Ecce Verbum

Logic - the art of reason In the beginning of his Metaphysics, Aristotle states that the human race lives by art and reasoning. He seems to touch here on something properly human, which distinguishes man from the other animals. For while the brute animals are moved to their actions by natural instinct, we direct our actions by rational judgments. To enable us to carry out these actions easily and in an orderly way, we have invented many arts. For an art is nothing other than a certain ordering of reason by which human acts achieve a suitable end through determinate means. Now reason is able to direct not only the acts of inferior faculties, but also its own acts. For the capacity to reflect upon itself is proper to the intellectual power; the intellect understands itself and, similarly, reason can reason about itself. Now, if by reasoning about the acts of the hand, we discovered building, and this art enables us to build easily and in an orderly way, then, for the same reason, we need an art to direct the acts of reason, so that in these acts also we may proceed in an orderly way, easily, and without error. This art is logic, the science of reason. Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, Berquist, tr., Dumb Ox Books (Notre Dame, IN: 2007) p. 1

St. Athanasius's criticism of Arians p.3 • Right interpretation is inherently connected to a pre-existing “religious sense” derived from “orthodox belief” in accordance with what has been “received from the fathers”—the doctrine, as St. Athanasius said, Christians learned in Catechesis. This is confirmed later in the same work (§28): "[W]hat they [the Arians] now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation, we may easily see if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture." •Likewise, in §40, he speaks of rejecting an Arian notion about God’s wisdom because “neither in the divine oracles [Scripture] is found another wisdom besides this Son, nor from the fathers have we heard of any such…” • According to St. Athanasius, the rule of faith is that standard by which we properly understand the Scriptures as well—a canon of interpretation, and thus a rule of faith that is both outside, and completely compatible with (indeed necessary to) a proper reading of Scripture, having been passed down in the Church Herself, as the Scriptures themselves were. As Athanasius says, this is exactly “as the Apostles teaches.” •He might have been thinking of verses such as 2 Thessalonians 2:15, in which St. Paul commands: “So brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Or 1 Corinthians 11:2, where he told the Corinthians “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” • In other words, the original means by which the original Christians had received the Faith—through the Apostolic preaching and example lived out among them—could not be pitted against that which they also received from the Apostles in writing, namely Scripture. Both constitute the Apostolic tradition. They are not at odds, but partners in a necessary union. • In §58, he again asserts the necessity of interpreting Scripture with an “ecclesiastical scope”: "Had Christ’s enemies [heretics] dwelt on these thoughts, and recognized the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith, they would not have made shipwreck of the faith.." • In his conclusion (§67), he declares that it is because they have rejected this “ecclesiastical scope,” this “anchor of the faith,” that when it came to the Arian heretics, “the divine Scriptures are closed to them…” •

St. Athanasius's criticism of Arians p.2 In De Decretis (§3), he called the definitions of the Council of Nicaea “sound and ecclesiastical,” and “the Church’s faith, and the tradition of the Fathers.” In §4 of the same work, he describes how those who hold true doctrine are not only united among themselves, but with what had been delivered to them by the Fathers. Heretics, on the other hand, were constantly shifting their positions and quarreling with one another—a process he describes in detail as taking place among the Arians, who were constantly rewording and changing their confessions of faith: For, what our Fathers have delivered, this is truly doctrine; and this is truly the token of doctors, to confess the same thing with each other, and to vary neither from themselves nor from their fathers; whereas they who have not this character are to be called not true doctors but evil. Thus the [heretics], as not witnessing to the same doctrines, but quarreling one with another, have no truth of teaching; but the holy and veritable heralds of the truth agree together and do not differ. •St. Athanasius was consistently appealing to the very things the heretics rejected—binding Apostolic tradition, and the rulings/definitions of our Fathers in the Faith at Ecumenical Councils whose authority bound the entire Church. •In many places, St. Athanasius went on to explain why citing Scripture, on its own, was not the path to the true Faith. After all, Satan himself had quoted Scripture to Christ. So quoting Scripture, and being able to weave it together according to a seemingly coherent individual theology, wasn’t enough. Rather, the interpretation of Scripture must be guided by what in various places St. Athanasius calls the “ecclesiastical” and “religious sense.” •In his Discourse II Against the Arians (§34), he rhetorically asks the following: Who heard, in his first catechizing, that God has a Son and has made all things by His proper Word, but understood it in that sense in which we now mean it [referring to the Arian interpretation]? Who on the rise of this odious heresy of the Arians, was not at once startled at what he heard, as strange, and a second sowing, besides that Word which had been sown from the beginning? *Reference to the reader’s “first catechizing.”: Catechesis was the process by which converts were taught the Catholic Faith prior to being baptized, confirmed, and receiving the Eucharist. In other words, St. Athanasius directs the reader to what had been passed down and taught in the Church itself as the proper standard for interpreting Scripture.

St. Athanasius's criticism of Arians • In Discourse I Against the Arians (§1), he identifies one of Arianism’s most dangerous tendencies—its constant use of Scripture to deceive the faithful. •In §§52-53, St. Athanasius asserts that while Arians tend to frequently employ Scripture, since they do so apart from the Church “according to their wont,” they employed it in an “irreligious” way. They thereby make their own peculiar beliefs the standard by which they interpret—and thereby misinterpret—the Scriptures: For being forced from conceptions or rather misconceptions of their [the Arians’] own hearts, they fall back upon passages of divine Scripture, and here too from want of understanding, according to their wont, they discern not their meaning; but laying down their own irreligion as a sort of canon of interpretation, they wrest the whole of the divine oracles into accordance with it. And so on the bare mention of such doctrine, they deserve nothing but the reply, “You do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.” [Matt. 22:29]…These passages they brought forward at every turn, mistaking their sense…and thus they deceive the thoughtless, making the language of Scripture their pretense, but instead of the true sense sowing upon it the poison of their own heresy. •In De Synodis (§14), St. Athanasius decried the manner in which heretics simply rejected the traditions and teachings of the Fathers (by which he meant previous Church Fathers, as well as the Bishops who promulgated the Nicene Creed), and that by doing so they were acting contrary to the teachings of the Apostles, which had been faithfully delivered by such means: The blessed Apostle approves of the Corinthians because, he says, “you remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you.” [1 Cor. 11:2] But they [Arians], as entertaining such views of their predecessors, will have the daring to say just the reverse to their flocks: “We praise you not for remembering your fathers, but rather we make much of you when you hold not their traditions.” And let them go on to accuse their own unfortunate birth, and say, “We are sprung not of religious men, but of heretics.” For such language, as I said before, is consistent in those who barter their Fathers’ fame and their own salvation for Arianism, and fear not the words of the divine proverb, “There is a generation that curseth their father,” [Prov. 30:11; Ex. 21:17] and the threat lying in the Law against such. They then, from zeal for the heresy, are of this obstinate temper; you, however, be not troubled at it, nor take their audacity for truth. For they dissent from each other, and whereas they have revolted from their Fathers, are not of one and the same mind, but float about with various and discordant changes. •While rejecting their Fathers in the Faith, he described how the Arians who justified doing so appealed to Scripture as their sole authority, claiming to reject everything that was not written (§36): “But,” they say, “all this is not written: and we reject these words as unscriptural.” But this, again, is an unblushing excuse in their mouths. For if they think everything must be rejected which is not written [in Scripture], wherefore, when the Arian party invent such a heap of phrases, not from Scripture, “out of nothing,” and “the Son was not before His generation,” and “Once He was not,” and “He is alterable,” and “the Father is ineffable and invisible to the Son,” and “the Son knows not even His own essence,” and all that Arius has vomited in his light and irreligious Thalia [a work by Arius], why do not they speak against these, but rather take their part, and on that account contend with their own Fathers?

"Where is the New Theology Leading Us?" Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Legrange, O.P On the far-reaching consequences of abandoning rational philosophy

Man's rational nature It ought not to be disputed that rational nature was made holy by God, in order to be happy in enjoying Him. For to this end is it rational, in order to discern justice and injustice, good and evil, and between the greater and the lesser good. Otherwise it was made rational in vain. But God made it not rational in vain. Wherefore, doubtless, it was made rational for this end....Wherefore rational nature was made holy, in order to be happy in enjoying the supreme good, which is God. Therefore man, whose nature is rational, was made holy for this end, that he might be happy in enjoying God. St. Anselm, Doctor of the Church,  Cur Deus Homo 2.1

Aquinas on studying philosophy Of all human studies, the study of wisdom is the most complete, most sublime, most useful, and most joyful: Most complete because, inasmuch as man gives himself to the study of wisdom, so much does he have already some part of true beatitude, so that the wise man says, "Blessed the man who continues in wisdom" (Sir 14:22). And it is most sublime because through this, man preeminently approaches to the divine likeness, who "made everything through wisdom" (Ps 103:24), in that, because likeness is the cause of love, the study of wisdom preeminently unites with God through friendship. Thus Wis 7:14 says that wisdom "is an infinite treasury to men, of a sort that those who use are made participants in friendship with God." And it is most useful because through this wisdom we come to the kingdom of immortality: "Craving for wisdom leads to the perpetual kingdom" (Wis 6:21). And it is most joyful because "her company has no harshness, nor her banquet any sorrow, but gladness and delight" (Wis 7:16). Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 1.2.1, *Studium could also be translated as 'pursuit', so one could substitute that for 'study' at any point here. The point of the 'most complete' is that, as the pursuit of wisdom already participates in beatitude, and beatitude or happiness lacking nothing is the ultimate end and goal of all human pursuits, there is nothing in any pursuit it does not in some way cover. Thus the honest seeker of wisdom, to the extent that he or she actually seeks wisdom, is fulfilled as a human being (blessed), a friend of God, is preparing for an inexhaustible reward, and is already in the process of achieving what he or she loves (which is how Aquinas understands joy).  *If one follows through the reasoning, the claim is that the pursuit of wisdom is more complete, sublime, useful, and joyful than all (other) human pursuits.

Rule for correspondence that has, unfortunately, become controversial •Don’t repeat yourself When once you have had your say fully and clearly on a certain point, and have[Pg xi] failed to convince your friend, drop that subject. To repeat your arguments all over again, will simply lead to his doing the same, and so you will go on like a circulating decimal. Did you ever know a circulating decimal come to an end?’ •‘If your friend makes a severe remark, either leave it unnoticed, or make your reply distinctly less severe; and if he makes a friendly remark, tending towards making up the little difference that has arisen between you, let your reply be distinctly more friendly. ‘If, in picking a quarrel, each party declined to go more than three-eighths of the way, and if in making friends, each was ready to go five-eighths of the way—why, there would be more[Pg xii] reconciliations than quarrels! Which is like the Irishman’s remonstrance to his gad-about daughter: “Shure, you’re always goin’ out! You go out three times for wanst that you come in!”’ •‘Don’t try to get the last word.... (N.B.—If you are a gentleman and your friend a lady, this rule is superfluous: You won’t get the last word!)’ Let the last word to-day be part of another rule, which gives a glimpse into that gentle heart: •‘When you have written a letter that you feel may possibly irritate your friend, however necessary you may have felt it to so express yourself, put it aside till the next day. Then read it over again, and fancy it[Pg xiii] addressed to yourself. This will often lead to your writing it all over again, taking out a lot of the vinegar and pepper and putting in honey instead, and thus making a much more palatable dish of it!’ source: William H. Draper, Prefatory note to "Feeding the Mind" by Lewis Carroll

An analogy between eating well and learning well "Then we should be careful to provide this wholesome food in proper amount. Mental gluttony, or over-reading, is a dangerous propensity, tending to weakness of digestive power, and in some cases to loss of appetite: we know that bread is a good and wholesome food, but who would like to try the experiment of eating two or three loaves at a sitting? I have heard a physician telling his patient—whose complaint was merely gluttony and want of exercise—that ‘the earliest symptom of hyper-nutrition is a deposition of adipose tissue,’ and no doubt the fine long words greatly consoled the poor man under his increasing load of fat. I wonder if there is such a thing in nature as a FAT MIND? I really think I have met with one or two: minds which could not keep up with the slowest trot in conversation; could not jump over a logical fence, to save their lives; always got stuck fast in a narrow argument; and, in short, were fit for nothing but to waddle helplessly through the world." Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll), "Feeding the Mind".

Works of mercy We worship God by external sacrifices and gifts, not for His own profit, but for that of ourselves and our neighbor. For He needs not our sacrifices, but wishes them to be offered to Him, in order to arouse our devotion and to profit our neighbor. Hence mercy, whereby we supply others' defects is a sacrifice more acceptable to Him, as conducing more directly to our neighbor's well-being, according to Hebrews 13:16: "Do not forget to do good and to impart, for by such sacrifices God's favor is obtained." Summa Theologiae, II,II, Q30, Art.4

Contemplation and chastity "There is finally a fourth consideration, which this time concerns contemplation itself, I say Christian contemplation, and which furnishes in relation to the latter a certain nuance or attenuation to the statement (however valid it still remains) that the contemplative life in itself does not require chastity of the body. Christian contemplation in reality is inseparably the contemplation of the uncreated Trinity and of Jesus, God and man; the humanity of Christ -- that humanity which belongs to the second divine Person, and all of whose properties are therefore also attributes of this divine Person Himself -- is always present in it in a manifest or hidden manner, and cannot be detached from it. That to which the Christian contemplative has his eyes constantly attached is, at the same time as the one and triune God, a man perfectly chaste, born of the most chaste of Virgins, and who Himself is God. How would the Christian who aspires to contemplation not feel himself drawn also to a life of continence or of chastity -- not, once more, as to a necessary condition (except, for some, because of the religious state), but as to something which better accords with his desires? Moreover, there is in Christian contemplation a certain innocence of approach, a sweetness and delicacy of the hands, if I may venture to speak thus, a certain candid demeanor and a certain matchless simplicity, and also a certain winged liberty which familiarity with the Holy Spirit gives, and that intimacy with the divine Persons and the heart of Jesus for which without a perfect purity the ardor of love does not suffice -- which, without requiring it however, are, so to speak, connatural with chastity of the body." source

The position of Clement The very first extant list of of the first Bishops of Rome that we have is that of St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.3.3): The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. We have the letter of St. Clement to which Irenaeus refers, which does say what Irenaeus says, although these things are not particularly singled out (Irenaeus is focusing on them because his point is that already with Clement we have a clear expression of the tradition that Gnostics deny or treat as a superficial guise for their views). Irenaeus had been to Rome, and had fairly good connections to it, so our best early list of the first bishops of Rome is: St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement. Tertullian, who knew the Roman traditions, tells us this (Praescr. Haer. 32): But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, — a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. So Tertullian seems to suggest that Clement was ordained as bishop of Rome directly by Peter. Also in the fourth century, Jerome gives us the view of things as they were understood then (De Vir. Ill. 15): Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says “With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life," the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle. So Jerome tells us that the general Latin view was that Clement followed directly after Peter, but recognizes that there is a tradition in which he is third after Linus and Anacletus full text

The Society of Descendants " ...I can provide simultaneously for my own good and that of all my descendants. This is a bond of society, which I form with them. It is a society in which every member who arrives thereafter into the world contributes to the common good. Each shares his work and profits in common, providing for the good of the future members, and performing filial duties towards the departed by respecting their memory and honouring their tombs. Only the materialist mocks a religion which honours the dead and breaks the bond which holds generations together. For the believer in immortality the person does not perish; divested of its body and made invisible, the person co-exists with members of the family who come to live upon the earth. The human race believes this and has a profound understanding of it. This truth gives rise to customs, religion, literature, laws and art which speak both to and of future members. They do not yet exist, but they are protected and represented; they receive rights and duties, and a heritage of memories, teachings, support and riches produced by the arduous labour of others. The end of this society of descendants therefore is all the good that it brings to all the new members, everyone of whom must share in this good." Antonio Rosmini, Rights of the Individual (Vol. 2 of The Philosophy of Right), p. 208.

Benedict's Vision for Europe Thomas Storck

The ethics of arguing The Instruction of Ptahhotep is one of the most important surviving works of ancient Egyptian philosophy. The work gives us a contextual frame. Ptahhotep is ninety-six years old, and sees the end of his life approaching. Therefore he asks the Pharaoh to hand down his authority to his son, but this also requires handing down the wisdom of ancient times. The king approves this, and we have a series of proverbs or aphorisms attributed to Ptahhotep, guiding his son in the behavior appropriate to his position. The series of aphorisms begins with an ethics of argument: 1. Be not proud because thou art learned; but discourse with the ignorant man, as with the sage. For no limit can be set to skill, neither is there any craftsman that possesseth full advantages. Fair speech is more rare than the emerald that is found by slave-maidens on the pebbles. 2. If thou find an arguer talking, one that is well disposed and wiser than thou, let thine arms fall, bend thy back, be not angry with him if he agree (?) not with thee. Refrain from speaking evilly; oppose him not at any time when he speaketh. If he address thee as one ignorant of the matter, thine humbleness shall bear away his contentions. 3. If thou find an arguer talking, thy fellow, one that is within thy reach, keep not silence when he saith aught that is evil; so shalt thou be wiser than he. Great will be the applause on the part of the listeners, and thy name shall be good in the knowledge of princes. 4. If thou find an arguer talking, a poor man, that is to say not thine equal, be not scornful toward him because he is lowly. Let him alone; then shall he confound himself. Question him not to please thine heart, neither pour out thy wrath upon him that is before thee; it is shameful to confuse a mean mind. If thou be about to do that which is in thine heart, overcome it as a thing rejected of princes.

Melchizedek and Eucharist *Melchizedek is notable in a number of ways; for instance, he is the first person in the Bible who is explicitly called a priest. Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand." Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything. (Gen. 14:18-20 NIV) The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (Psalm 110:1-4 KJV) This "King Melchizedek of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham as he was returning from defeating the kings and blessed him"; and to him Abraham apportioned "one-tenth of everything." His name, in the first place, means "king of righteousness"; next he is also king of Salem, that is, "king of peace." Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. See how great he is! (Heb. 7:1-4a NRSV) *According to one common Jewish tradition, Melchizedek was Shem, son of Noah; 2 Enoch makes him Noah's nephew. Christians seem largely not to have been interested in these legends, although I'm told that Jerome somewhere mentions them. Philo interprets Melchizedek as a symbol of the Logos, which in a way we find in the book of Hebrews, as well, and the latter, of course, is the primary influence on what Christians have thought about him. The second thing that caught their attention was the bread and wine (in some modern translations bread and raisin-cakes), which has generally been read as a type of the Eucharist; Clement of Alexandria seems to be the first person to have discussed this explicitly: Righteousness is peace of life and a well-conditioned state, to which the Lord dismissed her when He said, "Depart into peace." For Salem is, by interpretation, peace; of which our Saviour is enrolled King, as Moses says, Melchizedek king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who gave bread and wine, furnishing consecrated food for a type of the Eucharist. And Melchizedek is interpreted "righteous king;" and the name is a synonym for righteousness and peace. *Cyprian is a major influence on this line of thought in the West; from his Letter 62 to Caecilius: *Also in the priest Melchizedek we see prefigured the sacrament of the sacrifice of the Lord, according to what divine Scripture testifies, and says, "And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine." Now he was a priest of the most high God, and blessed Abraham. And that Melchizedek bore a type of Christ, the Holy Spirit declares in the Psalms, saying from the person of the Father to the Son: "Before the morning star I begot You; You are a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek; " which order is assuredly this coming from that sacrifice and thence descending; that Melchizedek was a priest of the most high God; that he offered wine and bread; that he blessed Abraham. For who is more a priest of the most high God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered that very same thing which Melchizedek had offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, His body and blood?