In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • «Lamentabili sane exitu» (1907). Les documents préparatoires du Saint Office
  • C. J. T. Talar
«Lamentabili sane exitu» (1907). Les documents préparatoires du Saint Office. Edited by Claus Arnold and Giacomo Losito. [Fontes Archivi Sancti Officii Romani, Vol. 6.] (Rome: Liberia Editrice Vaticana. 2011. Pp. XVI, 546. €60,00 paperback. ISBN 978-8-820-98587-5.)

This volume essentially picks up the story of Vatican resistance and censure of Roman Catholic modernism where the previous one edited by Claus Arnold and Giacomo Losito, La censure d'Alfred Loisy (1903, vol. 4 in the same series) left off. From discussions surrounding the censure of five of Loisy's works in 1903 there emerged a decision to draw up a list of errors as a defense of Catholicism against a generalized rationalist menace. Over the course of the document's development, the focus narrowed to Loisy and to the French exegetical "school" of which he was perceived to be head.

In a foreword Emile Poulat presents the major themes present in the final version of sixty-five propositions: critical exegesis and the ecclesial magisterium (1-9), inspiration and revelation (10-21), dogma (22-38), sacraments (52-57), and immutable truth (58-65). Those familiar with Loisy's modernist writings will readily discern the connections of these areas with those publications. The net, however, was originally cast more widely and, as the editors show, more intransigently than in the final version.

In the first of the two introductory essays, Arnold provides the background for the sequencing and significance of the published documentation. From the discussions in 1903 Domenico Palmieri and Pie de Langogne were each charged with drafting a basis for discussion. The first document in the [End Page 390] series reflects Palmieri's efforts to broadly connect Loisy with Kant's errors and exhibit the dangers of the exegete's theological "evolutionism," followed by ninety-three propositions in Latin with a theological qualification attached to each. De Langogne's text (document 2) broadened its perspective beyond Loisy to encompass the "progressive" French exegetical school that included Albert Houtin and Monsignor Eudoxe Irénée Edouard Mignot. A programmatic introduction was followed by 119 propositions, without theological qualification.

Both Palmieri and de Langogne, with the addition of Willem Van Rossum, were then tasked with collaborating on a third version (document 3) that was closer to de Langogne's draft and contained ninety-six propositions, sixty-six of which were judged "heretical." This joint effort then became the basis of discussion among consulters (represented in document 4) that show a moderating influence on some propositions, while discarding others. De Langogne contributed an additional document (5) examining the French hermeneutic of dogma represented by Edouard Le Roy that would figure in one of Lamentabili's propositions.

Document 6 presents the results of further discussion of each proposition by the cardinals and the consulters, which was then given over to Andreas Steinhuber, who was entrusted with the redaction of the introduction to the syllabus and who eliminated a few more propositions to arrive at the final sixty-five (document 7). The editors then give the final version of each proposition, together with its sources in earlier versions, as well as the propositions that were rejected.

The second introductory essay by Losito examines antimodernist activity in France and its links to the Vatican before focusing on de Langogne, who made use of this criticism in his drafts. The final version of Lamentabili is closest to the latter's vision and versions that he singled out for particular consideration. In a third section Lamentabili's impact on French public opinion is surveyed, and in the final one, the hierarchical exchanges that formed the background to Loisy's excommunication in 1908 are displayed.

In Simples réflexions (Ceffonds, 1907) Loisy attempted to identify the probable source of each proposition (facilitated by the fact that most came from his own writings). The publication of the archival documentation enables scholars not only to verify the source of a proposition but also to appreciate what the framers had in mind when they deemed it censurable. Arnold and Losito also give access to the differences among those involved in the...

pdf

Share