No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2025
Fr. Brodrick’s main contention in his reply to my criticism of his Life of Bd. Robert Bellarmine is that practically the whole of my criticism is drawn from the eighteenth century History of Hyacinth Serry, O.P., which he would have his readers believe is full of fables, falsehoods, calumnies, etc., and has long since been discredited as a serious attempt to throw light on the Great Controversy.
Moreover, Serry’s Historia derives its matter from documents or ‘Acts’ which were condemned by Pope Innocent X in a decree issued in 1654. According to this decree, these ‘Acts,’ together with the alleged Bull of Paul V, ‘are to be given no credence whatsoever.’ Throughout his article Fr. Brodrick calls these documents the ‘Condemned Acts,’ and Denzinger-Bannwart (Enchir. Symbol. No. 1079) is quoted in confirmation. To throw doubt still further on Serry’s Historia as worthy of credence, Fr. Brodrick mentions for the benefit of his readers the muchdisputed opinion that the Jansenist Quesnel prepared the Historia for the press, and (as a final thrust) that after a year of its publication the Historia was prohibited by the Spanish Inquisition.
1 Neither Fr. Brodrick nor the Editor of Denzinger’s Enchirid. Symbol. think it wise to mention Serry’s complete confutation of de Meyer.
2 The MSS. of Coronel were obtained by a certain Jesuit for perusal ; they were so damaging to the Molinist cause that the said Jesuit destroyed them Fortunately, they had already been transcribed and are thus safeguarded to posterity. See Serry, Preface to History under Coronal.
3 Fr. Brodrick refuses to admit the testimony of Pegna because he was a ‘ hater of the Jesuits.’ Even if this were so, it would not prove his testimony to be false. As a matter of fact, he loved and esteemed the Jesuits, since he wrote a work against the Edict of Paris banishing the Jesuits from France. In that work he defends most valiantly the rights of the Jesuits. Would a hater of the Jesuits have thus defended and extolled them? See Serry, Preface to History under Pegna.
4 De Meyer wrote quite good poetry, in which the imagination has full play. It is a pity he did not confine his attention to hexameters!
5 See Serry, Historia, Lib. V ; Le Thotnisme Triomphunt, Art. 5, §1, and Apolog., Art. 7.
6 Cf. Dictionmire Historique, Seventh Edition, ‘ Pasquier Quesnel.’
7 ‘Tam impressis et imprimandis, quam manuscriptis nullam esse fidem adhibendam, sed tantum illis quae in authentica forma, solito sigillo et subscriptione Em. Card. Praefecti ac Secretarii ejusdem congregationis pro tempore existentis, rnunitae fuerint.’
8 Fagnani, I Decret. de Constit. Cap. Quoniam. Lezana, Quaest. Reg. Sac. Congreg.
9 We narrated in our second article in BLACKFRIARS (May) how two of these private documents of Bellarmine fell into the hands of the Dominican Lemos, and how trenchant was his criticism of them.
10 Which of course in the theory of simultaneous concurrence is the obvious and unanswerable difficulty which Moliistr labour in vain to solve.
11 In explaining how in the theory of pramotio physica the freewill is saved, Bellarmine wholly recedes from the doctrine of St. Thomas. Bellarmine’s explanation is wholly alien to the thought of the Angelic Doctor, so much so that even Suarez saw the inconsistency. The latter says: ‘ It can easily be shown how alien is this explanation from theological truth and how many absurdities, let alone inconveniences, follow from it’ (Suarez Opusc. I, De Conc. et effic. auxilio Dei, Lib. I, Cap. 9, n. 7; and Lib. 3, Cap. 13, n. 7, et seqq.) Having mentioned Suarez, I should like to recall here what Fr. Brodrick says of a certain remark of mine concerning that distinguished Jesuit. Fr. Brodrick says : ‘ Fr. Whitacre has thought well to repeat in the May BLACKFRIARS another remark attributed to the Pope by Serry, about the “ stupidities of Suarez.” Readers who know their Suarez will know what to think about this.’ Serry had these words of the Holy Father from the authentic Acts of Coronel : there is, therefore, no reason to doubt their truth. On the other hand, not a few theologians share in this same opinion of the Holy Father concerning Suarez. Even the great Cardinal Du Perron (who was acting on behalf of Henry IV of France in defence of the cause of Molina during the controversy) thought and spoke even more strongly than Clement VIII concerning Suarez. This is evidenced by his words spoken to the Bishops of Nantes and St. Victor : ‘ Suarez is as ignorant of the ancient dogmas as it is possible for any man to be. The Jesuits of Turin showed me a book written by Suarez: I pointed out passages written out of sheer ignorance, showing how inept and foolish they were, and, what is worse, that Suarez had falsified texts. X certain father, Coeffeteau, remarked: “But we think he is the greatest of metaphysicians.” I replied: “ Be it so, but his reasons are often the purest sophistry.” Of all those who have badly written on the Holy Eucharist, Suarez is the worst. ’ Cited from ‘ Perroniana ’ by Serry (Histaria, p. 447).
12 Fr. Brodrick playfully accuses me of not being sufficiently acquainted with the writings of Bellarmine. I can assure him that I studied two editions of the Controversies assiduously before writing my articles. Also I had before me the Recognitio Librorum, etc., in which Bellarmine begs future printers of his works. not to change the text. Evidence surely of the aforesaid mutilations.
13 What this trouble was between the Holy See and Venice, trouble in whish the Jesuits were very much concerned, we explained in our second article in BLACKFRIARS (May).