«Today, however, this appeal to "tradition" is made in a new way; ressourcement (a return to the sources) is in fashion. This splendid word, coined by Charles Péguy, implies a return to the origins, or more often an advance to the present day, starting from the origins. This idea springs from Péguy's conception of revolution and reform as "the appeal made by a less perfect tradition to one more perfect; the appeal made by a shallower tradition to one more profound; the withdrawal of tradition to reach a new depth, to carry out research at a deeper level; a return to the source, in the literal sense" . [4] Péguy also speaks of "the introspection that retraces its steps through human history". [5]
Considered at this level, the problem of tradition, which we are to study, is not purely speculative and theoretical, and still less is it merely academic; even if it were it would still be worthy of our attention: it is fundamental to the present religious situation. For that situation is dominated on the one hand by the admirable effort toward renewal in the Church (though without essential change)–the stamp of the sound reforming instinct and of ressourcement–and on the other, by an ecumenical hope, enthusiasm and dialogue, which in the new climate of opinion has made the relationship between the Scriptures, the Church and tradition a topical problem.»
Yves Congar
from the Introduction to
from the Introduction to
1 comment:
The Church needs writers who will deal also with false tradition within the Church and Catholic publishing houses have to publish them and resist our perennial emperor's new clothes approaches to Catholic icons of the written word. I love Aquinas but one finds him overly dependent on some writers and we partly had the usury mistake from his preferring Aristotle's concept of money as non fecund and preferring Aristotle so much on that point that Aquinas then dismisses the implied permission of interest in God's word... Dt. 23:19,20: "Thou shalt not fenerate to thy brother money, nor corn, nor any other thing, but to the stranger". Likewise Aquinas followed Augustine in seeing women as primarily breeders and not good companions:
Augustine...De Genesi ad litteram 9,5-9
“ I don’t see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes the purpose of procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and woman cohabitate.”
Aquinas, Summa T, Pt. I. Q.98, art.2 "Moreover, we are told that woman was made to be a help to man. But she was not fitted to be a help to man except in generation, because another man would have proved a more effective help in anything else." (On the contrarty..section)
St. Thomas also followed Augustine into the error on it being venial sin to ask for the marriage debt but not to pay it:
ST Question 49 article 5
Reply to Objection 2 (Aquinas). "If a man intends by the marriage act to prevent fornication in his wife, it is no sin, because this is a kind of payment of the debt that comes under the good of "faith." But if he intends to avoid fornication in himself, then there is a certain superfluity, and accordingly there is a venial sin, nor was the sacrament instituted for that purpose, except by indulgence, which regards venial sins."
So God told man to ask for the marriage debt to avoid fornication and Augustine and Aquinas told him that doing so was venial sin.
In the "I answer that" section, Aquinas is clear:
" Consequently there are only two ways in which married persons can come together without any sin at all, namely in order to have offspring, and in order to pay the debt;otherwise it is always at least a venial sin."
Obviously the modern Popes overturned that just in allowing the natural methods. But it again was overly dependent on Augustine:
“Chapter 16 [XIV.]—A Certain Degree of Intemperance is to Be Tolerated in the Case of Married Persons; The Use of Matrimony for the Mere Pleasure of Lust is Not Without Sin, But Because of the Nuptial Relation the Sin is Venial.” Marriage and Concupiscence
I had 16 years of Catholic education at a time when nearly all teachers were vowed and never did we go over such problems. I only happened upon them by reading most of Augustine and all of the Summa after college.
Post a Comment