Dezinger

[Lazerlike42]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes many references to Denzinger’s enchiridion. I was going to purchase Ott’s Fundamentals today, but I found that it seems to reference Denzinger’s more than actually naming the document.

Where may I obtain the enchiridion, or view it online, if possible?

 

[jimmy]

Lazerlike42:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes many references to Dezinger’s enchiridion. I was going to purchase Ott’s Fundamentals today, but I found that it seems to reference Dezinger’s more than actually naming the document.

Where may I obtain the enchiridion, or view it online, if possible?

Denzinger I think is out of print. You can get a used copy at amazon.com but it is from someone other than amazon.com selling through them.

I have heard that Ott’s book is more complete, but I haven’t read either so I am not sure.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Am I mistaken that Denzinger’s is required to use Ott’s book?

 

[jimmy]

Lazerlike42:

Am I mistaken that Denzinger’s is required to use Ott’s book?

I don’t think but you might have to get another opinion on that.

 

[jimmy]

Here is what one reviewer says about it on amazon.com.

Not often can a person say that he or she enjoys reading a reference book, but I can say that I read Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (FCD) for the sheer joy of it.

FCD is a systematic explanation of dogma. Whereas the “Denzinger” (Enchiridion Symbolorum) gives dogmatic sources chronologically, FDC lays out dogma according to topic.

FCD cites Denzinger in nearly every passage. (However, if you want to go back to check the Denzinger, you must have the correct edition, otherwise the numbers will not line up.) FDC also gives generous historical background and citations from Church Councils, Fathers, Popes, and theologians.

The first chapter, dealing with the background is alone worth the price of the publication. There is a section in which Ott lists the grades of theological certainty, followed by grades of theological censure. A person with a highlighter addiction could easily go crazy “color-coding” the dogmas.

What makes this book so easy to read is the fact that Ott gives a formula and that formula is immediately followed by the grade of certainty, followed by the explanation. I find that in my research I often begin with FDC because I know I can find the dogma I’m loking for very easily. Then I follow the textual trail he leaves, starting with Denzinger’s Enchiridion.

Sometimes the text runs a little dense visually. It would be nice to have a new typesetting that would be easier on the eyes.

FDC is simply an amazing book. For anyone who is interested in historic, systematic, and dogmatic theology, this book is it!

---

Nota bene: as it was this English translation was originally published in 1952, it has not been updated since the Second Vatican Council. There would really not be a lot of changes. The most notable change would be the dogma regarding an all-male priesthood. In FDC, there is a citation to Canon Law. Since Vatican II, and especially since John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, that dogma regarding an all-male priesthood has enjoyed a vast rise in its theological certainty. (We should also note that no dogmas can be “downgraded,” --even if they are honored more in the breech, as it were–so FDC remains a definitive sourcebook.)

 

[DeFide]

Lazerlike42:

Am I mistaken that Denzinger’s is required to use Ott’s book?

I find that Ott’s work is pretty comprehensible on its own, although it helps in places to know Latin, but it’s not required.

It’s a great resource, especially considering how much you get for a pretty modest price. Be sure to bookmark p. 9, so you can get an idea of what Theological Grades refer to.

 

[Lazerlike42]

DeFide:

I find that Ott’s work is pretty comprehensible on its own, although it helps in places to know Latin, but it’s not required.

It’s a great resource, especially considering how much you get for a pretty modest price. Be sure to bookmark p. 9, so you can get an idea of what Theological Grades refer to.

Does it allow you to reference Council or Papal documents? For instance, if you look up baptism, does it point to Trent or to some encyclical on it, or does it just say the teaching without telling you where it came from?

 

[Faithworks]

Denzinger in English can be purchased from Loreto Publications; see: www.loretopubs.org.

Also I use Ott’s book, “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” a lot. However, the title is somewhat misleading, for he goes well beyond both “fundamentals” and “dogmas.” If one looks at the theological grades of certainty on pp.9-10, you will see six grades listed. Dogmas properly fall in numbers 1 and 2 only. Yet, Ott lists dozens of teachings which fall in catagories 4 and 5, which clearly are not dogmas. The fifth Cat. really includes speculation, and neither 4 or 5 include binding teaching.

So, readers need to be aware of this so as not to become confused (as I know some have). Ott wrote it for seminarians and theology students, so certain things of his targeted audience, I’m sure, were presumed by him. TAN reprints it for a popular audience and many are unaware of what I just pointed out about the catagories/grades of theological certainty.

 

[Catholic2003]

Disclaimer: I don’t own any of these books, so I may be completely wrong about them.

Here is Denzinger in English (title: “Sources of Catholic Dogma”, $29.95), using the old D numbering.

“Enchiridion Symbolorum, Herder & Herder, ISBN 0824521501” (paper, $32.95) is Denzinger in Latin, using the new DS numbering but cross-referencing the old D numbering. It is probably available from Crossroad Publishing Company.

 

[Sean_O_L]

A CRITIQUE
by Fr. Camillus Hay, O.F.M.
OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA[1]
by Dr Ludwig Ott

Recently, on a Q & A Forum, Fr. Joe Horn, O.Praem.[2] requested of an enquirer the source of a particular statement; the reply was from Fundamentals Of Catholic Dogma, by Dr. Ludwig Ott. As the particular matter appeared to be questionable, Fr. Horn’s response was: “Good book. But it’s not an official document of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, on the other hand, is an official document. It is my duty in this forum (and as a priest) to clarify the official doctrines of the Church, not the opinions of Father X, Theologian Y, or Book Z.”

The wisdom of such a statement may be supported by the following article, which was written in 1960:

A RECENT THEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION[3]

When it first appeared in 1952, Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Grundriss der Katholischen Dogmatik was widely acclaimed and was translated into many European languages. In May, 1955, it was translated by Dr. Patrick Lynch and edited by James Canon Bastible, D.D., under the title Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Three years later, a second edition appeared and the editor, in a foreword, noted that “Dr. Ott’s work has appealed not only to priests and religious but to a very wide circle of layfolk.” In this article, we shall attempt to assess the value of this English translation.

Two problems, however, confront us. Firstly, we have not been able to procure a copy of the German original and consequently we have been forced to make a comparison between the French translation, Précis de Théologie Dogmatique published by Salvator-Casterman in 1955 (subsequently referred to as F) and the English translation of Bastible-Lynch (subsequently referred to as E). The reader will be left to draw his own conclusions concerning the value of the English translation on the basis of this comparison.

Secondly, the number of discrepancies between the translations is so great that we have been obliged to limit our detailed comparison to a mere ninety pages (E.352-415) which cover the Sacraments in general, and the special treatment of Baptism, Confirmation and the Blessed Eucharist. Even within this narrow scope, we can select only a few of the very many discrepancies.

We may divide our analysis into two main sections. The first concerns patent errors which are found in E; the second details passages which are extremely obscure and ambiguous in E and which are presented clearly and logically in F.

A. ERRORS -

Read the FULL ARTICLE

But, please note - it is NOT a critique of the original German or French editions and the contents thereof, but of the ENGLISH translation.

Nevertheless, any trained theologian would recognize and make compensations for the English translation.

 

[USMC]

Lazerlike42:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes many references to Denzinger’s enchiridion. I was going to purchase Ott’s Fundamentals today, but I found that it seems to reference Denzinger’s more than actually naming the document.

Where may I obtain the enchiridion, or view it online, if possible?

If deciding between the two, there is no question about it: Get Denzingers. Denzingers is a collection of magisterial documents - both ordinary and extraordinary - beginning with the first Creeds of the Church and ending with Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII (1950).

If you read that book you will do a great deal to form and strengthen your faith, and that is very important in this day of doctrinal ambiguity and confusion.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Which book and edition ought I to get if I am to reference things like the Catechism?

 

[Sean_O_L]

USMC wrote:

Denzingers is a collection of magisterial documents - both ordinary and extraordinary - beginning with the first Creeds of the Church and ending with Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII (1950).

The last entry from Pope Pius XII in my copy of Denzigers is on “The Definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary [From the Apostolic Constitution, *‘Munificentissimus Deus,’ Nov. 1, 1950]”

*Denzinger *THE SOURCES OF CATHOLIC DOGMA Translated by Roy Deferrari from the Thirtieth Edition of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, Loreto Publications, Imprimatur April 25, 1955.

 

[USMC]

Sean O L:

USMC wrote:

The last entry from Pope Pius XII in my copy of Denzigers is on "The Definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary [From the Apostolic Constitution, *'Munificentissimus Deus

,’ Nov. 1, 1950]"

*Denzinger *THE SOURCES OF CATHOLIC DOGMA Translated by Roy Deferrari from the Thirtieth Edition of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, Loreto Publications, Imprimatur April 25, 1955.

Yes, you are right. It ends with the definition of the Assumption.

But I really wish I would not have looked at the publication information of my edition. Like your it was translated by Roy Defferrari from the Thirtieth Edition of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, Loreto Publications, Imprimatur April 25, 1955.

The only difference is that mine was revised by… Karl Rhaner!!!

 

[Sean_O_L]

USMC wrote:

The only difference is that mine was revised by… Karl Rhaner!!!

Yes - mine is also the same - however, it WAS revised in 1954 AND does carry the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. I know that “trads” jump up and down over the Rahner connection (or deletions) - but, my advice is the same as in the critique of the English translation of Dr Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (see Critique of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma ) - a competent theologian can see any problems - and an untrained person ought to obtain professional advice anyway; Sola Dogma is sorta like Sola Scriptura - a minefield for the unwary.

 

[Catholic2003]

Lazerlike42:

Which book and edition ought I to get if I am to reference things like the Catechism?

The Catechism uses DS numbers. You can certainly look these up in the latest Latin edition of Denzinger, but it will take you to a Latin document.

I don’t know if or how you can look up DS number in the English version of Denzinger.

 

[Catholic2003]

The Christian Faith: In the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church ed. by Josef Neuner and Jacques Dupuis has a cross-reference in the back between their numbering and the DS numbers.