Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus I: Demonstratio Christiana

Hilarin Felder

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. Yet the testimony of the Gospels, of Paul, and of the contemporary Christians and Jews refutes them.

  1. The testimony of the Gospels. The evangelists narrate that the tomb was found and recognized as "empty" in this way: 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) 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).

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:

  1. 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." "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." By these and similar expressions St. Paul openly supposes that the tomb of Jesus was found empty on the third day. Agreeing with this:

  2. 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, 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. 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.

Subarticulus III: Apparitiones Iesu redivivi

Articulus II: Explicatio factorum

Subarticulus I: Explicatio fidei discipulorum

Subarticulus II: Explicatio monumenti Iesu vacui

Subarticulus III: Explicatio apparitionum Iesu redivivi

Conclusio I: Conclusio demonstrationis christianae

↑ Top of work