The Teaching of the Theological Manuals

Joseph Clifford Fenton

(The American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963, pp. 254-270)

One of the most genuinely likeable personalities among the periti at the first series of meetings at
the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council was the Canadian Augustinian priest, Father Gregory
Baum. Those who were fortunate enough to meet him came to admire him for his admirable
priestly character and for his exquisite courtesy. He is definitely the sort of man who is listened
to and who attracts attention.

Recently he wrote an article for the magazine Commonweal, in which he made a highly
questionable statement about the status of the theology of the scholastic manuals at the Second
Vatican Council. The teaching, which might have passed unnoticed if it had come from a less
able and distinguished man, naturally attracts attention because it is a statement by Father Baum.
And, unfortunately, it is a statement, which could be seriously misleading if it should be taken
seriously by our Catholics, particularly by students in the field of sacred theology.

Father Baum concluded his article with this assertion:

The conflict at the Council is not at all between men who try to introduce new insights
and modern ways and those who seek to remain faithful to the great tradition of the past.
It is rather between those who seek to renew the life of the Church by returning to the
most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages and those who seek to consecrate as eternal
Catholic wisdom the theology of the manuals of the turn of the century and the anti-
modernist emphasis which penetrated them.1

In itself this is an alarming declaration. Despite the manifest and outstanding amiability,
knowledge, and sincerity of Father Baum, it is definitely important that Catholics, especially
Catholic priests, look into the accuracy and the implications of what he has had to say about the
"conflict" at the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. This is definitely a subject on which
we cannot afford to be misinformed.

To be sure that we are making no mistake in this field, we must examine the context of Father
Baum's article itself. In this article the only story that could be considered as in any way
indicative of a "conflict" is Father Baum's recountal of the fact that, after a vote of the Fathers of
the Council, and after a decision of the Sovereign Pontiff, the schema on the Sources of
Revelation (now known as the schema on Revelation) was sent back to a mixed commission to
be recast. As the newspaper accounts have told us many times, on this occasion the Fathers of
the Council voted not to continue with the detailed consideration of the schema prior to its
recasting by the commission. About sixty per cent of those present did not want to continue with
the consideration of the schema as it stood. About forty per cent signified their willingness to
proceed with the consideration of the schema as they had received it from the Holy Father, who,
in his turn, had received it from the Central Preparatory Commission, which, in its turn, had
received it from the Theological Preparatory Commission itself.

As the newspapers have told us, this vote was not decisive. It was only when the Holy Father had
intervened personally that the schema was sent to the mixed commission to be clarified and
shortened. Presumably the same material, in a new format, will be submitted again to the council
as a whole after the mixed commission and the new interim central commission have finished
with it.

In the event itself there was nothing that could in any way justify the rather sensational language
employed by Father Baum. There was certainly no indication that the men who voted to proceed
with the examination of the schema as it stood were trying "to consecrate as eternal Catholic
wisdom the theology of the manuals of the turn of the century." Neither was there the least
indication that the men who wanted to have the schema reworked before the council considered
it in detail were trying "to renew the life of the Church by returning to the most authentic
Catholic tradition of all ages." As far as one could make out from their own statements as
revealed in the official Vatican news releases, these men were merely dissatisfied with the form
in which the teaching on the sources of revelation had been presented in the original text of the
schema.

Another individual, writing in the same issue of Commonweal, claims that, "Even the
participants in the Council admit . . . that the opposition between the two major groups has been
such that the next session has had to be postponed to next September in order to allow the
factions to cool off."2 If Father Baum's contention about the nature of "the conflict at the
Council" were at all justified, there would be definitely a need for a cooling off period, and much
more. But there is no evidence whatsoever that his contention is true. Indeed, it would seem that
this fine young priest has not only been mistaken about what actually transpired in the council,
but that he has described a conflict or opposition which has not and must not have a place within
the Fathers of the Vatican Council.

Father Gregory has done a disservice to the cause of Catholic truth by misrepresenting the
motives, which influenced the Fathers of the council to vote for or against the continuance of the
detailed study of the schema on the sources or the fonts of divine public revelation. In point of
fact the issue was the acceptability of the wording of the schema, and particularly the
acceptability of its style and length. Some claimed that the council could act more effectively if a
commission recast the entire schema. Others believed that it would be better to proceed with the
consideration of the document as it stood, and to have the changes made in individual sentences
and paragraphs as a result of the observations of the entire council. The stand of these latter was
weakened by the fact that all of the Fathers and the periti knew that such a procedure would take
a very long time indeed.

Father Baum can only be talking of the men who voted to continue with the consideration of the
schema as it stood when he spoke of those "who seek to consecrate as eternal Catholic wisdom
the theology of the manuals of the turn of the century and the antimodernist emphasis which
penetrated them." And he must be describing those who voted not to proceed with the detailed
examination of this schema when he spoke of those "who seek to renew the life of the Church by
returning to the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages." In neither case is the designation
accurate or in any way acceptable.

If Father Baum's claim about the "conflict at the Council" was written seriously (and there is no
reason to suppose that it was not), then he has implied very clearly that the theology of "the
manuals of the turn of the century" was and is to some extent, not only distinct from, but even at
odds with, "the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages." He obviously wishes us to infer
that, in his judgment at least, the life of the Catholic Church can be in some measure "renewed"
if the Church abandons the theological teachings, which were contained in, or at least which
were characteristic of, the great manuals in use in Catholic universities and seminaries during the
early years of the twentieth century.

Moreover, it is quite obvious from his statements, which Father Baum wishes to imply that the
opposition to the heresy of Modernism manifested in these manuals is in some way unacceptable
to the Catholic Church at the present day. At least he wants us to imagine that the Church would
be improved or "renewed" if the anti-Modernist teaching that pervaded the best of the early
twentieth-century manuals of sacred theology were to be passed over or modified.

Furthermore Father Baum obviously wants his readers to believe that, at the present moment, the
doctrine imparted to our seminarians within the Catholic Church is in some manner outside of
"the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages." If we are to have the Church "return" to such a
tradition, then it would seem that this tradition must have been in some measure lost, or at least
obscured, during the course of the twentieth century. Certainly Father Baum's statement involves
the implication that the tradition in which those priests who studied the early twentieth-century
theological manuals were educated was definitely not the most authentic doctrinal tradition of
the Catholic Church.

These are implications, which we definitely must examine. There is absolutely no proof, of
course, that the men who voted in the council on the acceptability of the schema about the
sources or the fonts of revelation, as it was delivered to the council, were in any way concerned
with the implications conveyed in Father Baum's declaration. Yet it is a fact that, especially since
the closing of the first portion of the council on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception last year,
there have been many who have made statements in some way involving the implications
contained in Father Baum's statement. Most of the time these implications have been made less
forcefully than they were by Father Baum. Yet it is definitely necessary to examine them, and to
see, once and for all time, whether or not these implications are acceptable.

The Doctrine Of The Theological Manuals

Obviously, if we are to examine Father Baum's claims seriously, we must first ask ourselves
about the identity of the theological manuals of the turn of the twentieth century. The question
with which the schema on which the council voted was that of revelation and the sources of
revelation. Hence, we must suppose that, when Father Baum speaks of the offending manuals, he
is referring to those which deal with fundamental dogmatic theology, and particularly with the
sections De revelatione and De fontibus revelationis. It so happens that, in this field, there have
been a great many very influential and well-written manuals produced during the early years of
this century.

We are speaking, of course, of the manuals in the field of fundamental dogmatic theology, which
were in use and were influential at and after the turn of the twentieth century. Some of these
were originally written during the last years of the nineteenth century, but, in editions published
subsequent to the issuance of the Lamentabili sane exitu, the Pascendi dominici gregis, and the
Sacrorum antistitum, these manuals acquired the anti-Modernist emphasis, which seems so
displeasing to Father Baum.

Probably the most important of these manuals were those of Louis Billot, who will most
certainly be counted among the very ablest of all the theologians who labored for the Church
during the early part of this century. These books, most immediately concerned with the material
in the schema voted upon by the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council, were
published by the Gregorian University Press in Rome, and were re-edited many times. One of
them was the De inspiratione sacrae scripturae theologica disquisitio,3 and another was the
magnificent De immutabilitate traditionis contra modernam haeresim evolutionismi.4

Even more widely known than the works of Billot were those of the Sulpician Adolphe
Tanquerey. Many thousands of priests were introduced to the study of sacred theology, and
particularly of fundamental dogmatic theology, by courses based on Tanquerey's De Religione:
De Christo Legato: De Ecclesia: De Fontibus Revelationis, the first of the three volumes of his
Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae ad mentem S. Thomas Aquinatis accommodata.5 This particular
volume had gone into its twenty-first edition in 1925. If the theses taught by Tanquerey were
opposed to those of "the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages," then thousands of priests,
educated during the first part of the twentieth century were being led into error by the men whom
Our Lord had constituted as the guardians of His revealed message.
Likewise of prime importance in the early years of the twentieth century were Van Noort's two
works on the subject of fundamental dogmatic theology, De vera religione6 and De ecclesia
Christi.7 The influence of these two excellent works has been increased tremendously as a result
of the English translation and adaptation of these works done by the Sulpician Fathers Castelot
and Murphy. Another enormously and deservedly popular manual translated into English was
Brunsmann's Fundamental Theology,8 made available to our scholars by the famed Arthur
Preuss.

The first volume of Archbishop Zubizarreta's Theologia dogmatico-scholastica ad mentem S.

Thomae Aquinatis likewise influenced many students for the priesthood in the earlier part of this
century. This volume was entitled Theologia fundamentalis.9 It contained the same material
found in the first volume of Tanquerey's series. Like Tanquerey, Zubizarreta wrote a shorter
treatise on dogmatic theology, placing the matter covered in the four volumes of the regular
edition within the content of one volume. Tanquerey's was the Brevior synopsis theologiae
dogmaticae.10Zubizarreta entitled his the Medulla theologiae dogmaticae.11

In 1930 the brilliant German Jesuit Herman Dieckmann continued the tradition of the manuals of
the turn of the century by publishing his De revelatione Christiana: Tractatus philosophico-
historici.12 Previously he had published the two volumes of his De ecclesia: Tractatus historico-
dogmatici.13 Contemporary with Dieckmann's manuals, and likewise of primary importance in
the history of twentieth-century theology was the three-volume text of the Jesuit Father Emil
Dorsch, Institutiones theologiae fundamentalis.14In line with the teachings of Dorsch is the
doctrine contained in a highly important American manual, The Theory of Revelation,15 by the
great Rochester theologian, Monsignor Joseph J. Baierl.

The manual of Tanquerey was certainly the most widely distributed among all those that
appeared during the early part of this century. In the perspective of history, it would seem that
two authors must share the prize for theological acumen. One, of course, was Billot, whose text,
De Ecclesia Christi: sive Continuatio theologiae de Verbo Incarnato,16 still remains the best
theological treatment on the Church produced during the course of the past hundred years. The
other was the French Dominican, Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, whose classical De
Revelatione per ecclesiam catholicam proposita17 is still basically the best manual of scholastic
apologetics available to the student today.

Later than the manual of Tanquerey, but like it destined for tremendous success in the world of
ecclesiastical studies, was the first volume of Herve's Manuale theologiae dogmaticae, the one
entitled De vera religione: De ecclesia Christi: De fontibus revelationis.18 The first volume of
Bartmann's Precis de theologie dogmatique,19 a textbook very popular a quarter of a century ago,
dealt with the sources of revelation and other topics which entered into what Father Baum calls
the "conflict" at the Second Vatican Council.
Tremendously influential in their own time were other manuals of fundamental dogmatic
theology, which are not in common use today. Among these is the Elementa apologeticae sive
theologiae fundamentalis 20 by the Austrian priest Anton Michelitsch. The Elementa theologiae
fundamentalis,21 by the Italian Franciscan, Clemente Carmignani, is another of these texts. In this
same class we must place Cardinal Vives's Compendium theologiae dogmaticae 22 the first
volume of Mannens's Theologiae dogmaticae institutiones,23 which was entitled Theologia
fundamentalis, and the first volume of MacGuiness's Commentarii theologici, a book containing
the treatises De religione revelata ejusque fontibus and De ecclesia Christi.24

In the Spanish speaking world the Lecciones de apologetica 25 of Father Nicolas Marin
Negueruela were outstandingly popular. There is much material on fundamental dogmatic
theology in Father John Marengo's Institutiones theologiae fundamentalis and in Canon
Marchini's Summula theologiae dogmaticae.26 The publication of these books in the last decade
of the nineteenth century marks them as genuinely "turn of the century," and they incorporate the
kind of theological teaching which seems to displease Father Baum. Much more influential,
however, was the treatise De theologia generali, in the first volume of Herrmann's Institutiones
theologiae dogmaticae 27 a work which, incidentally, earned for its author a letter of thanks from
St. Pius X himself.

The first volume of Monsignor Cesare Manzoni's Compendium theologiae dogmaticae 28

contains a typical "turn of the century" treatise on fundamental dogmatic theology. So too does
Bishop Egger's Enchiridion theologiae dogmaticae generalis.29 The same type of doctrine can
also be found in the Franciscan Gabriel Casanova's Theologia fundamentalis,30 in the Synthesis
sive notae theologiae fundamentalis of Father Valentine Saiz Ruiz,31 and in the Theologia
generalis seu tractatus de sacrae theologiae principiis32 by Father Michael Blanch.

The first volume of nearly every set of manuals of dogmatic theology issued during the early part
of this century and the last decade of the nineteenth century carried a treatise on fundamental
dogma. Typical of such works were Tepe's Institutiones theologicae, Prevel's Theologiae
dogmatica elementa,33 Lercher's Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae,34 and Christian Pesch's
Praelectiones dogmaticae.35 The texts by Pesch and Lercher have been especially influential in
the training of seminarians throughout the first half of this century.

The two volumes of Hilarin Felder's Apologetica sive theologia fundamentalis 36 were widely
used during the past few decades. And, in the historical part of apologetics, Felder's Christ and
the Critics 37 was and continues to be almost uniquely valuable. Also outstanding in this field
was the two-volume work, Jesus Christ: Sa Personne, Son Message, Ses Preuves,38 by Leonce
de Grandmaison.

Father Berthier, the founder of the Missionaries of the Holy Family, wrote, during the reign of
Pope Leo XIII, an Abrege de theologie dogmatique et morale,39 which contains a relatively
complete and typically "turn of the century" treatise on fundamental dogmatic theology. The
brilliant Father Bainvel published a treatise De vera religione et apologetica,40 which had a wide
and powerful influence. And among the multitudinous and now almost forgotten writings of
Cardinal Lepicier were a Tractatus de sacra doctrina 41 and a Tractatus de ecclesia Christi.42

The American Jesuit Father Timothy Cotter published an eminently successful and accurate
Theologia fundamentalis.43 Among the most recent of our twentieth-century manuals of
fundamental dogmatic theology is the Theologia fundamentalis, the first volume in the text of
Iragui and Abarzuza.44 The Capuchin Father Iragui is the author of this first volume.

Of primary importance among the ecclesiological manuals of our century is the two-volume
Theologica de ecclesia,45 by the Jesuit Bishop Michel d'Herbigny. Other intensely influential
texts in the same area are the De ecclesia Christi 46 by the Jesuit Father Timothy Zapelena and
the De ecclesia Christi47 by the Franciscan Father Antonio Vellico.

Another excellent and widely used manual in this field is The Church of Christ: An Apologetic
and Dogmatic Treatise,48 by the late Father E. Sylvester Berry of Mount Saint Mary's. And in
Canada we find an extraordinarily useful pair of manuals, the Apologetica authored by the
Sulpician Fathers Yelle and Fournier and the De ecclesia et de locis theologicis,49 written by
Father Yelle. From Spain comes one of the very best recent traditional manuals in this field, the
Theologia fundamentalis by the Jesuit Fathers Salaverri and Nicolau.50 This is the first volume of
the famed Sacrae theologiae summa.

Pegues's Propaedeutica thomistica ad sacram theologiam 51 contains an unusual statement of

many of the central theses of the traditional fundamental dogmatic theology. Another
Dominican, Father Joachim Berthier, wrote a Tractatus de locis theologicis,52 in which he deals
accurately with the matter of the sources of revelation and the Church. The Dominican tradition
in the field of ecclesiology was kept up in the "turn of the century" literature by, among others,
Father De Groot, who published his magnificently accurate Summa apologetica de ecclesia
catholica ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis,53 by Father Gerard Paris, who followed the teaching
of De Groot to a great extent in his Tractatus de ecclesia Christi,54 and by Father Reginald
Schultes, whose De ecclesia catholica: Praelectiones apologeticae55 is still a classic in the field.

Forty years ago the outstanding controversy among theologians was the debate about the
definability of the theological conclusion. In the discussion Schultes and Father Francis Marin-
Sola were the most prominent spokesmen for the two sides. Schultes's teaching was set forth in
his Introductio in historiam dogmatum.56 Marin-Sola presented his teachings in his L'Evolution
homogene du dogme catholique.57 Both authors, however, were "penetrated" by what

Father Baum has called "anti-modernist emphasis." And the material in these books definitely
influenced the content of subsequent manuals in the field of fundamental dogmatic theology.
There has been considerable writing in the field of fundamental dogmatic theology, in line with
the "turn of the century" tradition of Catholic and anti-Modernist theology, among English-
speaking priests. Immensely popular some years ago was Devivier's Christian Apologetics,58 a
translation edited and arranged by Bishop Messmer, one of the first faculty members at The
Catholic University of America. In line with the teachings of Father Garrigou-Lagrange were
Father Walshe's The Principles of Catholic Apologetics 59 and my own We Stand With Christ.60

The Jesuit Father John T. Langan wrote a fine Apologetica,61 which has been too little used by
his fellow Americans. Another Jesuit, Father Joseph de Guibert, published a De ecclesia,62 which
is recognized as one of the finest texts in this field produced during the course of our century.

During the past twenty years we have had many more texts which have kept up the teachings and
the spirit of the manuals of the turn of the century, and which have certainly continued their anti-
Modernist emphasis. Among these we may mention in passing the Theologia fundamentalis of
the Jesuit Father Francis X. Calcagno,63 the Theologia fundamentalis64 of Archbishop Parente,
the present Assessor of the Holy Office, and the Theologia fundamentalis65 of the Franciscan
Father Maurus Heinrichs, as well as the magnificent treatise De revelatione christiana66 by
Father Sebastian Tromp. There are also the very complete and accurate Theologia fundamentalis
67
of the Jesuit Father Joseph Mors, the first volume of Conrad Baisi's Elementa theologiae
scholasticae,68 and the first volume of the Theologiae dogmaticae theses 69of Canon Joseph
Lahitton.

The "turn of the century" spirit, and the anti-Modernist emphasis so deplored by Father Baum are
also quite manifest in the articles published in the Dictionnaire de theologie catholique and the
Dictionnaire apologetique de la foi catholique.

Father Baum’s Position

Now it must be noted that there is no complete agreement among the works we have mentioned
(and we have mentioned only a small part of the literature which might be called twentieth
century manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology), with reference to theological opinions.
Certainly there are theses in the book by Christian Pesch, which are impugned in the work of
Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. And not everything that is taught by Tanquerey is approved in the
manuals of Louis Billot.

Yet, if we examine the matter closely, the opposition of Father Baum is directed, not towards any
individual opinion or group of opinions within the field of fundamental dogmatic theology, but
against the common teaching of all these texts. It is Father Baum's contention that one of the
contending groups at the Second Vatican Council is seeking "to consecrate as eternal Catholic
wisdom the theology of the manuals of the turn of the century and the antimodernist emphasis
which penetrated them." If his words have any meaning at all, he must be convinced that what is
the common teaching of all these manuals of the turn of the century, and the common teaching of
the manuals which followed them throughout the course of the twentieth century, is definitely
not Catholic wisdom, and that this teaching must be abandoned if the life of the Church is to be
renewed, and if we are to return to what he calls "the most authentic Catholic tradition of all
ages."

Now it is quite obvious that the common teaching of the manuals of fundamental dogmatic
theology since the turn of the twentieth century has been the doctrine, which has been taught to
the candidates for the priesthood within the Catholic Church, at least up until the past few
months. We are dealing with books, which have been employed in teaching in seminaries and
universities. If these books all contain common teaching opposed to or even distinct from
genuine Catholic doctrine, then the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Catholic Church
has been very much at fault during the course of the twentieth century.

It must be noted that we are speaking of the common teaching of these texts or manuals of
fundamental dogmatic theology. Father Baum charges that one of the two conflicting groups at
the Second Vatican Council was trying "to consecrate as eternal Catholic wisdom the theology of
the manuals of the turn of the century." Of course this is the language of Madison Avenue rather
than of the university lecture hall. It is calculated to make his readers imagine that many of the
Fathers of the council were attempting to give to the teaching of the manuals in fundamental
dogmatic theology a status, which that teaching had not previously enjoyed.

What seems to displease Father Baum is the fact that the unanimous teaching of the scholastic
theologians in any area relating to faith or morals is the teaching of the ordinary and universal
magisterium of the Church. The manuals, like those to which we have referred, are books
actually used in the instruction of candidates for the priesthood. They are written by men who
actually teach in the Church's own approved schools, under the direction of the Catholic
hierarchy, and ultimately, through the activity of the Congregation of Seminaries and
Universities, under the direction of the Sovereign Pontiff himself. The common or morally
unanimous teaching of the manuals in this field is definitely a part of Catholic doctrine.

It is quite obvious that the individual opinions of individual authors do not constitute Catholic
doctrine, and could not be set forth as such. But there is a fund of common teaching (like that
which tells us that there are truths which the Church proposes to us as revealed by God, and
which are not contained in any way within the inspired books of Holy Scripture), which is the
unanimous doctrine of the manuals, and which is the doctrine of the Catholic Church. The
unanimous teaching of the scholastic theologians has always been recognized as a norm of
Catholic doctrine. It is unfortunate that today there should be some attempt to mislead people
into imagining that it has ceased to be such a norm in the twentieth century.
Father Baum tries to make it appear that there was a considerable group among the Fathers of the
council who thought that the life of the Church could be renewed and that we could return "to the
most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages" by setting aside the common and unanimous
teaching of the scholastic theologians of our time. On the other hand, it is the teaching of
Sylvius, who follows Melchior Cano here almost verbatim, that: "concordem omnium
theologorurn sententiam in rebus fidei aut morum rejicere, si non est haeresis, est tamen haeresi
proximum."70 Especially since there is absolutely no evidence that there was any party in the
council with aims like those described by Father Baum, it would seem wiser to follow the basic
Catholic teaching expressed by Cano and Sylvius.

Anti-Modernist Emphasis

It was most unfortunate that the distinguished Canadian priest should have spoken out on the
subject of Modernism in this particular context. In his article it is apparent that he considers the
anti-Modernist "emphasis" of the theological manuals of the turn of the century, and by inference
of those manuals, which have followed in the same traditional path during the course of the
twentieth century, as something, which can and should be abandoned. The original Modernists
frequently attempted to delude people into imagining that the opposition to their erroneous
teachings constituted a sort of theological excess, and that a proper doctrinal balance would be
struck only when a sort of halfway house between Modernism and anti-Modernism was reached.
Perhaps unintentionally Father Baum seems to be promoting the same message.

Actually Modernism was a heresy, or, to put it more accurately, a cluster of heresies. If one
wants to know what the condemned teachings of the Modernists really were, he has only to read
the propositions condemned in the Lamentabili sane exitu 71 and see the content of the Oath
against the Errors of Modernism.72 If he makes this study, he will find that the Catholic dogmas
denied by the Modernists are the fundamental teachings that God has revealed to us about His
Church and about His message. Since there was a campaign aimed at bringing Catholics to reject
these teachings, it was and it remains necessary for any accurate and competent treatise in the
field of fundamental dogmatic theology to state, or, if Father Baum prefers the word, to
emphasize, these teachings which were denied by the Modernists, and which were proclaimed as
authentic and basic Catholic doctrine by the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic priest knows perfectly well that there is never going to be, and that there never
could be, any "return" to a more authentic Catholic doctrinal tradition through the abandonment
of the common teaching of all the twentieth-century manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology.
The living and infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church never abandons the most authentic
Catholic tradition. That tradition is manifest in the common teaching of the twentieth-century
manuals, and in the condemnations of the various Modernistic propositions.
The abandonment of the dogmas attacked or called into question by the original Modernists or
by their successors would be an abandonment of the divine teaching within the Catholic Church.
We may thank God that there is no evidence that any group of Fathers of the Vatican Council in
any way wanted to abandon this doctrine.

Joseph Clifford Fenton

The Catholic University of America
Washington, D.C.
Endnotes
1 Commonweal, LXXVII, 17 (Jan. 18, 1963), 436.

2 Ibid. The author of this second article is Gunnar D. Kumlien.

3 A fourth edition of this work was published at Rome by the Gregorian University in 1929.

4 The Gregorian University also brought out a fourth edition of this brilliantly anti-Modernist
work in 1929, shortly after Billot had resigned from the College of Cardinals.

5 This set was published by Desclee and Co., of Paris, Tournai, and Rome. Later editions of
these manuals were prepared by the Sulpician Father J. B. Bord.

6 The third edition of this work was prepared by Father E. P. Rengs, and was published at
Amsterdam by C. L. Van Langenhuijsen in 1917.

7 Van Langenhuijsen published the third edition of this work in 1913. The English translations
were published by the Newman Press in 1955 and 1957.

8 A Handbook of Fundamental Theology, by The Rev. John Brunsmann, S.V.D. Freely adapted
and edited by Arthur Preuss. Four Volumes. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1928, 1929, 1931,
1932.

9 The firm of Elexpuru in Bilbao, Spain, published a third edition of this Theologia
fundamentalis in 1937.

10 Desclee published a seventh edition of this work, produced with the co-operation of J. B.
Bord, in 1931.

11 A second edition of the Medulla theologiae dogmaticae was published by Elexpuru in 1947.

12 Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Herder, 1930.

13 Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Herder, 1925.

14 This work was published by Rauch in Innsbruck, Austria. A second and third edition of the
first volume appeared in 1930, a second edition of the second volume in 1928, and a second
edition of the third volume in 1927.

15 This book was published by The Seminary Press, in Rochester, N. Y. The first volume
appeared in 1927, and the second in 1933.

16 A fifth edition of the first volume of this work was published by the Gregorian University in
Rome in 1927. A third edition of the much smaller, but still immensely important second volume
appeared in 1929. The De ecclesia is generally recognized to be the finest of all the theological
writings of Cardinal Billot. It must not be forgotten that the late Pope Pius XII, in an address to
the students of the Gregorian, named Billot as a theologian who should be a model for all of the
teachers of sacred doctrine in our time.

17 The publishing house of Ferrari in Rome published a third edition of the complete De
revelatione (in two volumes), in 1929 and 1931. The original edition appeared in two volumes
and the preface is dated on the feast of the Holy Rosary in 1917. Afterwards there was a one-
volume edition, which was not successful. Ferrari published a fourth edition of the two-volume
work in 1945.

18 This first volume was published in Paris by Berche et Pagis in 1929.

19 The translation of this work into French was made by Father Marcel Gautier. A second
edition of the first volume, translated from the eighth edition of the German original, was
published in Mulhouse, France, by Les Editions Salvator in 1935.

20 A third edition of this book was published by the firm of Styria at Graz and Vienna in 1925.

21 Carmigiani's Elementa theologiae fundameiitalis was published in Florence by the Libreria

Editrice Fiorentina in 1911.

22 The firm of Pustet published a fourth edition of this work in 1903.

23 The first volume of Mannens's Theologiae dogmaticae institutiones, the Theologia

fundamentalis, was published by J. J. Romen and Sons in Roermond, in Holland, in 1910.

24 The third edition of the first volume was brought out in Paris by Lethielleux and in Dublin by
Gill in 1930.

25 The Libreria Internacional, in San Sebastian, Spain, brought out a fifth edition of this two-
volume work in 1939.

26 The Salesian Press in Turin published a third edition of Marengo's two-volume work in 1894.
Marchini's Summula was published at Vigevano in 1898.
27 The publisher Emmanuel Vitte brought out a seventh edition of Herrmann's Institutiones in
Lyons and Paris in 1937.

28 The fourth edition of Monsignor Manzoni's first volume was published in Turin in 1928 by
Lege Italiana Cattolica Editrice.

29 The publisher Weger of Brescia brought out the sixth edition of Bishop Egger's work in 1932.

30 This work was published in Rome by the Typographia Sallustiani in 1899.

31 The Press and the Bookshop of the Centro Catolico published this work in Burgos, Spain, in
1906.

32 Father Blanch's book was published by the Montserrat Press of Barcelona in 1901.

33 Tepe's book was published by Lethielleux in Paris in 1894. In 1912 the same publisher
brought out a third edition of Prevel's first volume. It was edited by Father Miquel, SS.CC.

34 The second edition of Lercher's first volume appeared in 1934, published at Innsbruck by
Rauch. Father Schlagenhaufen, S.J., edited a very useful fifth edition of this volume, which was
published by Herder in Barcelona in 1951.

35 Herder, in Freiburg-im-Breisgau brought out a sixth and seventh edition of this work in 1924.

36 A second edition of the two volumes of Felder's Apologetica was published in Paderborn in
1923 by Schoeningh.

37 The English translation was made by the famous John L. Stoddard and was published in
London in 1924 by Burns, Oates, and Washbourne, Ltd.

38 The brilliant French original, one of the most powerful works in the field of Catholic
apologetics, was published by Beauchesne in Paris. A seventeenth edition appeared in 1931. One
of the sad phenomena in English Catholic letters was the appearance, two years ago, of a small
and relatively unimportant section of this work set forth as a complete book. This radically
bowdlerized edition is published as Jesus Christ, by Leonce de Grandmaison, S.J., with a preface
by Jean Danielou, S.J., and has been brought out by Sheed and Ward in New York.

39 A fifth edition was published by Vitte at Lyons and Paris in 1928.

40 Beauchesne of Paris published this work in 1914.

41 Rome: The Buona Stampa Press, 1927. Basically this work is a commentary on the first
question in the Pars Prima of the Summa theologica. It takes in, however, a good deal of anti-
Modernist teaching.
42 Rome: The Buona Stampa Press, 1935.

43 The book was published by Weston College, in Weston, Massachusetts, in 1940.

44 The Theologia fundamentalis of Father Serapius de Iragui, O.F.M. Cap., was published by the
Ediciones Studium in Madrid in 1959.

45 Beauchesne published third editions of the two volumes in 1927 and 1928 in Paris.
D'Herbigny's manual is outstanding for its use of oriental Christian theological literature.

46 The fourth edition of the first volume of this fine work was published in Rome by the
Gregorian University in 1946. The first public edition of the second volume did not appear until
1954. Previous editions, like that of 1940, were "ad usum auditorum."

47 Rome: Arnodo, 1940. Vellico's text is extraordinarily valuable.

48 Herder of St. Louis published a second edition of this book in 1927.

49 Both of these highly useful volumes were published by the Grand Seminary, in Montreal, in
1945.

50 The Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos published a fifth edition of this Theologia fundamentalis
in Madrid in 1955.

51 This was published by the Libreria del S. Cuore in Turin in 1931.

52 A second edition of this was published by Marietti in Turin in 1900.

53 The publishing house of Manz in Ratisbon brought out a second edition of this in 1892.

54 The full title of this work is Ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis tractatus de ecclesia Christi ad
usum studentium theologie fundamentalis. Marietti published it in Turin in 1929.

55 A later edition of this work, edited by Father Edmund Prantner, O.P., was published in Paris
by Lethielleux in 1930.

56 Lethielleux also published this work, which appeared in 1922.

57 A second edition of this two-volume work was published in Fribourg in Switzerland in 1924
by the Imprimerie et Librairie de l'Oeuvre de Saint Paul.

58 This translation was published in 1903 by Benziger Brothers of New York.

59 Longmans, Green and Company published this in 1919.

60 Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1942.

61 Chicago: The Loyola University Press, 1921.

62 A second edition of this work "in auditorum usu," was published in Rome by the Gregorian
University Press in 1928.

63 Naples: D'Auria, 1948.

64 Turin: Marietti, 1946.

65 The Studium Biblicum Franciscanum of Tokyo bought out a second edition of this work in
1958.

66 Fifth edition, Rome: The Gregorian University Press, 1945.

67 This is a two-volume text, the second edition of which was published in Buenos Aires by the
Editorial Guadalupe in 1954 and 1955.

68 Milan: Editrice Ancora, 1948.

69 Paris: Beauchesne. 1922.

70 Controversies, Bk, 6, q. 2, art. 4, concl. 3. The passage in the works of Melchior Cano is to be
found in the De locis theologicis, Bk. 8, cap. 4, concl. 3.

71 Denz., 2001-65.

72 Denz., 2145 ff.