HET ONTSTAAN VAN DE VORMSELCANONES TE TRENTE
1962; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 23; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/00062278.1962.10596675
ISSN1783-1377
Autores Tópico(s)Historical Legal Studies and Society
ResumoClick to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size SUMMARY In a previous number of this review we got an opportunity of publishing the file of Tridentine confirmation canons. Now, in order to define content and import of those canons, we should deal with the Council's general design as well as with the new method of the session on sacraments. As Mgr. JEDIN has proved, the main purport of Tridentine conciliar texts is to defend the catholic position against the Reformers' errors. His key-word”Abgrenzung” (delimitation) stands as a basic principle for all who are to investigate the meaning of Tridentine canons. Dr. J. LORTZ recently confirmed Mgr. JEDIN'S standpoint, though he might have opened the possibility of slight nuances in that he proves some conciliar definitions to be clearing off misunderstandings which undoubtedly were clouding the positions among catholics. In our session on the sacraments, especially on confirmation, the same principle of delimitation seems to be the leading one. Where the Reformers alleged that confirmation was no sacrament at all, the Council stated the non-catholicity of such a position. The question of how to demonstrate the institution of confirmation, hardly mentioned at all, was soon rejected as non covered by the Council's design. Thus they avoided the flaring-up of ticklish questions between Franciscan theology (with its flexible distinction between 'proprie instituer e', i.e. the factual determination of matter and form, as they then understood it, by Christ himself or by the Church, and on the other hand 'insinuare', ‘initiare’, ‘inspirare’ etc., meaning Church, and on the other hand 'insinuare', ‘initiare’, ‘inspirare’ etc., meaning a more general indication by Christ, and expressing the same truth as when we say that Christ instituted the sacraments in genere. Hence the theory of Alexander of Ales (who first raised that question in scholastic discussion, and held that confirmation was instituted at the Council of Meaux), and the somewhat more speculative Dominican conception (with its tendency to prove the determination of matter and forms as such by Christ himself, and that by means of Scripture texts). One might be inclined to think the question about the”minister confirmationis” was an exception on the general principle of delimitation. In fact however, this is but part of the truth. The Reformers only attacked the sacramentality of confirmation, they were ready to accept the imposition of hands as a mere ecclesiastical rite, but simultaneously they rejected the exclusive privilege of the bishops as for the administration. In connection with the Reformers' agreement to keep the imposition of hands, an other error was condemned: the one which dissuades from the use of chrism, because of the imminent danger of superstition. Let us go back now to the discussions on the method of the seventh session. Three quite different conceptions about conciliar method were spoken of. 1. The one used by the Council of Constance (1414–1418), where Huss and WICLIFF were condemned: a certain number of heresies were cited under the name of their heretical writers, and without discussing their qualification as heretical or erroneous, scandalous or temerarious, etc., all of them were put together mixtim. Another important aspect of this first method was the leaving out of any catholic doctrine. 2. The second method, the one used by Florence (1438–1445), clearly shows an ecumenical origin. Western theologians were to propose drafts of catholic positions to the Eastern Churches. Starting from a basic unity in faith they discussed texts until unity in formulation was reached. The so-called principle of delimitation, always typically defensive, was almost completely banished there. 3. Cardinal CERVINI'S method offers a considerable resemblance with the method of Constance. He too omits any kind of catholic doctrine, but makes a list of heretical errors, which are to be refuted by the conciliar theologians. Later on the prelates will put them under the anathema, a term which reminds of the Constance mixtim condemnation, and is directed against the praecipuae haereses et errores. A last element in the discussion about those methods lays in a misunderstanding of the theologians' result. They had divided the errors on sacraments into four series. Thus they intended to draw the prelates' attention to certain formulations which should be altered before being anathematized. Some of the prelates however misunderstood this division as a hint to impose different kinds of condemnation. At the end of interminable and confuse discussions CERVINI openly declared himself likely to renounce the method of Constance. In fact, he hardly changed his mind. Even the main protest, made by the Spanish bishops of Calahorra and Astorga, who insisted on a nominatim condemnation, was repelled because of Cardinal FARNESE'S instructions, where the nominatim was firmly disapproved. Thus, CERVINI avoided the rocks on which his method would have foundered: no discussion on conciliar authority, no nominal condemnation, no elaboration of catholic doctrine on sacraments, no discussions between Schools were introduced. Finally, the theological qualification of Tridentine confirmation canons should be mentioned. For this part of our study we made a large use of recent studies by Dr. A. LANG and Dr. P. FRANSEN, both of them confirming Dr. H. LENNERZ' thesis about anathema being a major excommunication. As such it exceeds mere disciplinary canons, though it does not yet reach therefore the hight of a fides divina definition. We think to have proved for our canons too that the anathema indicates a far wider range than the narrow concept of our actual systems allow us to do with the strictly defined term fides divina. The anathema has been described as”the severest penalty in the Church's armoury”. And if somebody were to ask a translation of that almost dogmatical penalty into actual terminology, we would like to mention Dr. FRANSEN'S suggestions of a ‘new note’. His first suggestion 'certitudo definita' was changed into 'fides ecclesiastica', and later into 'certitudo ecclesiastica, possibly definita'. Those consecutive changes prove the difficulties one has to cope with when trying to pour old wine into new wine-skins.
Referência(s)