From: "Br. Alexis Bugnolo"[1] editor@franciscan-archive.org
To: "John Loughnan" jloughnan@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - and other files
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:18:45 -0500
Dear Mr. Loughnan,
Thank you for this notification.
I was particularly interested in the critique of Fr. Ott's book in English; since I used it for a TV series.
Yes, there are errors, evidently; but these are stuff for corrections in a new edition; none of them are so major as to lead someone who knows theology awry. I am surprised that Fr. Hay does not point out that Fr. Ott opposed the Co-redemption; this is a major fault.
On this point, there are a number of Theological errors in the English edition:
E:211, line 31 "Although Christ is the Sole Mediator between God and Man ..." and again at E 212: 5th line from bottom "sole Mediator" is FALSE, for the Greek in 1 Tim 2:5 is "eis" (cf. The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Alfred Marshall, Zondervan, 1958, p. 823) which means "one" in the sense of "first" (cf. Mt. 28:1;Analytical Greek Lexicon, Samuel Bagster Publishers, 1967, London, p. 119) not in the sense of "only" or "sole", which in Greek is "monos" {cf. Mt. 14:23, 18:15, Lk 10:40, Jn 17:3 etc.; Analytical Greek Lexicon, Samuel Bagster Publishers, 1967, London, p. 272)
E 212: penultimate lines: "she could not of herself merit the grace of the redemption of humanity in accordance with the principle: Principium meriti non cadit sub eodem merito) .. " This is erroneous, for on this basis Christ's Immaculate Human nature which was the condition for the Incarnation was itself meritied by Christ as The Word upon the Cross. The error consists in not distinguishing that what Christ merited for all, even Himself, is the basis for His title as Redeemer; but that the basis of Mary's title as Corredemptrix is not all, strictly speaking which Christ merited --Mary did not merit what Christ mertied for Himself and for Her--but rather all which Christ merited for humanity, excepting Himself and Her.
E 213: lines 25 ff. Ott attempts to subvert the doctrine of Pope St. Pius X by saying "The statement of Pope Pius X in the Encylical "Ad diem Illum" (1904): (Beata Virgo) de congruo, ut aiunt, promeret nobis, quae Christus de condigno promeruit (D 1978 a) (The Blessed Virgin merits for us de congruo what Christ merited de condigno) is, as the present tense "promeret" shows, not indeed to be taken as referring to the historical objective Redemption, which occurred once and for all, but to her every-present, intercessory co-operation in the subjective redemption."
This is FALSE on two points: first "promeret" (She merits) is in the present tense not to refer to the present, but because of the indirect discourse introduced by "ut aiunt" (as they say), which Ott conveniently omits from his translation. Also "promeruit" (He merited" is in the perfect tense on account of the subordination of this clause to that of "promeret", and hence according to Latin grammer signifies the same time for the action, not a prior time, which would take the imperfect tense, cf Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the BVM, Michael O'Carrol, CSSp, Michael Glazier Publ., Wilmington, Delaware, p. 307, which translates "promeruit" with the present tense). Finally, his argument that "She merits" refers to Mary's present meriting for us as intercessory, is illogical, contradictatory and absurd, since merit is only possible to wayfares, i.e. those who still live in this world.
Furthermore L. Ott is silent about the teaching of Pope Benedict XV, "Inter Sodalicia", when he writes "so that we may well say that with Christ She redeemed mankind." If co-redemptrix meant only mediate and remote cooperation, one could scarecly say that "She redeemed mankind" in a "well" said manner.
--------
As for Fr. Hay's critique of the use of English ""Necessity is what cannot not be" (E340, line 3) is hardly English"
This is entirely false, in my opinion as a translator of scholastic theology.
You may, if you desire, post my comments on the co-redemption at your site; for the honor of the BVM.
Sincerely in Christ,
Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Jan. 26, 2001
Dear Brother Alexis,
I am most grateful for your message and for the matters raised.
I have no idea whether Fr. Hay was aware of those matters, but he seemed to have been of the opinion that the book contained many more errors. In fact he states: "...the of discrepancies between the translation is so great that we have been obliged to limit our detailed comparison to a mere ninety pages...which cover the Sacraments in general..."
Thus the errors in respect of Our Lady were in a part of the book not covered in his critique.
It is interesting, however, that Dr. Ott himself was wanting in respect of the coredemptrix - an aspect of which I was unaware, and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. I am afraid I am woefully ignorant on so many important matters.
Thank you also for granting permission, "for the honor of the BVM", to post your comments. I will gladly add them.
With kind regards and God bless you,
John
The following is from "Catholic Replies", by James J. Drummey, pp145/6.
"Q. A dear Catholic friend of mine told me it is her sincere feeling that the Virgin Mary is divine. I am only a convert, but I cannot see how this could be possible. Would it be wrong to believe in Mary's divinity? -- M.A.D., Missouri
Q. Please discuss Mary as co-redemptrix. What precisely are we to believe? --M.J.O., Minnesota
A. Yes, it would be wrong to believe that Mary is divine. What we are to believe is that Jesus is the one Mediator and the sole Redeemer, but His mother has been given a share in the saving role of her Son. While we give Mary the highest place in the Church after Jesus Himself, we do not consider her to be God's equal.
The Blessed Mother is 'invoked by the Church under the titles Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix,' said the Second Vatican Council. 'These, however, are to be so understood that they neither take away from nor add anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature could ever be classed with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer ... The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary. She experiences it continuously and commends it to the hearts of the faithful, so that encouraged by this maternal help they may more closely adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer' (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, n.62).
For a correct understanding of the Virgin Mary's unique place in the Church and the special veneration (the Greeks call it hyperdulia) that we pay to her, one can also read Chapter VIII of Vatican II's Constitution on the Church, Pope John Paul's encyclical letter Mother of the Redeemer, and paragraphs 963-975 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church."
Footnote:
[1] Br. Alexis Bugnolo's two web-site addresses are:
Franciscan Archive, The and,
Marian Archive
See also My Files on the SSPX |