PART TWO - The theologian's opinion and the judgment of the Magisterium in doctrinal matters
(Read Part One here)
However, it is true that Rahner, as is well known, had a significant role in preparing the documents of the Council as an assistant expert to Cardinal König. He particularly influenced the pastoral documents, which he then commented on in numerous publications and lectures, earning him fame and authority worldwide. Rahner, who already had a reputation as a scholar, presented himself as a serious, reliable, balanced, profound, and almost mystical theologian, without revolutionary attitudes or pre-conciliar conservatisms.
He pretended to present himself in this way because it contributed to his success and prestige, especially among the episcopate. Unlike Luther, who cordially despised all bishops and made no secret of it, Rahner cunningly sought to gain their favor, at least with the more naive, vain, and less prepared of them. It is not far-fetched to see this as the result of a plot by Freemasonry’s agenda, not very far from Rahner's ideas and the pockets of certain (German) bishops (and ecclesial lay apparatus, Ed.).
[ Ed.: Following the proceedings from the recent Frankfurt synodal assembly floor and being immersed in the wider context of the German Catholic Church underscores that something far more systematic and sinister is afoot, of which the proposals that get the headlines are merely the destructive fruits. The Synodal Way’s problems are at the roots of the entire enterprise: a three-pronged foundation of fatally flawed theological premises, coercive tactics to force compliance and a spirit of prideful disobedience. The result is a project in which the universal faith of the Catholic Church — which is taught by the magisterium, expressed in the Catechism, and held by the faithful worldwide — is all but undetectable. In other words, it faced a multigenerational crisis of catechesis in Germany, in which basic instruction was foregone by pastors educated by an academic theology establishment hostile to the Popes.
In his Principles of Catholic Theology (1989), Joseph Ratzinger provided a description of at least one of the dynamics apparently at play: an inversion of the German theologian Karl Rahner’s Hegelian-influenced equation of prevailing human opinions with Christianity.
“If the teachings of Christianity are the universally human, the generally held views of man’s reason, then it follows that these generally held views are what is Christian,” the future Pope Benedict XVI wrote, describing how this view undermines the authority of the Church. “If that is the case, then one must interpret what is Christian in terms of the universal findings of man’s reason.”
Further, few outsiders understand the degree to which the German episcopacy is effectively hemmed in by a powerful and actively hostile lay ecclesial apparatus. Enriched by the government-collected “church tax,” the Catholic Church in Germany employs 800,000 people, a number nearly as high as the total number of German Catholics who go to Mass most Sundays (900,000) (bold mine, Ed.). In fact, many Church workers in Germany do not participate in basic practices of the Catholic faith, like Sunday Mass, nor agree with the Church’s core teachings.
In several other instances at the Frankfurt assembly, delegates and leaders spoke of canon law, doctrine, and Church disciplines as, at best, bureaucratic red tape to be overcome on the way to a predetermined outcome, rather than as legitimate expressions of the faith to be received and shaped by.
This kind of spirit of disobedience is not new. The German bishops rejected Humanae Vitae and its ban on artificial contraception with the 1968 “Declaration of Königstein,” which has never been formally rescinded. German Catholics regularly speak of a kind of “Deutscher Katholizismus” that views itself as above and beyond what the Vatican or the rest of the universal Church has to say.
A reflection of a short rhyme made famous by Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1907, which many German Catholics themselves say, still characterizes the German mentality: Am deutschen Wesen mag die Welt genesen (“The German way of being will heal the world”). (cf.:
https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/the-anti-synod-flawed-theology-intimidation-tactics-and-downright-disobedience-define-germany-s-synodal-way Jonathan Liedl, NCR) ]
However, for our consolation - and it could not be otherwise - it must be said that the entire magisterium of Paul VI, with its rich, scholarly, and clear exposition and defense of Catholic doctrine, implicitly refutes Rahner's errors. Therefore, no one can find any support for Rahner's errors in the magisterium of Paul VI. The Pope, for his part, did not like to call by names. Still, it is easy to recognize Rahner's ideas in some of his general condemnations or complaints about what he called the "parallel magisterium" that led to a "self-destruction of the Church."
The Current Situation and the Bishop-Theologian Relationship
With the enormous circulation of ideas and messages made possible by modern means of communication, Catholics who care about the truth of Catholic doctrine now have access to an immense quantity of pronouncements, teachings, doctrines, opinions, experiences, theories, judgments, positions, accounts, proclamations from diverse sources with varied value: from the Supreme Pontiff, "friends of the Pope," Cardinals, Bishops, priests, theologians, synods, congresses, journalists, philosophers, sociologists, politicians, psychologists, historians, writers, illiterate individuals, actors, novelists, singers, poets, prophets, seers, not to mention messages and warnings from those who claim to have received them directly from the Virgin Mary or Padre Pio, or before awakening from death or from extraterrestrials or from the souls of the deceased. Here, I would like to briefly compare the competencies of the theologian and those of the Church's magisterium regarding the problem of judging and how to judge doctrines that appear erroneous or suspected of heresy.
Already in the early centuries, heretical theologians and bishops appeared, so one of the essential functions of the Petrine ministry has always been to refute heresies and punish heretics, as St. Paul himself prescribes to the bishop: "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, carry out your work as the herald of the Gospel, fulfill your ministry" (2 Timothy 4:1-5).
We also have the Letter to Titus: "As for a bishop, as God's steward, he must be... holding firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it" (Titus 1:7-9). The Apostle provides examples of "many insubordinate men, empty talkers, and deceivers" who must have their mouths stopped because they upset whole families by teaching things they ought not to train for the sake of dishonest gain (Titus 1:10-11).
An example of how the theologian must work in harmony and submission to the Magisterium, as an aid, support, instrument, and defense of the Magisterium, with proper autonomy and legitimate freedom of research, is undoubtedly represented by St. Thomas Aquinas. He has a vivid and clear awareness of the field in which he is allowed to express his opinions or propose new solutions or criticisms of opponents, as well as the sphere reserved for the Church's Magisterium, which is an unquestioned authority for Aquinas. He draws arguments and sources from it to build his theology and refute heretics.
He also knows how to modestly and collaboratively propose theological doctrines to the Magisterium, some of which have even been dogmatized. For example, the doctrine of the human soul as the form of the body, the divine person as subsistent relation, or the beatific vision. Sometimes he anticipates the Magisterium by centuries, as was the case with his thesis on the distinction of sexes in the future resurrection, a doctrine that was approved and embraced by Pope St. John Paul II.
St. Thomas never engages in discussions or makes observations to the Pope regarding his private opinions, political stance, way of governing the Church, pastoral approach, or moral conduct. It can be said that all of this goes beyond the strict duty of a theologian. It was the style of the great scholastics of the Middle Ages, who, moreover, lived in a fortunate period of the Papacy. Only in the 11th century did St. Peter Damian and in the 12th century did St. Bernard call the Pope back to his duty. Critics of papal power, who sometimes crossed the line into rebellion, were primarily heretics, starting with the Cathars and Waldensians, and in the 14th century with William of Ockham. Criticism of the papacy intensified with the Western Schism, within orthodoxy in St. Catherine of Siena, and with subsequent heretical tendencies in Wycliffe and Hus.
But the theologian who first deeply engaged, with vigor and not without reason, in denouncing abuses of papal power against the Germans was undoubtedly Martin Luther. He was inspired by the Augustinian pastoral way of doing theology but, as is known, he went beyond all reasonable limits, falling into heresy.
However, the example of Luther, purified from his intolerable excesses, has left a mark on the relationship between theologian and Pope, a style that especially began with the Jesuit theologians such as Francisco Suarez and St. Robert Bellarmine, continued in the 19th century with the Blessed Antonio Rosmini, and reached our days: a high theological doctrine accompanied by a strong pastoral concern and sincere passion for the good of one's time. In this way, even modern Thomists, such as Congar and Maritain [5], especially after the Council, have embraced this pastoral and kerygmatic openness in theology, not only offering their own contributions but also sparing no criticism of authority when it is legitimate and useful.
Two examples not to follow
Instead, two examples not to follow are those of Luther and Rahner. At first glance, both may give the impression of being driven by an eagerness for reform and renewal, greater spiritual freedom, and evangelical simplicity. They seem to extract the core, essence, and substance of Christian life, freeing it from externalities, vanities, and worldly slaveries. They display audacious confidence in God, strong dedication to their profession as servants of the Word of God, fighting against the forces of the "old man," listening to the Holy Spirit, and devoting themselves to the good and reform of the Church and the promotion of a better Christian life and the salvation of souls. Their intensive and prodigious activity is remarkable.
However, considering the lives and works of these two famous theologians, we see a significant difference from St. Thomas. It must be said frankly that, for different reasons, they cannot be considered good examples of how a theologian should relate to the Bishop or the Pope. Their theologizing does not respect the norms I have outlined regarding the relationship between the theologian's opinion and the judgment of the Magisterium concerning matters of doctrine.
Regarding Luther, it must be said that his famous protest on the matter of indulgences could indeed express the concern of a theologian in communion with the Bishop. However, deeply and secretly Luther for some years resented the traditional doctrine of the necessity of works for salvation, preached by the pontifical Magisterium.
In fact, the famous "tower experience" (Turmerlebins) occurred yet in 1515, about which Luther affirms that "the gates of paradise opened" to him because he became convinced that Christ had promised to save him regardless of any works he might have done of his own free will.
Now, even in the 95 Theses, this resentment begins to emerge, ready to unleash itself like a sleeping lion, destined to gradually destroy almost all the teachings of the pontifical Magisterium over the following years, leaving only the fundamental tenets of faith intact.
The underlying reason for this resentment seems to become clear to Luther in the condemnation by the papal Bull “Exsurge, Domine” of his conviction, which was the foundation of his consolation: "If we believe and trust that we will obtain grace, this faith alone makes us pure and worthy" (n.15).
At this point, the Pope appears to him as an enemy of his salvation, someone who closes the gates of paradise instead of opening them. Hence, Luther's hatred of the Pope. It is evident that, under these circumstances, the collaboration between the theologian and the Magisterium breaks down. The theologian no longer evaluates doctrines by submitting them to the judgment of the Magisterium; instead, the Magisterium itself becomes the object of contempt and condemnation. While before, the theologian in communion with the Magisterium listens to the same Holy Spirit that assists the Magisterium, now Luther believes he alone possesses the Holy Spirit against the Papacy, which he sees as "founded by the devil."
As for Rahner's theological method, it initially appears quite different from Luther's. Rahner does not display a furious attack against the Papacy. However, this does not mean that he does not know how to instill poison and undermine Catholic truth through cunning sophisms, pretending to serve the Church of the Conciliar reform.
While Luther breaks completely with the Papacy, Rahner has always pretended to honor it throughout his life, following it step by step, but corroding and hollowing it from within like a termite that seems to leave the consumed table intact but crumbles it with a mere touch.
The masterpiece of this approach to the Papacy, in my opinion, is Rahner's understanding of papal infallibility. He pretends to oppose Küng but actually confirms his heresy through a subtle perversion of the very concept of truth. Rahner in fact distinguishes between "being in the truth" and "possessing true propositions." [6] Being in the truth would mean "that supreme and free decision and the fundamental situation in which one is in the truth." This refers to his famous "transcendental athematic and pre-conceptual transcendental experience" that, according to Rahner, characterizes the self-transcending human spirit towards God.
According to Rahner, it is possible for a person, despite being fundamentally in the truth, to "accept many false propositions and not realize the contradiction with that supreme and free decision" ineffable and transcendental. But it does not matter. The person is still in the truth in that preconscious, experiential, and non-conceptual form that Rahner calls "transcendental." Applying this distinction, one understands where Rahner is heading: to say that the Pope is infallible in a transcendental sense but not in a categorical and thematic sense.
The problem is that, as I have several times demonstrated in my publications [7], the so-called "transcendental experience of truth" does not exist; it is an invention of Rahner's Heideggerian Hegelianism. Now Rahner would like to go so far as to say that Pope Paul VI is infallible in a metaphysical sense but not in a categorical sense. But is this not a sophisticated way to mock papal infallibility? In this regard, Luther and Küng are more frank and straightforward when they say that the Pope can simply be wrong.
Rahner is wrong in distinguishing an irreformable Magisterium from a reformable Magisterium. All three levels of Magisterial authority are irreformable in the sense that the Church teaches the truth through all of them, and she does not err, even if at the second level she does not intend to define, and at the third level, she does not intend to declare definitively or forever.
Another difference is that while Luther's method is that of barbaric destruction, Rahner's unctuous method is that of cunning falsification under the appearance of lofty wisdom and ineffable mystical experience of the Christian mystery. The style is often pompous, heavy, and complicated, although effective phrases and profound and ingenious expressions are not lacking. This is in contrast to Luther's sharp, vivid, popular, paradoxical, emotional, vivid, and powerful style. Rahner, unlike Luther, mostly maintains a Catholic and even scientific language, but he uses it to clothe it with existentialist, immanent, and historicist contents where Gnosticism alternates with agnosticism, coming close to Hegel and not far from Luther.
Another difference is that both Luther and Rahner present themselves as advocates and reformers of theology. They do so in seemingly very different worlds, but the sense they give to this reform is essentially the same: to replace the pontifical Magisterium with their own theology. Luther does it openly, violently, and belligerently, overwhelming like a hurricane, full of insults and calumnies against opponents and the Supreme Pontiff.
Rahner, on the other hand, acts with extreme cunning, calculation, circumspection, and duplicity, but no less dangerously, because in the end, he does an even more destructive job than Luther. In Luther, there remains a certainty in the truth of the Word of God, and the realistic and conceptual framework of Christianity is still preserved. However, in Rahner, the athematic experience of truth, devoid of dogmatic or conceptual formulation, which he considers relative, mutable, and subjective, appears as an indistinct autumnal mist where, under the pretext of the "ineffable and nameless Mystery," there is everything and its opposite, that famous Absolute of Schelling, which is "a night where all cows are black."
The tasks of the theologian and the Bishop
One of the tasks of the theologian is to contribute, to the best of their abilities and with the means at their disposal, to the advancement of knowledge and deepening of the Word of God, both in the dogmatic and moral fields. They are called to show us new and unsuspected aspects of the divine mystery, thereby enhancing our contemplation of the divine attributes and the Trinitarian mystery. They are also called to show us new and better ways to fulfill the divine commandments and to more perfectly and holily practice God's will.
However, the proposal or new theoretical or moral thesis put forth by the theologian may initially appear unreasonable and scandalous, even false and heretical, in conflict with Sacred Scripture, dogma, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church. What should be done then?
It is good that other experienced and competent theologians carefully assess and provide an evaluation, while it is also good, in principle, for the Magisterium to allow reasonable freedom of discussion and debate so that the truth may emerge and it can be determined whether it is a sound novelty or a deviation from the truth.
It is necessary to examine the premises from which the suspicious theologian started or on which they based their apparently anomalous or disruptive conclusions. It is important to verify if these premises or foundations are valid or not. And if they are valid, it is necessary to see if the deduction was correct. It is crucial to understand what the suspected theologian means to say because they may even express good things poorly.
And who should carry out this verification, primarily according to the law? The most qualified and competent individuals, in principle, are fellow theologians, especially those who teach in the same discipline, and the competent ecclesiastical authority, starting with the religious superior of the theologian if they are a religious, or the local Ordinary where the theologian resides, or the Rector of the Faculty where the theologian teaches.
Today, there is an abnormal ecclesial and theological climate of proclaimed "mercy" and "dialogue," but in reality, it is filled with hypocrisy, prejudice, partisanship, denunciation, and intimidation. This climate is equal to the incompetence of those who pretend to judge and condemn, and it often happens that suspicions of disobedience, lack of ecclesial communion, falsehood, defamation, or moral unworthiness fall precisely on a few theologians or potentially traditionalist lay faithful who have the courage to denounce, even reasonably, the errors, scandals, or heresies of certain modernist colleagues. Conversely, no measures are taken against them, as they are supported by an elite of powerful and widely popular fellowship guys within the Church (bold mine, Ed.). These are true injustices that need to be rectified.
Some argue that a theologian cannot declare the proposition or doctrine of another theologian as heretical before the local or Roman ecclesiastical authority has officially pronounced it. However, it is quite a coincidence that these are the same people who support the same heresies as those whose doctrines are noticed as heretical by the same theologians they wish to silence and accuse of presumption. (Cicero pro domo sua.)
But this does not at all correspond to the legitimate faculty and responsibility of the theologian, who, if he certainly does not have the right, the duty, and the faculty to express or formulate an official and definitive judgment in the matter of heresy or in a cause of heresy- pertaining to the diocesan or Roman judge at the end of a regular process-, however, on the basis of his competence as a theologian, no one prevents him from formulating, after careful examination, also as a consultant to the prosecution or the accused at the trial [8], a judgment or opinion, certain or probable, concerning whether or not the given proposition is heretical of one of his theologian colleagues, alive or deceased, whether or not the ecclesiastical authority has given his opinion on the matter.
While they certainly do not have the right, the duty, or the sacramental charism of vigilance and discernment that exclusively belongs to the Bishop, they should still see themselves as aids and collaborators of the Bishop in guarding against the pitfalls and seductions of error, especially if they hold official positions in the diocese related to this matter. The Bishop cannot know everything and needs to be informed. And the most qualified person to inform him is the theologian, even though, when heresy is evident and notorious, and no particular precision is required to recognize it, this task can be performed by any faithful individual.
Then we have those champions of "respect for others" and "theological pluralism" who pretend to be humble and incompetent in judgment but are actually ambitious and falsely modest individuals. They instrumentalize faith for their own interests, eager to stand out and have a place in the Church. They bend to ideas, even if heretical, of those powerful individuals from whom they hope to obtain favors, benefits, and perhaps a teaching position at the theological faculty.
The first thing the theologian must do when they encounter a suspected heresy is to consider the suspicious proposition solely from a theoretical or speculative perspective. They should ascertain whether it is a true or false proposition, abstaining from passing judgment on the guilt or innocence of this heresy. It is true that heresy is a mortal sin, but if the person has fallen into it without pride and obstinacy, but only out of ignorance and being deceived in good faith, they are innocent before God, even though the heretical proposition may cause serious harm to the Church.
At a later stage, if the heretic reveals themselves to be hypocritical, ambitious, deceptive, cunning, impious, envious, arrogant, attached to success, overbearing, and cruel, the theologian, mindful of the duty of charity and working for the salvation of souls, an attempt to touch the conscience of the heretic to lead him to repentance. However, this is even more the task of the Superior or the Bishop of the heretic. It is at this point that the Bishop, providing for the good of the flock, can consider coercive or punitive measures provided by law.
For both the theologian, a disciple of faith, and even more so for the Bishop, a teacher of faith, it is important, indeed necessary, to remain on the path of truth, being able to discern and distinguish - in the Catholic vision of the reality of God, the world, humanity, and the Church in every age - what is absolutely true, the Word of God, which cannot change because it is immutable, but only be deepened, reinforced, better known, and improved, from what is apparently unchanging in a given historical period, even spanning centuries and millennia. Yet, this can, in the prophetic gaze of those who can discern, be surpassed, corrected, and abandoned by a more advanced stage of theological reflection and even more so by magisterial teaching because it is not necessarily connected to the truth of faith or divine law, and because it is an expression that, overall, is contingent and temporary of the previous ecclesial custom, whose arrangement depends on the jurisdictional power of the Pope [9].
Thus, for centuries and millennia, a view of women prevailed in the Church that, as a whole, appeared unchanging but was actually a combination of immutable and transitory elements. However, no one had ever thought of conducting a serious examination and preserving the former while discarding the latter.
The Magisterium of the Church never thought of addressing the issue head-on and allowed the old, now outdated, conception of the inferiority and captivating and tempting fragility of women to remain in the common domain for many centuries, even among theologians. It took a great philosopher, theologian, nun, saint, and prophet like Edith Stein, daughter of Israel, to open our eyes, preparing, as early as the 1930s, what would be the luminous magisterium that has come from Pius XII to Pope Francis.
[ Ed.: I think the Italian reader will be interested in a quite brief but sound essay on her, written by my wife, Maria Amata di Lorenzo, “Il canto segreto di Edith”]
The theologian, in short, as clarified very well by Monsignor Antonio Livi [10], can undoubtedly reach certain conclusions, but they must always distinguish their fallible opinions from the certain and immutable contents of the Magisterium of the Church, whether they are of the first degree, new dogmas defined to be believed with divine faith, or of the second degree, truths or natural facts connected to dogma to be believed with ecclesiastical faith, or of the third degree, authentic doctrine in matters of faith and morals to be accepted with religious obedience of intellect and will. At all three of these levels, the Church always teaches a certain, undeniable, and irreformable truth, meaning she never makes mistakes.
It is a great disaster for the theologian, on the other hand, and for those who listen to him, presumptuously absolutize their own ideas, as Rahner does, and relativize the teachings of the Magisterium, as if they were the result of ignorance or a particular, perhaps outdated, theology incapable of understanding the high reasons of the theologian.
Furthermore, the theologian can prophetically anticipate the doctrine of the Magisterium, but they must submit to the decisions of the Magisterium of their own time, even if they are contrary to their views. An example in this regard comes from the Servant of God Father Joseph Lagrange, who, although he had anticipated modern Catholic historical-critical biblical exegesis, serenely accepted the humiliation of renouncing it by the intervention of his superiors. However, at the end of his life, he saw the beginning of its triumph, which was a continuous ascent, first with Benedict XV and then with Pius XII, culminating fully with the Document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" on April 15, 1993. Vir oboediens loquetur victorias (The obedient man will speak of victories).
Additionally, the theologian must collaborate with the Pope primarily in matters concerning faith and morals. However, as a member of the Church living in time and among human affairs, they are not prohibited from expressing opinions or criticisms to the Pope regarding his moral conduct, pastoral approach, way of governing the Church, and his relationship with the world of politics. Luther availed himself of this faculty and, taking advantage of the scandal of indulgences, protested against the greed and oppression of the Roman Curia through the prince-bishops concerning the German people. Even today, the theologian maintains this faculty towards the current Pope, although the reasons for concerns are naturally quite different.
Moreover, the theologian must be aware of their own fallibility. They are not prohibited from occasionally conducting a check-up of their own knowledge to verify if it is fully in line with the Magisterium. In these verifications, perhaps prompted by fellow theologians, they may discover that they were mistaken. Likewise, when they feel the desire to criticize another theologian, they must question whether they themselves might be the ones in error.
If Luther, at the beginning of his criticisms of the Pope, had the humility to listen to the advice, admonitions, and criticisms of his superiors, bishops, and fellow theologians, he would not have fallen into the heresies he did due to his pride and stubbornness. But Rahner also demonstrated a similar pride, blinded by success, favored by complacent or naive superiors, and overly confident in his unquestionable first-rate intellectual qualities.
Unlike Luther, who stormed out, slamming the door, Rahner proceeded with stealthy steps, cunningly damaging the Church from within—the "smoke of Satan" (a quite famous remark by St. Paul VI (Ed.)) —remaining a religious and a priest, and even looking like a pious and mystical man, so much so that many did not notice it. Even today, as we see the disastrous fruits of Rahnerism in the moral field, many fail to realize its origins and, like Don Ferrante of Manzonian memory, search for them in the wrong direction, such as in "clericalism" or social inequalities or right-wing government’s agendas and similar amenities.
Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli OP
Fontanellato, May 29, 2019
source:
https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/p/il-parere-del-teologo-e-il-giudizio-del.html
[1] Cf. Dialogues of Divine Providence, cc. 119, 121, 125, 129.
[2] Such as St. Dominic, St. Francis, or St. Francis de Sales.
[3] Cf. my book Karl Rahner. Il Concilio tradito, Edizioni Fede&Cultura, Verona 2009.
[4] Cf. Spirito nel mondo, Edizioni Vita e Pensiero, Milan 1989; Uditori della parola, Edizioni Borla, Rome 1977.
[5] See his works published by Morcelliana of Brescia: “Per una politica più umana” of 1968; Strutture politiche e libertà of 1968; and “Il filosofo nella società” of 1976.
[6] Rahner Lehmann Löhrer respond to "Infallible?" by H. Küng, Edizioni Paoline, Rome 1971, p.35.
[7] For example, IL PROBLEMA DEL “PRECONSCIO” IN MARITAIN, Divus Thomas, 7, 1994, pp. 71-107.
[8] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Regulation for the Examination of Doctrines, June 29, 1997, arts. 10, 12, and 18.
[9] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, May 24, 1990, n. 24.
[10] Vera e falsa teologia. Come distinguere l’autentica «scienza della fede» da un’equivoca «filosofia religiosa», Casa Editrice Leonardo da Vinci, Rome 2012.
[11] Cf. Bernard Montagnes, Marie-Joseph Lagrange. Un biblista al servizio della Chiesa, Edizioni ESD, Bologna 2007.