Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus I: Demonstratio Christiana
Hilarin Felder (1867–1951)
Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis
First published 1923
Hilarin Felder, O.M.Cap.'s Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus I—Demonstratio Christiana—is the Christian-demonstration half of a two-volume Latin manual of fundamental theology. First published at Paderborn in 1920 and revised in the second edition of 1923, it presents a neo-scholastic case for the historical revelation of Christ and the credibility of Christianity, using Scripture, history, and theological argument for classroom formation. Felder's work belongs to the mature manual tradition that shaped Catholic apologetics before the mid-century renewal. Schola presents the 1923 Latin edition with an English translation.
Praefatio
Epistola I: SS. D. Benedictus PP. XV (s. m.) opus collaudat
Introductio
§ I: Introductio theologica
Caput I: Theologiae notio
Caput II: Theologiae divisio
Caput III: Theologiae praestantia
§ II: Introductio apologetica
Caput I: Apologeticae definitio
Caput II: Apologeticae obiectum
Caput III: Apologeticae momentum
Caput IV: Apologeticae historia
Pars I: Demonstratio Christiana
§ I: Revelationis theoria
Caput I: De revelatione ontologice spectata
Articulus I: De natura revelationis
Subarticulus I: Notio revelationis
Subarticulus II: Divisio revelationis
Articulus II: De possibilitate revelationis
Subarticulus I: Possibilitas revelationis generatim
Subarticulus II: Possibilitas revelationis mysteriorum
Articulus III: De necessitate revelationis
Subarticulus I: Explicatur necessitas revelationis
Subarticulus II: Probatur necessitas revelationis
Caput II: De revelatione logice spectata
Articulus I: De criteriis revelationis in genere
Subarticulus I: Natura criteriorum
Subarticulus II: Expositio et aestimatio criteriorum
Subarticulus III: Criteria inepta
Articulus II: De miraculis
Subarticulus I: Natura miraculi
Subarticulus II: Possibilitas miraculi
Subarticulus III: Cognoscibilitas miraculi
Subarticulus IV: Simulacra miraculorum
Articulus III: De prophetiis
Subarticulus I: Natura prophetiae
Subarticulus II: Possibilitas prophetiae
Subarticulus III: Cognoscibilitas prophetiae
§ II: Revelationis exsistentia
Dissertatio I: Testimonium Iesu de messianitate et divinitate sua
Caput I: Testimonium Iesu de messianitate sua
Articulus I: Factum testimonii messiani Iesu
Subarticulus I: Factum professionis messianae Iesu generatim
Subarticulus II: Initium professionis messianae Iesu
Subarticulus III: Incrementum professionis messianae Iesu
Subarticulus IV: Complementum professionis messianae Iesu
Articulus II: Sensus testimonii messiani Iesu
§ I: Conceptus messianicus ante Iesum
Subarticulus I: Conceptus messianus Veteris Testamenti
Subarticulus II: Conceptus messianus recentioris iudaismi
§ II: Conceptus messianicus ipsius Iesu
Subarticulus I: Iesus reiecit messianismum rabbinicum et eschatologicum recentioris iudaismi
Subarticulus II: Iesus accepit et perfecit messianismum propheticum Veteris Testamenti
Caput II: Testimonium Iesu de divinitate sua
Articulus I: De divinitate Iesu manifestata ante ipsius mortem
Subarticulus I: Iesus se ipse confitetur esse Deum simpliciter
Subarticulus II: Iesus se ipse confitetur esse Filium Dei naturalem
Articulus II: De divinitate Iesu manifestata post ipsius mortem
Subarticulus I: Divinitas Iesu a resurrectione usque ad ascensionem
Subarticulus II: Divinitas Iesu in ecclesia primigenia
Subarticulus III: Divinitas Iesu apud S. Paulum
Subarticulus IV: Divinitas Iesu apud S. Ioannem
Dissertatio II: Argumenta Iesu pro messianitate et divinitate sua
Caput I: Character Iesu
Articulus I: Character intellectualis Iesu
Subarticulus I: Iesus nulla insaniae signa dedit
Subarticulus II: Iesus summa sapientiae signa praesetulit
Articulus II: Character moralis Iesu
Subarticulus I: Iesus immunis fuit ab omni peccato
Subarticulus II: Iesus insignis fuit summa virtute
Caput II: Vaticinia Iesu
Articulus I: Vaticinia Veteris Testamenti de Iesu Christo edita
Subarticulus I: Vaticinia de genealogia Christi
Subarticulus II: Vaticinia de chronologia Christi
Subarticulus III: Vaticinia de biographia Christi
Articulus II: Vaticinia Novi Testamenti a Iesu Christo edita
Subarticulus I: Vaticinia Christi quoad res simpliciter occultas
Subarticulus II: Vaticinia Christi quoad res simpliciter futuras
Caput III: Miracula Iesu
Articulus I: Veritas historica miraculorum Iesu
Subarticulus I: Documenta historica miraculorum Iesu
Subarticulus II: Critica historica miraculorum Iesu
Articulus II: Veritas philosophica miraculorum Iesu
Subarticulus I: Sanationes infirmorum
Subarticulus II: Eiectiones daemonum
Subarticulus III: Dominatio virium naturalium
Subarticulus IV: Resuscitationes mortuorum
Caput IV: Resurrectio Iesu
Articulus I: Demonstratio factorum
Subarticulus I: Fides discipulorum Iesu
Subarticulus II: Monumentum Iesu vacuum
The empty tomb of Jesus is an ineluctable argument for the resurrection of the Lord. Hence all unbelievers strain every nerve to deny that the tomb of Jesus was empty.1 Yet the testimony of the Gospels, of Paul, and of the contemporary Christians and Jews refutes them.
- The testimony of the Gospels. The evangelists narrate that the tomb was found and recognized as "empty" in this way:2 On the first day of the week (i. e. the first day of the week = Sunday) Mary Magdalene and the other women came early in the morning to the monument (all the evangelists), in order to anoint the body of Jesus (Mc, Lc). They found, however, the stone rolled away (all) and an angel of the Lord, who told them (the Synoptics)3 that Jesus had risen (the Synoptics) and was going before the disciples into Galilee (Mt, Mc). This message the women at first kept to themselves (Mc), then brought it only to the apostles (Mt, Lc). The apostles did not indeed believe the women's report (Lc); nevertheless Peter (Lc) and John (Io) came in haste to the tomb. John "ran faster than Peter and came first to the monument. And when he had stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying, yet he did not go in" (Io). Simon Peter then came following him, and went into the monument, and saw the linen cloths lying (Lc, Io) "and the napkin that had been upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who had come first to the monument, also went in, and he saw and believed" (Io).4
These texts, when harmoniously compared, show that the individual evangelists, under various circumstances, testify to one and the same principal fact: the discovery and recognition of the empty tomb. But those who testify to this fact knew it either from the mouth of eyewitnesses — namely Mark and Luke — or from their own eyewitness experience — namely Matthew and John. Therefore their testimony concerning the tomb found empty on the third day is most certain. There follows:
-
The testimony of Paul. Although the apostle of the Gentiles never says in explicit words that the tomb of Jesus was found empty, he nevertheless implicitly proclaims this as often as he announces the resurrection of the Lord. He always teaches that Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried, and that he rose again on the third day. "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died ... and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day."5 "And when they had fulfilled all things that were written of him, taking him down from the tree, they laid him in a monument. But God raised him up from the dead the third day ... But he whom God raised up from the dead saw no corruption."6 By these and similar expressions St. Paul openly supposes that the tomb of Jesus was found empty on the third day.7 Agreeing with this:
-
The testimony of the contemporary Christians and Jews. We have already shown that all the Christians of the first days both believed and preached the resurrection of Jesus. But how, I ask, could the conviction of the resurrection have arisen while the tomb stood closed before the eyes of all? Or how, I say, could that conviction, once born, not have been blunted when the tomb was found closed? Or how, finally, under this condition would the disciples have dared publicly to preach that Jesus, crucified and buried, had come forth alive from the tomb?
But while they nevertheless preached, and daily challenged the Jews with the resurrection,8 would not the people and the rulers of Israel have objected, and pointed with the finger at the tomb still closed and secured? Yet they did not object, nor point, nor ever contend that the body of Christ was still in the tomb; rather they spread the report that the disciples had stolen the corpse of Jesus after breaking open the tomb.9 So thoroughly were the Jews convinced that Jesus was no longer in the tomb.
It is therefore perfectly clear that the tomb of Jesus was empty on the third day. This fact, already established by the explicit testimony of the Gospels, the implicit testimony of Paul, and the tacit testimony of all Christians and Jews, is further confirmed by the apparitions of the risen Jesus.