance with Christ's injunction to the world by the Apostles is called the Divine-Apostolic Tradition. Subsequently, this Christian transmission passed orally from the Apostles to their successors (bishops), and was also partly written down (New Testament).
However, Scripture was not conceived as the absolute totality of God's Revelation, as even Scripture itself confirms: "Brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions about which you have been instructed either by the living word or through our epistle" [2 Thess 2:15].
St Paul praises the Corinthians for sticking to his oral teachings: 'I commend you, brethren, for being mindful of me in everything, and for keeping the tradition as I have handed it down to you' [1 Cor 11:2]. The teaching authority is thus in the Apostles (the Church).
At the time this inspired letter was written, the Corinthians had already formed a Christian community and were, after all, holding on to some doctrines handed down by means other than inspired Scripture. Similarly, the other apostolic letters were written to existing churches already having Faith.
Paul further commands his oral teaching to be passed on: 'What you have heard from me through many witnesses, pass on to deserving men of faith, who will also be able to teach others' [2 Tim 2:2]. He explicitly establishes authoritative teachers of the Faith.
Also St John in his inspired letter writes: "There is much I could write to you, but I did not want to use paper and ink. But I hope to come to you and speak to you personally, so that our joy may be full" [2 John 1:12]
Thus, Scripture itself affirms the Catholic doctrine that it is Divine-Apostolic Tradition, i.e. the oral transmission, that is the primary and main way of spreading the faith, and Scripture is a written Tradition which the Church affirms (by affirming that the books as inspired).
In order that the teaching passed on to the next generation would be unchanged and without error, Christ promised the Church's assistance: "Teach them (the nations) to observe all that I have commanded you. And, behold, I am with you (teaching) all the days until the end of the world" [Mt 28:20].
source:Sieniatycki M., Apologetics, or fundamental dogmatics,1932
#scripture #tradition
Ecce Verbum
Tradition vs sola scriptura p.2- arguments from Scripture Jesus Christ left mankind not the scriptures alone but the Church, which he built on the Apostles: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" [Mk 16:15]. He then said: "He that…
Tradition vs sola scriptura p.3- arguments from the Fathers
Jesus Christ left to mankind not writings but teachings which were orally entrusted to the Apostles, who were given the mission of spreading them throughout the world and guarding against error. He thus established the teaching office in the Church.
The Apostles and their immediate successors understood this teaching mission well, which they carried out, as did Christ, mainly through oral administration in the Church and, auxiliary, also through the inspired writings which we call the books of the New Testament.
St John, the longest-lived Apostle, was certainly well acquainted with the scriptures, and yet he also pointed to oral teachings as the rule of faith: 'If what you have heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father' [1 Jn 2:24].
Also the most ancient Fathers, the successors of the Apostles, faithfully adhering to Christian doctrine, cited Apostolic Tradition as the source of revelation and faith. Among them are St Ignatius, St Clement, St Polycarp or St Irenaeus, who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
St Ignatius (+107), bishop of Antioch, who knew the Apostles personally, called on Christians to remain faithful to the bishops, i.e. the ecclesiastical hierarchy, in which he saw the guardians of Christian doctrine. He equated fidelity to the bishop with fidelity to Christ himself.
In his Letter to the Trallanes, St Ignatius of Antioch exhorts the faithful: "When you obey the bishop as Christ, then in my eyes you are no longer living according to a human way of thinking, but according to Jesus Christ."
On the other hand, in the Letter to the Church in Smyrna, he teaches: "All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and your priests as the Apostles. Let no one in matters pertaining to the Church do anything without the bishop."
The bishop of Antioch, in his letters to the religious, strongly emphasizes obedience to which he calls Christians. He certainly already knew the Scriptures well, yet he did not claim that after the death of the Apostles they became the sole authority on matters of faith and religious life.
On the contrary, he identified obedience to the instructions and orders of the bishops with abiding in the teaching of Jesus Christ. Moreover, St Ignatius was no exception among the Apostolic Fathers. Similar conclusions can be drawn from the teaching of St Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna.
Polycarp (+156) (against the heresy of Docetism) writes: "let us abandon the vain deliberations of the multitude and erroneous doctrines, and turn to that doctrine which has been handed down to us from the beginning". The primary way in which the doctrine of the faith was transmitted was by oral tradition, or so-called Tradition.
In his instruction, the Bishop of Smyrna does not refer to the argument from Scripture, which, after all, already existed, so it cannot be assumed that Scripture was treated as the one and only source of legitimate doctrine and the only authority in disputes against heresies.
Moreover, Ignatius and Polycarp see obedient adherence to the doctrine preached by the hierarchical Church (clergy) as a defensive bulwark against heresies and other erroneous doctrines attempting to falsify the teachings of Christ. They do not claim that Scripture is the one and only pillar.
Similarly, St Clement (+101), Bishop of Rome and third successor of St Peter, instructs the faithful in his Letter to the Corinthians: "The Apostles were instituted for us by Christ as preachers of the gospel...In telling the Word of God, they instituted bishops and deacons for those who would believe".
Clement, who often cites Scripture, also writes: "Let us therefore lay aside these vain and useless endeavours, and let us return to the glorious and holy rule of our Tradition. And let us see what is beautiful, pleasing and acceptable in the sight of Him who created us."
đź”—p.2 and sources
#scripture #tradition
Jesus Christ left to mankind not writings but teachings which were orally entrusted to the Apostles, who were given the mission of spreading them throughout the world and guarding against error. He thus established the teaching office in the Church.
The Apostles and their immediate successors understood this teaching mission well, which they carried out, as did Christ, mainly through oral administration in the Church and, auxiliary, also through the inspired writings which we call the books of the New Testament.
St John, the longest-lived Apostle, was certainly well acquainted with the scriptures, and yet he also pointed to oral teachings as the rule of faith: 'If what you have heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father' [1 Jn 2:24].
Also the most ancient Fathers, the successors of the Apostles, faithfully adhering to Christian doctrine, cited Apostolic Tradition as the source of revelation and faith. Among them are St Ignatius, St Clement, St Polycarp or St Irenaeus, who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
St Ignatius (+107), bishop of Antioch, who knew the Apostles personally, called on Christians to remain faithful to the bishops, i.e. the ecclesiastical hierarchy, in which he saw the guardians of Christian doctrine. He equated fidelity to the bishop with fidelity to Christ himself.
In his Letter to the Trallanes, St Ignatius of Antioch exhorts the faithful: "When you obey the bishop as Christ, then in my eyes you are no longer living according to a human way of thinking, but according to Jesus Christ."
On the other hand, in the Letter to the Church in Smyrna, he teaches: "All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and your priests as the Apostles. Let no one in matters pertaining to the Church do anything without the bishop."
The bishop of Antioch, in his letters to the religious, strongly emphasizes obedience to which he calls Christians. He certainly already knew the Scriptures well, yet he did not claim that after the death of the Apostles they became the sole authority on matters of faith and religious life.
On the contrary, he identified obedience to the instructions and orders of the bishops with abiding in the teaching of Jesus Christ. Moreover, St Ignatius was no exception among the Apostolic Fathers. Similar conclusions can be drawn from the teaching of St Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna.
Polycarp (+156) (against the heresy of Docetism) writes: "let us abandon the vain deliberations of the multitude and erroneous doctrines, and turn to that doctrine which has been handed down to us from the beginning". The primary way in which the doctrine of the faith was transmitted was by oral tradition, or so-called Tradition.
In his instruction, the Bishop of Smyrna does not refer to the argument from Scripture, which, after all, already existed, so it cannot be assumed that Scripture was treated as the one and only source of legitimate doctrine and the only authority in disputes against heresies.
Moreover, Ignatius and Polycarp see obedient adherence to the doctrine preached by the hierarchical Church (clergy) as a defensive bulwark against heresies and other erroneous doctrines attempting to falsify the teachings of Christ. They do not claim that Scripture is the one and only pillar.
Similarly, St Clement (+101), Bishop of Rome and third successor of St Peter, instructs the faithful in his Letter to the Corinthians: "The Apostles were instituted for us by Christ as preachers of the gospel...In telling the Word of God, they instituted bishops and deacons for those who would believe".
Clement, who often cites Scripture, also writes: "Let us therefore lay aside these vain and useless endeavours, and let us return to the glorious and holy rule of our Tradition. And let us see what is beautiful, pleasing and acceptable in the sight of Him who created us."
đź”—p.2 and sources
#scripture #tradition
Telegram
Ecce Verbum chat
However, the foundations for a strict and precise understanding of the concept of Apostolic Tradition were only laid by St Irenaeus during his polemic against the Gnostic heretics preaching erroneous theories about a secret, oral apostolic tradition handed…
The_Early_Papacy_To_the_Synod_of_Chalcedon_in_451_Adrian_Fortescue.pdf
562.9 KB
The Early Papacy: to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 - Fr. Adrian Fortescue (1920)
Adrian Fortescue, a British apologist for the Catholic faith in the early part of the 20th century, wrote this classic of clear exposition on the faith of the early Church in the papacy based upon the writings of the Church fathers until 451.
Referring to the famous passage in Matthew 16:18 where Jesus confers his authority upon Peter as the head of the Apostles, and the first Pope, Fortescue says that, while Christians can continue to argue about the exact meaning of that passage from Scripture, and the various standards that are used for judgments about correct Christian teaching and belief, "the only possible real standard is a living authority, an authority alive in the world at this moment, that can answer your difficulties, reject a false theory as it arises and say who is right in disputed interpretations of ancient documents."
#pope
Adrian Fortescue, a British apologist for the Catholic faith in the early part of the 20th century, wrote this classic of clear exposition on the faith of the early Church in the papacy based upon the writings of the Church fathers until 451.
Referring to the famous passage in Matthew 16:18 where Jesus confers his authority upon Peter as the head of the Apostles, and the first Pope, Fortescue says that, while Christians can continue to argue about the exact meaning of that passage from Scripture, and the various standards that are used for judgments about correct Christian teaching and belief, "the only possible real standard is a living authority, an authority alive in the world at this moment, that can answer your difficulties, reject a false theory as it arises and say who is right in disputed interpretations of ancient documents."
#pope
Ecce Verbum
Why the Mass is in Latin by Fr. Joseph Faa Di Bruno, D.D., 1884 The Church is Apostolic. She is the Church of St. Peter and of the other apostles, and she has guarded with tenderness all the precious memories they have left. When the apostles parted from…
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
The attributes of God
1.God is just
The Catholic religion attributes many qualities to God, but it must be admitted that justice, which has been attributed to God for centuries, has become misunderstood or, worse, denied in modern times. What, then, is God's justice?
God's righteousness, just like truthfulness, faithfulness or mercy, stems from the fact that God is holy. Holiness is one of the fundamental attributes of God and, in an ontological sense, means that He is worthy of special honour and respect.
However, we can also consider holiness in a moral sense, and it then falls to the person whose will (and actions) are in accordance with the supreme rule of conduct (God's eternal law), or in other words, it is freedom from all sin and possession of all virtue.
God is holy in this way: free from all sin, not only actually free, but it is metaphysically impossible for God to sin, and He positively possesses all virtues and moral perfections to the highest degree and loves Himself as the highest good.
Obviously, God's virtues are not ontological accidents, as in creatures, but are identical with the very ontological substance of God. It is from God's moral holiness that His justice arises (the virtue consisting in a constant and enduring willingness to give to everyone what is rightfully theirs).
The thesis that God is just is considered 'de fide' - a truth of the Catholic faith (dogma). This is because Revelation in many places explicitly and frequently speaks of God's justice, which was understood by the Church Fathers as rewarding and punishing.
Justice in reward and punishment or so-called distributive justice, which is in God, differs, however, from the analogous justice in human authority. For God owes it to His wisdom, not to creatures, to act justly towards creatures.
Since He has given existence to creatures and destined them for a certain purpose, He should give them what is necessary according to their nature, so that they may exist and reach their appointed goal. Also, being truthful and faithful, He should keep His promises to give the promised reward and the due punishment.
Furthermore, reward and punishment must be just, i.e. the reward must not be less than the merit and the punishment must not be greater than the fault. However, it was not the creation that bound God, but He bound himself, because it pleased His wisdom and goodness to do so.
Just as God's justice in rewarding merit remains unchallenged, so justice in punishment presents greater difficulties. Some theologians have erred in claiming that punishment serves only to correct the sinner, or that punishment is incompatible with love.
It is a truth of faith that there is a hell, that is, an eternal punishment, and this, after all, excludes the possibility of improvement. Nor can it be said that hell is the exclusive consequence of the free choice of sin, since in addition to suffering deprivation from God, the damned suffer sensual punishment.
Nor does punishment contradict the love of God, since He is perfect love and therefore loves reasonably and in the right order, thus first Himself as the first and necessary object and then creatures as the second and subordinate object to the first.
God does not seek His benefit of creatures, but seeks glory from them. Vatican I affirms that the primary end of creation is God's glory. The happiness of creatures is a contingent goal, dependent on giving glory to Him - the primary goal.
Thus, if creatures refuse to give glory to God, then punishment, not happiness, is due to them. However, this is not due to God's vindictiveness, but to a perfect love that respects the proper order. Otherwise, God would have to continually violate this order and sin against Himself.
Accepting God's justice can be difficult, especially in times of sentimentalism, but this one attribute does not exhaust the whole idea of God. We must not overlook other attributes as well, such as mercy.
source: Fr dr M. Sieniatycki, Outline of Catholic Dogmatics
#dogma
1.God is just
The Catholic religion attributes many qualities to God, but it must be admitted that justice, which has been attributed to God for centuries, has become misunderstood or, worse, denied in modern times. What, then, is God's justice?
God's righteousness, just like truthfulness, faithfulness or mercy, stems from the fact that God is holy. Holiness is one of the fundamental attributes of God and, in an ontological sense, means that He is worthy of special honour and respect.
However, we can also consider holiness in a moral sense, and it then falls to the person whose will (and actions) are in accordance with the supreme rule of conduct (God's eternal law), or in other words, it is freedom from all sin and possession of all virtue.
God is holy in this way: free from all sin, not only actually free, but it is metaphysically impossible for God to sin, and He positively possesses all virtues and moral perfections to the highest degree and loves Himself as the highest good.
Obviously, God's virtues are not ontological accidents, as in creatures, but are identical with the very ontological substance of God. It is from God's moral holiness that His justice arises (the virtue consisting in a constant and enduring willingness to give to everyone what is rightfully theirs).
The thesis that God is just is considered 'de fide' - a truth of the Catholic faith (dogma). This is because Revelation in many places explicitly and frequently speaks of God's justice, which was understood by the Church Fathers as rewarding and punishing.
Justice in reward and punishment or so-called distributive justice, which is in God, differs, however, from the analogous justice in human authority. For God owes it to His wisdom, not to creatures, to act justly towards creatures.
Since He has given existence to creatures and destined them for a certain purpose, He should give them what is necessary according to their nature, so that they may exist and reach their appointed goal. Also, being truthful and faithful, He should keep His promises to give the promised reward and the due punishment.
Furthermore, reward and punishment must be just, i.e. the reward must not be less than the merit and the punishment must not be greater than the fault. However, it was not the creation that bound God, but He bound himself, because it pleased His wisdom and goodness to do so.
Just as God's justice in rewarding merit remains unchallenged, so justice in punishment presents greater difficulties. Some theologians have erred in claiming that punishment serves only to correct the sinner, or that punishment is incompatible with love.
It is a truth of faith that there is a hell, that is, an eternal punishment, and this, after all, excludes the possibility of improvement. Nor can it be said that hell is the exclusive consequence of the free choice of sin, since in addition to suffering deprivation from God, the damned suffer sensual punishment.
Nor does punishment contradict the love of God, since He is perfect love and therefore loves reasonably and in the right order, thus first Himself as the first and necessary object and then creatures as the second and subordinate object to the first.
God does not seek His benefit of creatures, but seeks glory from them. Vatican I affirms that the primary end of creation is God's glory. The happiness of creatures is a contingent goal, dependent on giving glory to Him - the primary goal.
Thus, if creatures refuse to give glory to God, then punishment, not happiness, is due to them. However, this is not due to God's vindictiveness, but to a perfect love that respects the proper order. Otherwise, God would have to continually violate this order and sin against Himself.
Accepting God's justice can be difficult, especially in times of sentimentalism, but this one attribute does not exhaust the whole idea of God. We must not overlook other attributes as well, such as mercy.
source: Fr dr M. Sieniatycki, Outline of Catholic Dogmatics
#dogma
Ecce Verbum
The attributes of God 1.God is just The Catholic religion attributes many qualities to God, but it must be admitted that justice, which has been attributed to God for centuries, has become misunderstood or, worse, denied in modern times. What, then, is God's…
The attributes of God
2. God is good and merciful
It follows from the holiness of God that He is infinitely good and merciful. What exactly do the qualities of goodness and mercy mean in relation to God?
It is not about being morally good (holiness), but about giving good to others. St Thomas explains: "Just as it is the nature of the sun to send out its rays, to warm and enlighten, so it is the nature of goodness to cause and spread goodness around."
The first expression of God's goodness is the act of creation: "out of His goodness, not to increase His happiness ... but for the sake of manifesting His perfection by the good things which he bestows on creatures...He freely made creatures, spiritual and corporeal, out of nothingness" (Vat. Council I).
As is clear from Revelation, God gratuitously demonstrates His goodness primarily by calling creatures into being, sustaining them in existence and surrounding them with His paternal care. Moreover, He has no benefit from this for Himself.
St Thomas teaches thus that: "God, therefore, is most generous, and it may be said that He alone is selfless, for everyone else derives some benefit from their helpfulness to others".
However, the mere creation of the world and the sustaining of it in existence is not the only expression of God's goodness, which can manifest itself through many different activities. For goodness can also consist in the removal of physical or moral evil, in which case it is called mercy.
God's mercy, however, differs from human mercy. For in mercy a distinction must be made between the feeling of sorrow and pain at the sight of another's misery and the will to remove it. Since there are no feelings in God, mercy in God is only the will to remove misery.
This is why St Thomas teaches about God's mercy in this way: "To grieve at the misery of another does not accrue to God, but to remove the misery of another is most in accord with God's nature."
Similarly, St. Augustine defines God's mercy as follows: "You will have a certain knowledge of God's mercy if you remove compassion so that only the tranquil goodness of coming to one's aid, and of deliverance from misery, remains."
It is worth mentioning that God's mercy is manifested in both the natural and supernatural order. In the natural order, God shows his mercy by removing or reducing people's temporal miseries.
The immensity of mercy, however, is visible only in the supernatural order, when, in an infinite way, through the passion and death of the Son of God, God's readiness to forgive the sinner of all trespasses is manifested whenever the sinner, with sincere contrition, turns to Him
God, in his infinite mercy, is ready to forgive even the gravest sins to the repentant sinner: "though your sins be as scarlet, as snow they shall whiten" [Is 1:18].
Sometimes it seems that God's mercy is at odds with God's justice. It seems that justice and mercy, both qualities infinite in God, are incompatible, for as the just must punish and as the merciful must forgive.
However, this is only an apparent contradiction. For sin is an offence against God, so God may demand reparation from the sinner because it is His good right, but He may just as well not demand reparation, i.e. not exercise His right.
St Thomas explains: "When God acts mercifully, He does not do anything against His justice, but acts beyond it; just as one who gives 200 denarii to one who owes him 100 denarii does not act against justice, but acts generously."
Although mercy and justice are necessary and infinite attributes of God, in their outward manifestations they are voluntary, and God, according to His wisdom and holiness, may at one time reveal Himself to be just, at another time to be merciful.
Mercy with God, however, is never a manifestation of injustice or contempt for the moral order that He loves, but is merely a display of pity. Forgiving presupposes recognition of one's guilt and expression of regret, and this presupposes the existence of justice.
source: Fr M. Sieniatycki, Outline of Catholic Dogmatics
#dogma
2. God is good and merciful
It follows from the holiness of God that He is infinitely good and merciful. What exactly do the qualities of goodness and mercy mean in relation to God?
It is not about being morally good (holiness), but about giving good to others. St Thomas explains: "Just as it is the nature of the sun to send out its rays, to warm and enlighten, so it is the nature of goodness to cause and spread goodness around."
The first expression of God's goodness is the act of creation: "out of His goodness, not to increase His happiness ... but for the sake of manifesting His perfection by the good things which he bestows on creatures...He freely made creatures, spiritual and corporeal, out of nothingness" (Vat. Council I).
As is clear from Revelation, God gratuitously demonstrates His goodness primarily by calling creatures into being, sustaining them in existence and surrounding them with His paternal care. Moreover, He has no benefit from this for Himself.
St Thomas teaches thus that: "God, therefore, is most generous, and it may be said that He alone is selfless, for everyone else derives some benefit from their helpfulness to others".
However, the mere creation of the world and the sustaining of it in existence is not the only expression of God's goodness, which can manifest itself through many different activities. For goodness can also consist in the removal of physical or moral evil, in which case it is called mercy.
God's mercy, however, differs from human mercy. For in mercy a distinction must be made between the feeling of sorrow and pain at the sight of another's misery and the will to remove it. Since there are no feelings in God, mercy in God is only the will to remove misery.
This is why St Thomas teaches about God's mercy in this way: "To grieve at the misery of another does not accrue to God, but to remove the misery of another is most in accord with God's nature."
Similarly, St. Augustine defines God's mercy as follows: "You will have a certain knowledge of God's mercy if you remove compassion so that only the tranquil goodness of coming to one's aid, and of deliverance from misery, remains."
It is worth mentioning that God's mercy is manifested in both the natural and supernatural order. In the natural order, God shows his mercy by removing or reducing people's temporal miseries.
The immensity of mercy, however, is visible only in the supernatural order, when, in an infinite way, through the passion and death of the Son of God, God's readiness to forgive the sinner of all trespasses is manifested whenever the sinner, with sincere contrition, turns to Him
God, in his infinite mercy, is ready to forgive even the gravest sins to the repentant sinner: "though your sins be as scarlet, as snow they shall whiten" [Is 1:18].
Sometimes it seems that God's mercy is at odds with God's justice. It seems that justice and mercy, both qualities infinite in God, are incompatible, for as the just must punish and as the merciful must forgive.
However, this is only an apparent contradiction. For sin is an offence against God, so God may demand reparation from the sinner because it is His good right, but He may just as well not demand reparation, i.e. not exercise His right.
St Thomas explains: "When God acts mercifully, He does not do anything against His justice, but acts beyond it; just as one who gives 200 denarii to one who owes him 100 denarii does not act against justice, but acts generously."
Although mercy and justice are necessary and infinite attributes of God, in their outward manifestations they are voluntary, and God, according to His wisdom and holiness, may at one time reveal Himself to be just, at another time to be merciful.
Mercy with God, however, is never a manifestation of injustice or contempt for the moral order that He loves, but is merely a display of pity. Forgiving presupposes recognition of one's guilt and expression of regret, and this presupposes the existence of justice.
source: Fr M. Sieniatycki, Outline of Catholic Dogmatics
#dogma
Ecce Verbum
The attributes of God 2. God is good and merciful It follows from the holiness of God that He is infinitely good and merciful. What exactly do the qualities of goodness and mercy mean in relation to God? It is not about being morally good (holiness), but…
The attributes of God
3.God is immutable
Vatican I described God as an 'immutable substance', while Nicea, in defence of the deity of the Son of God, condemned those who attribute mutability to him. It is therefore worth reflecting on what exactly God's immutability is.
Change is the transition of a thing from one state to another. Changeability therefore presupposes a change in the state of being in the thing itself. On the other hand, it is not a change of a thing if nothing new has happened in it, but changes have occurred outside of it, even if the thing in question has influenced the change.
An (ontological) accidental change is when a thing receives a new accidentality, e.g. cold water becomes warm. Accidental change happens to corporeal substances as well as to spiritual substances. Spiritual change is when the soul learns a new thing or changes its intention (will).
Substantive change, on the other hand, is when one substance changes into another, e.g. a tree into ash. Immutability excludes change of any kind. Absolute immutability not only means that change does not occur, it even presupposes the impossibility of change.
God is absolutely immutable. Not only do no changes of any kind occur in Him, but they cannot occur. This was denied by the pantheists, who believed that God is subject to constant development, and by the Socinians, who attributed to Him the immutability of essence but the mutability of will.
God does not change in thoughts, for by a single act He knows all that can be known. Nor does He change in resolutions, for a rational being changes resolutions when he comes to know new motives, and God has known all motives for centuries, so His will remains unchanged.
Immutability, however, is not inaction, but on the contrary is supreme activity. God is pure act, and present knowledge and love are pure activity in Him. God currently (i.e. continuously) knows and loves Himself and all creatures.
God rules the world and keeps it alive. He does all this in one eternal act: in God, supreme life is associated with supreme peace. This flows from the very nature of God. He is a necessary being (ontologically speaking), and so everything in Him is always in the same way.
God gives the most profound proof of His immutability in the pages of Scripture, where He calls Himself "Yahweh" meaning "I am who I am". In this name God expresses that He is pure existence and is still Him, still the same: "I, Yahweh, do not change" [Mal 3:6].
Similarly, the Church Fathers taught about the immutability of God. St Augustine wrote: "Unchanging and changing all things, never new, never old, and renewing all things" and "You, O Lord, are not once this, once another, but the same, the same and the same".
St Thomas also defends the immutability of God: "Possibility vis-Ă -vis reality passes for something secondary or inferior. Everything that is subject to change in any way conceals in itself a potentiality. Thus, as we have seen, it is impossible for God to be subject to change".
Only God is immutable (perfect). All creatures, on the other hand, are complex, limited and potential beings and thus are subject to change. Thus, bodies are subject to change, e.g. through death, and the soul is subject to change through change in thought and in resolution.
Immutability can make it difficult to understand God's action, which is outwardly voluntary and expressed in time. Theology explains here that God acts in time, but not by a new act of will, but by an act by which he has decided to do something at a certain time from eternity.
Changes brought about by action in time occur in things, but not in God, and therefore do not cause His changeability. In creating the world, in punishing sinners, in taking on human nature, God undergoes no change in thought or will, but continues in His original state.
đź”—p.2 and sources
#dogma
3.God is immutable
Vatican I described God as an 'immutable substance', while Nicea, in defence of the deity of the Son of God, condemned those who attribute mutability to him. It is therefore worth reflecting on what exactly God's immutability is.
Change is the transition of a thing from one state to another. Changeability therefore presupposes a change in the state of being in the thing itself. On the other hand, it is not a change of a thing if nothing new has happened in it, but changes have occurred outside of it, even if the thing in question has influenced the change.
An (ontological) accidental change is when a thing receives a new accidentality, e.g. cold water becomes warm. Accidental change happens to corporeal substances as well as to spiritual substances. Spiritual change is when the soul learns a new thing or changes its intention (will).
Substantive change, on the other hand, is when one substance changes into another, e.g. a tree into ash. Immutability excludes change of any kind. Absolute immutability not only means that change does not occur, it even presupposes the impossibility of change.
God is absolutely immutable. Not only do no changes of any kind occur in Him, but they cannot occur. This was denied by the pantheists, who believed that God is subject to constant development, and by the Socinians, who attributed to Him the immutability of essence but the mutability of will.
God does not change in thoughts, for by a single act He knows all that can be known. Nor does He change in resolutions, for a rational being changes resolutions when he comes to know new motives, and God has known all motives for centuries, so His will remains unchanged.
Immutability, however, is not inaction, but on the contrary is supreme activity. God is pure act, and present knowledge and love are pure activity in Him. God currently (i.e. continuously) knows and loves Himself and all creatures.
God rules the world and keeps it alive. He does all this in one eternal act: in God, supreme life is associated with supreme peace. This flows from the very nature of God. He is a necessary being (ontologically speaking), and so everything in Him is always in the same way.
God gives the most profound proof of His immutability in the pages of Scripture, where He calls Himself "Yahweh" meaning "I am who I am". In this name God expresses that He is pure existence and is still Him, still the same: "I, Yahweh, do not change" [Mal 3:6].
Similarly, the Church Fathers taught about the immutability of God. St Augustine wrote: "Unchanging and changing all things, never new, never old, and renewing all things" and "You, O Lord, are not once this, once another, but the same, the same and the same".
St Thomas also defends the immutability of God: "Possibility vis-Ă -vis reality passes for something secondary or inferior. Everything that is subject to change in any way conceals in itself a potentiality. Thus, as we have seen, it is impossible for God to be subject to change".
Only God is immutable (perfect). All creatures, on the other hand, are complex, limited and potential beings and thus are subject to change. Thus, bodies are subject to change, e.g. through death, and the soul is subject to change through change in thought and in resolution.
Immutability can make it difficult to understand God's action, which is outwardly voluntary and expressed in time. Theology explains here that God acts in time, but not by a new act of will, but by an act by which he has decided to do something at a certain time from eternity.
Changes brought about by action in time occur in things, but not in God, and therefore do not cause His changeability. In creating the world, in punishing sinners, in taking on human nature, God undergoes no change in thought or will, but continues in His original state.
đź”—p.2 and sources
#dogma
Ecce Verbum
The attributes of God 3.God is immutable Vatican I described God as an 'immutable substance', while Nicea, in defence of the deity of the Son of God, condemned those who attribute mutability to him. It is therefore worth reflecting on what exactly God's immutability…
The attributes of God
4.The will of God
The power by which rational nature relates to good is called the will, therefore every rational being has a will, including God, hence Vatican Council I refers to Him as 'the will of the Infinite'. How does God's will work and how does it differ from human will?
Every being relates to the good corresponding to its nature in such a way that when it does not have it, it strives to possess it, and when it has it, it enjoys it in peace. In God, of course, the will does not strive to possess the good, since God possesses within Himself the fullness of the good, which can no longer be magnified.
Thus, in God, the will simply loves the good it possesses and enjoys it, which is why God's will is nothing other than an eternal act of love and enjoyment of the good it has possessed from eternity (amor complacentiae).
Moreover, since God is the most singular being (ontologically simple being), in whom there is no real difference between nature, powers and acts (he is pure act, without potentiality), we can even say that "God is love" [1 Jn 4:8].
Although God's will is in itself a single act, God reaches the most diverse objects by means of this act, for which the complex will of creatures would need many different acts. For this reason, we can divide God's will virtually, although realistically it remains indivisible.
The will of God is thus virtually divided into the will in itself and the will of the sign, i.e. the externally revealed will. The will in itself is the proper will of God, which is externally unrevealed, whereas the will of the sign, for example, the commandments of God, which externally express the proper will of God.
We distinguish 5 signs by which God reveals the will: command, prohibition, permission, counsel and action. It should be noted that in a permissions, the object of the sign does not necessarily coincide with the will in itself, e.g. God permits sin but does not will the sin but wants the free will of the sinner.
In the case of an action, the sign is identical to the will in itself. By contrast, in the case of command, prohibition and counsel, the will of the sign may equate to the will in itself, but need not so, e.g. the command to kill Isaac given to Abraham was not the will to kill Isaac, but the will to show obedience by Abraham.
We can also divide the will of God into antecedent (antecedens) and consequent (consequente). With the antecedent will, He wants the object as it is in itself, without taking into account the circumstances. The consequent will, on the other hand, wills the object after taking all circumstances into account.
As St Thomas teaches, God by antecedent will wants the salvation of all men, because he created them for salvation, but by a subsequent will he wants to condemn some according to his justice. In the same way, God's will for the salvation and condemnation of men was explained by St John of Damascus.
We also divide the will of God into absolute and conditional. Thus, for example, God wants to save all people on condition that His will is fulfilled, while He absolutely wants to save those who actually fulfil His will. The absolute will is effective and is always fulfilled.
source: fr M. Sieniatycki, Outline of Catholic Dogmatics
#dogma
4.The will of God
The power by which rational nature relates to good is called the will, therefore every rational being has a will, including God, hence Vatican Council I refers to Him as 'the will of the Infinite'. How does God's will work and how does it differ from human will?
Every being relates to the good corresponding to its nature in such a way that when it does not have it, it strives to possess it, and when it has it, it enjoys it in peace. In God, of course, the will does not strive to possess the good, since God possesses within Himself the fullness of the good, which can no longer be magnified.
Thus, in God, the will simply loves the good it possesses and enjoys it, which is why God's will is nothing other than an eternal act of love and enjoyment of the good it has possessed from eternity (amor complacentiae).
Moreover, since God is the most singular being (ontologically simple being), in whom there is no real difference between nature, powers and acts (he is pure act, without potentiality), we can even say that "God is love" [1 Jn 4:8].
Although God's will is in itself a single act, God reaches the most diverse objects by means of this act, for which the complex will of creatures would need many different acts. For this reason, we can divide God's will virtually, although realistically it remains indivisible.
The will of God is thus virtually divided into the will in itself and the will of the sign, i.e. the externally revealed will. The will in itself is the proper will of God, which is externally unrevealed, whereas the will of the sign, for example, the commandments of God, which externally express the proper will of God.
We distinguish 5 signs by which God reveals the will: command, prohibition, permission, counsel and action. It should be noted that in a permissions, the object of the sign does not necessarily coincide with the will in itself, e.g. God permits sin but does not will the sin but wants the free will of the sinner.
In the case of an action, the sign is identical to the will in itself. By contrast, in the case of command, prohibition and counsel, the will of the sign may equate to the will in itself, but need not so, e.g. the command to kill Isaac given to Abraham was not the will to kill Isaac, but the will to show obedience by Abraham.
We can also divide the will of God into antecedent (antecedens) and consequent (consequente). With the antecedent will, He wants the object as it is in itself, without taking into account the circumstances. The consequent will, on the other hand, wills the object after taking all circumstances into account.
As St Thomas teaches, God by antecedent will wants the salvation of all men, because he created them for salvation, but by a subsequent will he wants to condemn some according to his justice. In the same way, God's will for the salvation and condemnation of men was explained by St John of Damascus.
We also divide the will of God into absolute and conditional. Thus, for example, God wants to save all people on condition that His will is fulfilled, while He absolutely wants to save those who actually fulfil His will. The absolute will is effective and is always fulfilled.
source: fr M. Sieniatycki, Outline of Catholic Dogmatics
#dogma
Ecce Verbum
stathanasiusontheincarnation.pdf
On the knowledge of Christ
Christ is true God and true man. This truth can raise many questions about what Christ's knowledge as a man was during His earthly life.
The Church Fathers strongly emphasised that one is Christ, who is both God and a man at the same time. He is not different as God and different as man, and therefore of Christ-God we pronounce human actions and attributes, and of Christ-man, divine ones. The dogma of faith is that in Christ there is only one person and this is the divine person of the Son of God (Word, Logos). The heresy opposing this truth is Nestorianism, which claims that in Christ there are two persons: divine and human, between which there is moral unity.
Christ took His human nature from the Blessed Virgin Mary, as confirmed by the Council of Chalcedon (451). This means that Christ had the same nature that we have, not only metaphysically the same, but physically, because He took it from the lineage of Adam. Therefore, He is co-essential to us as a species.
The soul of Christ had feelings. Christ had a complete human nature, which also includes the feelings of the soul's sensual powers. The feelings in Christ were rightly ordered. In Christ, reason preceded feeling, and feeling never prevented Him from acting rationally.
It is a dogma of the faith that Christ was free from original sin and personal sins. Christ not only did not actually sin, but could not sin. He was also free from the passions- internal temptations. He also possessed all the virtues in the highest degree.
At the first moment of the Incarnation, Christ, as a man, voluntarily chose the path of suffering, although He could also choose the path of joy. Christ, as a man, could prevent his suffering at any time. Christ's human will constantly had the power to work miracles.
Christ had relative omniscience and grace in the highest degree. Therefore, He had no intellectual or moral defects. Christ came to atone primarily for original sin, and therefore took on the shortcomings that are a consequence of original sin. Christ assumed bodily defects to awaken faith in the Incarnation, because if without these defects He assumed human nature, it would seem that he was not a real man. Through the Incarnation, He also gave us an example of patience by bravely enduring human ailments and shortcomings.
The Incarnation is a mystery of faith. Mystery means that without Revelation we are unable to know it with natural reason, and after Revelation we are unable to fully know it in a positive way. The Incarnation does not oppose reason and makes itself known through the rejection of errors (negative way of knowing).
The teaching of St Gregory the Great refers to Christ's human knowledge: "The Incarnate Only-Begotten, having become a perfect Man, knew the day and hour of Judgment ... by the power of His Deity. The day of Judgment, therefore, is known by God and Man, but because [that] Man is God".
St Pius X, in approving the decree of the Holy Office, the Lamentabili (1907), condemned the modernist theses proclaiming that Christ was not always aware that He was the Messiah and the theses questioning His unlimited knowledge during His earthly life.
Pius XII, in his encyclical Mystici Corporis, emphasised that Christ's knowledge surpasses all the capacity of the human mind. Because of the hypostatic union (union with the Divine Person), our Saviour's knowledge cannot be judged by human ability alone.
On the other hand, in 1918, the Holy Office issued a decree declaring that Christ living on earth cannot be denied that knowledge which the Saints in heaven have [AAS 1918]. This is the so-called knowledge from the vision of God, in which all truths are contained.
As St Thomas [Summa, III q. 103] (and most theologians after him) explained, the knowledge of the Saints in heaven is that knowledge which comes from the direct vision of the essence of God and concerns all things that were, are or will be (past, present and future). Such was the knowledge of Christ.
đź”—p.2 and sources
#christology
Christ is true God and true man. This truth can raise many questions about what Christ's knowledge as a man was during His earthly life.
The Church Fathers strongly emphasised that one is Christ, who is both God and a man at the same time. He is not different as God and different as man, and therefore of Christ-God we pronounce human actions and attributes, and of Christ-man, divine ones. The dogma of faith is that in Christ there is only one person and this is the divine person of the Son of God (Word, Logos). The heresy opposing this truth is Nestorianism, which claims that in Christ there are two persons: divine and human, between which there is moral unity.
Christ took His human nature from the Blessed Virgin Mary, as confirmed by the Council of Chalcedon (451). This means that Christ had the same nature that we have, not only metaphysically the same, but physically, because He took it from the lineage of Adam. Therefore, He is co-essential to us as a species.
The soul of Christ had feelings. Christ had a complete human nature, which also includes the feelings of the soul's sensual powers. The feelings in Christ were rightly ordered. In Christ, reason preceded feeling, and feeling never prevented Him from acting rationally.
It is a dogma of the faith that Christ was free from original sin and personal sins. Christ not only did not actually sin, but could not sin. He was also free from the passions- internal temptations. He also possessed all the virtues in the highest degree.
At the first moment of the Incarnation, Christ, as a man, voluntarily chose the path of suffering, although He could also choose the path of joy. Christ, as a man, could prevent his suffering at any time. Christ's human will constantly had the power to work miracles.
Christ had relative omniscience and grace in the highest degree. Therefore, He had no intellectual or moral defects. Christ came to atone primarily for original sin, and therefore took on the shortcomings that are a consequence of original sin. Christ assumed bodily defects to awaken faith in the Incarnation, because if without these defects He assumed human nature, it would seem that he was not a real man. Through the Incarnation, He also gave us an example of patience by bravely enduring human ailments and shortcomings.
The Incarnation is a mystery of faith. Mystery means that without Revelation we are unable to know it with natural reason, and after Revelation we are unable to fully know it in a positive way. The Incarnation does not oppose reason and makes itself known through the rejection of errors (negative way of knowing).
The teaching of St Gregory the Great refers to Christ's human knowledge: "The Incarnate Only-Begotten, having become a perfect Man, knew the day and hour of Judgment ... by the power of His Deity. The day of Judgment, therefore, is known by God and Man, but because [that] Man is God".
St Pius X, in approving the decree of the Holy Office, the Lamentabili (1907), condemned the modernist theses proclaiming that Christ was not always aware that He was the Messiah and the theses questioning His unlimited knowledge during His earthly life.
Pius XII, in his encyclical Mystici Corporis, emphasised that Christ's knowledge surpasses all the capacity of the human mind. Because of the hypostatic union (union with the Divine Person), our Saviour's knowledge cannot be judged by human ability alone.
On the other hand, in 1918, the Holy Office issued a decree declaring that Christ living on earth cannot be denied that knowledge which the Saints in heaven have [AAS 1918]. This is the so-called knowledge from the vision of God, in which all truths are contained.
As St Thomas [Summa, III q. 103] (and most theologians after him) explained, the knowledge of the Saints in heaven is that knowledge which comes from the direct vision of the essence of God and concerns all things that were, are or will be (past, present and future). Such was the knowledge of Christ.
đź”—p.2 and sources
#christology
Ecce Verbum
The Theology of Venial Sin.pdf
Temptation to sin
The most immediate internal cause of sins is the will itself, the next is reason, and the further ones are the sensory cognition of an apparent good and ( against the order of reason) the sensual desire awakened by the recognised apparent good.
The external causes moving the will to evil are: satan, man, sensual objects. Finally, one sin can become the cause of another sin. This happens indirectly through the removal of grace and love or directly through a habit to do evil.
Scripture clearly states that Satan tempts people to sin. He cannot act on the human will directly, but through the senses and imagination. Satan is not the cause of all sin, although he is the prince of this world and sin comes from him. Man can resist him.
Temptation (tentatio) to sin is the stimulus, the impulse to sin. Internal temptation is the imaginings or thoughts under the influence of a forbidden object, and external temptation is the object itself causing evil desires. Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary were free from internal temptations.
God is not the author of temptations and does not tempt to evil, but at most allows temptations. God can only try man through sufferings and testing of patience and faithfulness, just as He tried Abraham, Tobias or Job.
To experience temptation is to be aware of an impulse towards evil, felt by the sensory powers even with a certain liking and delight which has not reached the free will. The mere experiencing of temptation even if very strong is not a sin as long as there is no permission of the will.
The will can behave passively in the face of temptation, i.e. neither allowing temptation nor using any defensive measures or putting up positive resistance. Passivity in the face of temptation is not allowed, and when the stirrings are violent, the failure to actively resist is a grave sin.
Exposing oneself to the imminent danger of sin without sufficient reason is a grave sin, even if one is not tempted. It is, however, permissible to perform various acts out of necessity which may give rise to temptation, e.g. the duties of a doctor or confessor, on the basis of the principle of double effect.
The danger of sin is a more general concept than temptation, as it covers various circumstances and occasions of sin. It can be great and grave or small and light. The great danger can be absolute, i.e. objectively serious for everyone, or relative.
The danger of sin may be imminent, containing an immediate probability of falling, or there may be a less immediate danger. The first principle is that one should avoid the danger of great and imminent sin with all one's strength. Permission of the will means deadly sin.
The danger of the less immediate sin is to be avoided, and permission of the will means light sin. It is an exaggeration to be unreasonably fearful of the danger of falling, but it is also an exaggeration to be reckless in exposing oneself to sin.
source: Fundamentals of Moral Theology, W.Wicher
#sin #moraltheology
The most immediate internal cause of sins is the will itself, the next is reason, and the further ones are the sensory cognition of an apparent good and ( against the order of reason) the sensual desire awakened by the recognised apparent good.
The external causes moving the will to evil are: satan, man, sensual objects. Finally, one sin can become the cause of another sin. This happens indirectly through the removal of grace and love or directly through a habit to do evil.
Scripture clearly states that Satan tempts people to sin. He cannot act on the human will directly, but through the senses and imagination. Satan is not the cause of all sin, although he is the prince of this world and sin comes from him. Man can resist him.
Temptation (tentatio) to sin is the stimulus, the impulse to sin. Internal temptation is the imaginings or thoughts under the influence of a forbidden object, and external temptation is the object itself causing evil desires. Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary were free from internal temptations.
God is not the author of temptations and does not tempt to evil, but at most allows temptations. God can only try man through sufferings and testing of patience and faithfulness, just as He tried Abraham, Tobias or Job.
To experience temptation is to be aware of an impulse towards evil, felt by the sensory powers even with a certain liking and delight which has not reached the free will. The mere experiencing of temptation even if very strong is not a sin as long as there is no permission of the will.
The will can behave passively in the face of temptation, i.e. neither allowing temptation nor using any defensive measures or putting up positive resistance. Passivity in the face of temptation is not allowed, and when the stirrings are violent, the failure to actively resist is a grave sin.
Exposing oneself to the imminent danger of sin without sufficient reason is a grave sin, even if one is not tempted. It is, however, permissible to perform various acts out of necessity which may give rise to temptation, e.g. the duties of a doctor or confessor, on the basis of the principle of double effect.
The danger of sin is a more general concept than temptation, as it covers various circumstances and occasions of sin. It can be great and grave or small and light. The great danger can be absolute, i.e. objectively serious for everyone, or relative.
The danger of sin may be imminent, containing an immediate probability of falling, or there may be a less immediate danger. The first principle is that one should avoid the danger of great and imminent sin with all one's strength. Permission of the will means deadly sin.
The danger of the less immediate sin is to be avoided, and permission of the will means light sin. It is an exaggeration to be unreasonably fearful of the danger of falling, but it is also an exaggeration to be reckless in exposing oneself to sin.
source: Fundamentals of Moral Theology, W.Wicher
#sin #moraltheology
Ecce Verbum
Photo
Drunkenness
St Thomas teaches that drunkenness is a grave sin because man voluntarily deprives himself of the use of reason, by means of which he acts according to virtue, and avoids sins. St Thomas therefore draws attention to the use of reason, but in terms of virtue and sin, rather than the mere deprivation of consciousness due to drunkenness.
Depriving oneself of consciousness even with an intoxicating drink is a morally indifferent thing, because it can occur in certain cases in a morally upright manner (and the end does not justify the means). The essence of the evil of drunkenness is an act against the virtue of reason (moral consciousness, not psychological consciousness).
The point is that simply depriving oneself of psychological consciousness/awareness is a morally indifferent thing, as it can sometimes be good e.g. anaesthesia during a medical procedure. Drinking alcohol to get drunk and deprive one of moral consciousness, i.e. the use of reason, is evil.
Intentionally depriving oneself of consciousness is, as it were, implicitly included in the purpose of getting drunk. If one simply drinks to get drunk, one sins lightly or severely depending on the extent of the drunkenness and the circumstances (depravation, damage to health, etc.).
The intoxicant is not necessarily alcohol. Morphine and other anaesthetics have the same effect. The principle in their use is the same: if they are used for a good purpose, e.g. to remove excessive pain, the principle of double effect applies.
Drunkenness is the abuse of alcoholic beverages and may be total or incomplete. Complete is in itself a grave sin and incomplete is a light sin, leaving aside circumstances such as purpose, caused depravity and damage to health or material damage.
Unordered inclination towards drinking alcohol and taking other substances falls under the sin of gluttony, which stands against the virtue of temperance.
more: đź”—Summa Theologica
#vice
St Thomas teaches that drunkenness is a grave sin because man voluntarily deprives himself of the use of reason, by means of which he acts according to virtue, and avoids sins. St Thomas therefore draws attention to the use of reason, but in terms of virtue and sin, rather than the mere deprivation of consciousness due to drunkenness.
Depriving oneself of consciousness even with an intoxicating drink is a morally indifferent thing, because it can occur in certain cases in a morally upright manner (and the end does not justify the means). The essence of the evil of drunkenness is an act against the virtue of reason (moral consciousness, not psychological consciousness).
The point is that simply depriving oneself of psychological consciousness/awareness is a morally indifferent thing, as it can sometimes be good e.g. anaesthesia during a medical procedure. Drinking alcohol to get drunk and deprive one of moral consciousness, i.e. the use of reason, is evil.
Intentionally depriving oneself of consciousness is, as it were, implicitly included in the purpose of getting drunk. If one simply drinks to get drunk, one sins lightly or severely depending on the extent of the drunkenness and the circumstances (depravation, damage to health, etc.).
The intoxicant is not necessarily alcohol. Morphine and other anaesthetics have the same effect. The principle in their use is the same: if they are used for a good purpose, e.g. to remove excessive pain, the principle of double effect applies.
Drunkenness is the abuse of alcoholic beverages and may be total or incomplete. Complete is in itself a grave sin and incomplete is a light sin, leaving aside circumstances such as purpose, caused depravity and damage to health or material damage.
Unordered inclination towards drinking alcohol and taking other substances falls under the sin of gluttony, which stands against the virtue of temperance.
more: đź”—Summa Theologica
#vice