Loading ...
If you’re looking for a good way in which to sanctify the sabbath and other festival days, remember that the edition of the Catechism of the Council of Trent which was published by Roman Catholic Books (originally published in 1923) has an outline for “a complete course in Christian doctrine” based upon the Epistle and Gospel readings for each Sunday of the year and other holy days of obligation. For each Sunday, a dogmatic and moral subject are given with page references to those topics in the catechism. The Catholic Encyclopaedia (1912) offers this hearty endorsement:
To some editions of the Roman Catechism is prefixed a “Praxis Catechismi”, i.e. a division of its contents into sermons for every Sunday of the year adapted to the Gospel of the day. There is no better sermonary. The people like to hear the voice of the Church speaking with no uncertain sound; the many Biblical texts and illustrations go straight to their hearts, and, best of all, they remember these simple sermons better than they do the oratory of famous pulpit orators.
Ah, I could write several posts about the lack of “famous pulpit orators” today – at the present day, we need far more oratory from our priests on Sundays; it would be impossible to have less than we have now. But if they were to use such a sermonary as found in the Catechism, that would be a wonderful thing, too. How often do we go to Mass and hear nothing but the ex tempore ramblings loosely inspired by the lectionary and peppered with politically correct phrases and platitudes?
On page four of the same edition, there is this interesting footnote:
The proposal of an authoritative catechism was first made in the Council of Trent in April 1546, but a committee to direct the work was not appointed before February 1562. The catechism was completed and published towards the end of the year 1566. The Presidents of the Catechism Commission were Cardinal Seripandi, O.S.A., and St. Charles Borromeo. The composition of the work was entrusted to more than twenty expert theologians, of whom the chief collaborators were Bishop Muzio Calini and the three Dominicans, Leonardo Marini, Egidio Foscarari, and Francesco Foreiro. The classic elegance of style for which the Catechism is also famous was due to the final polishing of the noted Latinists Manutius and Pogiani. Cardinal Sirlet and the Dominicans, Manriguez and Locatelli, were the theological revisers of the Catechism appointed by St. Pius V.
Check out the Latin for yourself here.
Alban Butler in volume xi of his Lives of the Saints (published 1866), in the chapter dedicated to St. Charles Borromeo, gives us this information:
The Council had recommended to the pope the revisal of the Missal and Breviary; likewise the composition of a catechism. To compile this last work Charles detained at Rome for some time F. Francisco Foreiro, a very learned and pious Dominican, who had attended the council in quality of theologian from the king of Portugal. Foreiro was assisted in this work by Leonardus Marini, archbishop of Lanciano, and Giles Forscarari, bishop of Modena, all three Dominicans. The work was revised by Cardinal Sirlet. Paulus Manutius is said to have corrected the style. This is the catechism called of Trent, or the Roman, or ad Parochos; which is recommended both by the erudition, exactness, and conciseness with which it is written, and by the neatness and elegance of the style, as an excellent judge and master of the Latin style observes [which remarks are made in this work]. He says the same of the acts of the church of Milan, or St. Charles’s councils. A barbarous and half Latin language disgraces and derogates from the dignity of the sublime oracles of religion, which by the dress they wear, appear quite different things, as Secretary Lucchesini elegantly shows [another reference to this work]. The Roman catechism was published in 1566.
The remarks on the Latin text are continued by Butler in a footnote and the claim of the Catholic Encyclopaedia article about the contribution of Manutius is disputed:
Some recommend this catechism and the Acts of the church of Milan, with Melchior Cano, De Locis Theologicis, to the diligent study of young theologians, to form their Latin style on ecclesiastical subjects. The charge of polishing the style of the catechism was intrusted to the learned Julius Poggiani; not to Paul Manutius, son of the famous Aldus, as is proved by Logomarsini (Not. in Gratiani ep ad Card. Commend. Romse, 1756, against Oraveson, Hist. Eccl. t. 7, p. 146, ed. Venet. 1740; and Apostol. Zen. Annot. in Bibl. eloq. Ital. t. 11, p. 131, ad. Venet. 1733).
Poggiani [a Jesuit] wrote in Latin with as much elegance as Bembo, Sadolet, or Manutius; he was secretary to St. Charles, accompanied him to Milan, and translated into Latin the acts of the first council which the saint held there; but died soon after at the age of forty-six. Next to the holy scripture, and canons, Cardinal Rezzonico (afterwards Pope Clement XIII.) recommends to ecclesiastics the assiduous reading of the Discourses of the ancient fathers, especially St. Chrysostom and St. Charles Borromeo, with the Acts of the church of Milan, and the Roman catechism. (See Breve Notizie per Buona Direzione dell anime, Trent, 1759, in 12mo.) The same pope, in the brief by which he condemned, in 1761, Mezengui’s Exposition of the Christian Doctrine, earnestly exhorts all pastors to read attentively the Roman Catechism on every article, which they are to explain to the faithful.
Ah, too many things to look at and read! And on that, a parting thought: whatever the evils of Google, it is simply amazing to have at one’s fingertips in seconds texts that would have taken days and weeks to track down (if you weren’t at that very moment sitting inside of one of the nicer libraries in the country). After reading the footnote in translation of the Catechism about the elegance of the Latin style, I went right to Google Books and had the full text in front of me. I was curious where the Catholic Encyclopaedia was getting its information about the elegance of the Latin style, and then soon thereafter, I found Butler on Google Books, and Butler pointed to the source of the remarks, Filippo Maria Buonamici, in his De claris pontificiarum epistolarum scriptoriubus ad Clementem XIV. It really amazes me. We have all of these resources at our fingertips and yet I wonder whether we make better use of them than those scholars who had not the aid of computers and the internet.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
“If you’re looking for a good way in which to sanctify the sabbath and other festival days, . . .”
Tut, tut, thou Jansenist!
From the Dogmatic Constitution “Unigenitus,” issued by H.H. Clement XI in condemnation of the errors of Quesnel:
“82. The Lord’s Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.” PROSCRIBED
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem11/c11unige.htm
Actually, errors #79 through #85 of Quesnel may make some good reading for you. But do it tomorrow, in a distracted manner, as I would not want to lead you into temptation of being sanctified by reading a pious work on the Lord’s Day. ;)
Bonifacius,,
Can you expound on that more for those of us with no time to read the Clement XI?
Clement XI condemned the errors of a Jansenist named Quesnel. Quesnel’s errors were quite insidious, I guess. Reading “Unigenitus,” the decree of condemnation, I see propositions that don’t seem to be innately wrong, unless taken in a perverse sense, which I guess is how Quesnel took them. The whole document seems rather ambiguous to me, as some statements are false only in a certain sense and not in others. The errors are all condemned as a mass, but which ones are heretical, which ones false, and which ones only rash or scandalous or offensive is not specified. I guess that Vatican II is not the first instance of Vaticanese that inspires head-scratching (at least for me, subjectively speaking).
In the case of the error I listed above, the problem comes if you read into the word “ought” an absolute or nearly absolute precept, such that a Christian who wanted to stop reading Scripture necessarily would be at fault. Of course, for those who can read Scripture without getting into a worse mess than before, and who have no better form of sanctification to hand, and whose confessors approve, they ought to read it, but not out of obligation.
Unigenitus #83 is choice: “83. It is an illusion to persuade oneself that knowledge of the mysteries of religion should not be communicated to women by the reading of Sacred Scriptures. Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men has arisen the abuse of the Scriptures and have heresies been born.” PROSCRIBED
Precisely which part of this is the one that is wrong? To what degree is it wrong? One might infer from this that it is legitimate (as opposed to illusion) to persuade oneself that women should not read Sacred Scripture as they are the ones who start heresies! But that would not be a necessary conclusion. I imagine rather that the problem lies primarily with the invidious second part that proposes a sex war — “*men* muck up heresy, *not* women.”
Ah, well, thank you, Iosephe, for the recommendations.
The Syllabus of Errors sometimes creates a similar confusion. It isn’t always self-evident the sense in which the statements are erroneous, and many lend themselves to multiple interpretations.
Unfortunately, Clara, the clearest section of the Syllabus is proscribed error #81, “Some contents of the preceding Syllabus of Errors are lacking in clarity, are not self-evident in their meaning, or may lend themselves to multiple interpretations.” — Allocution “Vos stulti estis,” February 29, 1861
:)
Dear oh dear. But is it an inclusive or an exclusive “or”?
You know, I knew that you would pick on that. As I sat there contemplating your next move, I pondered whether I could by with an “and/or.” Alas, I know you too well!
Tomorrow I’ll try to type a post actually relevant to Iosephus’ post.
I hope my joke was appreciated.
Yes, your joke was appreciated!
Bonifacius,
Thanks for the heartiest laugh I’ve had in a while..
Looking back, it looked vain to ask if my joke was appreciated. I wanted to make sure that people recognized it as a joke and not as a misquotation of the Syllabus.