Many years ago I was given a copy of the book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Doctor Ludwig Ott as a gift. I considered the reception of this gift to be a great blessing, in part because it was actually one of the catalysts that influenced my decision to pursue further studies in theology as opposed to philosophy. The other reason why I considered my possession of this classic Dogmatic Theology book to be a true blessing is because of the nature of the book. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma — as I said above — is a Dogmatic Theology book — Dogmatic Theology being the division of the science of theology which treats of “the theoretical truths of Revelation concerning God and His activity” to quote Ott’s definition.[1] After defining what Dogmatic Theology is and in what way it is a science in light of theology’s general scientific definition, Ott in his book goes on to present, define, and explain the various theological grades of certainty[2] — sometimes called the theological notes of certainty[3] — and their corresponding theological censures.[4] Theological grades or notes of certainty and theological censures are important to discuss in Dogmatic Theology — indeed in theology in general — because they tell Catholics positively the degree of assent in their intellects that they are required to give to certain propositions or teachings that the Church presents for belief which vary in their level of certitude, and the theological censures negatively reinforce the level of intellectual assent that a Catholic is required to give to the various propositions or teachings that the Church presents for belief as theological grades.[5] After presenting the various theological grades and their corresponding censures, Ott goes on to give a systematic presentation of various teachings in Dogmatic Theology, listing the theological grade that belongs to each teaching.[6] Aside from a few minor errors in this book,[7] Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is an excellent book to have[8] because — as I said above —it systematically presents the various teachings of Dogmatic Theology and the theological grades that belong to them, making this book an excellent guide or reference for both the Catholic and for the theologian.
However, one important thing that Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is lacking is the omission of the various theological grades that are assigned to certain teachings in Josephology.[9] For in book three of this book, contained in the part entitled The Doctrine of God the Redeemer, part one and part two of book three present various doctrines in Christology[10] and their assigned theological grades,[11] and part three presents the various teachings of Mariology[12] and their theological notes,[13] and yet there is no part four in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma treating of the various doctrines or teachings about Saint Joseph in Josephology and the theological grades of certainty that belong to them. There is no treatment of Saint Joseph in the part of Ott’s book which deals with the mystery of the Redemption, in spite of the fact that Joseph contributed significantly to our Redemption,[14] being in fact a Coredeemer or Coredemptor with Jesus and Mary.[15] Therefore, a section on Josephology would merit treatment in this part of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma because of Saint Joseph’s connection to the mysteries of the Incarnation and of the Redemption through being a Coredeemer or Coredemptor, and the fact that there is no such section for Josephology is — in my view — a serious imperfection in Ott’s book. Further, there exists three more reasons for why no section on Josephology is a flaw in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: 1) Josephology, as Father Francis Filas tells us, is a part of Dogmatic Theology, since it is a subdivision of Mariology and a further subdivision of Christology.[16] Hence, the fact that Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma has no section on Josephology and the theological grades attached to teachings about Saint Joseph is an omission of a significant and integral part of Dogmatic Theology; 2) other works in Dogmatic Theology like Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma include a section on Josephology after the section on Mariology, and these books in Dogmatic Theology were published around the same time that Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma was published, and some of them even earlier than the publication of Ott’s book,[17] so it is puzzling why Ott has omitted a section on Josephology in his book if many other books of the same type have a section on Josephology; 3) Scholastic Theologians and modern day theologians have actually assigned various theological grades or notes of certainty to various propositions touching on Josephology, and thus it puzzling why Ott would not mention such propositions about Saint Joseph and their theological grades in his book if they already existed long before its publication. Given these reasons, it is very surprising that a book with a caliber as high as that which Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma possesses does not have a section on Josephology, since this book is quite an excellent book, and indeed is a must-have for every Catholic and theologian. Nonetheless, it is not my intention to generate a harsh critique of this fantastic book, but rather to point out an essential thing that is missing from it which would make it that much better, not just for Catholics and theologians in general, but especially for Josephologists. This article will provide a presentation of the various teachings about Saint Joseph in Josephology, the theological grades of certainty attached to them, and their accompanying theological censures.
However, first it is necessary to draw attention to a certain group of theological notes that are within the entire group of theological grades of certainty. This group is called theological opinion, and this group contains theological notes or grades which are “free views on aspects of doctrines concerning Faith and morals, which are neither clearly attested in Revelation nor decided by the Teaching Authority of the Church.”[18] These types of theological grades range — from the highest to the lowest — from the sententia communis or the “common teaching, belief or opinion” or the “general teaching, belief or opinion,” to the sententia probabilis or the “probable belief or opinion,” to the sententia probabilior or the “more probable belief or opinion,” to the sententia bene fundata or the “well-founded belief or opinion,” to the sententia pia or the “pious belief or opinion,” all the way down to the opinio tolerata or the “tolerated opinion.”[19] Concerning these theological opinions, one must bear in mind the following: I) what separates the various degrees of theological opinion or determines the rank of each of these theological opinions are three criteria, which are: 1) the amount of Scholastic Theologians or Scholastics proposing or adhering to the theological opinion;[20] 2) the strength of the argument or reasons for the theological opinion;[21] 3) the attitude or stance that the Church takes on the theological opinion;[22] II) while a sententia pia and an opinio tolerata are not binding for a Catholic to believe and while a Catholic has complete liberty or freedom to either accept or reject theological opinions which are sententiae piae or opiniones toleratae,[23] the higher theological opinions — viz., the sententia bene fundata, the sententia probabilior, the sententia probabilis[24] and especially the sententia communis[25] — actually have various degrees of binding status, such that unless there is a substantive or sufficient reason for rejecting teachings which have the status of these higher theological opinions, Catholics are required to believe or should believe the things which are proposed anywhere from a sententia bene fundata to a sententia communis.[26] With these things in mind, we proceed to the theological grades or notes of certainty assigned to teachings or propositions in Josephology.
Saint Joseph’s rank in Heaven as being the second greatest saint after Our Lady the Blessed Virgin Mary and his entitlement to the cultus of Protodulia — Protodulia meaning “first reverence,” from the Greek adjective πρῶτος, -η, -ον which means “first” and from the Greek noun δουλεία, -ας, ἡ and from the Latin noun dulia, -ae, f., which mean “veneration, reverence” — is a sententia communis.[27] The reasons that make this teaching on Saint Joseph to be a sententia communis are on account of two of the three criteria given above for determining the rank of a theological opinion: 1) as to the number of Scholastics proposing the theological opinion, since a sententia communis is a consensus or a unanimous agreement by the Scholastic Theologians that a certain doctrine is true or certain,[28] this teaching on Saint Joseph is held by the unanimous agreement or consensus of the Scholastic Theologians, being held by Scholastics such as Francisco Suarez,[29] John Gerson,[30] Isidore de Isolanis,[31] Saint Francis de Sales,[32] Étienne Binet,[33] Joseph Patrigani,[34] Saint Bernadine of Siena,[35] Saint Teresa of Avila,[36] Saint Alphonsus Liguori,[37] P. Paolo Segneri,[38] Bernardine de Bustis,[39] and Giovanni di Cartagena[40] to name some of them; 2) as to the strength of the argument or reasons for the theological opinion, the basic reasoning that is used by all the Scholastics is the following: quoting a theological principle that Saint Thomas Aquinas lays down in his Summa Theologiae, which states that “[i]n every genus, the nearer a thing is to the principle, the greater the part which it has in the effect of that principle,” and since Jesus Christ is the principle of grace,[41] this means that since Saint Joseph was closer to Jesus Christ than any other Saint aside from the All-Holy Mother of God — be it Abraham, Moses, King David, the prophet Jeremiah, Saint John the Baptist, Saint Peter, or Saint Paul — this means that Saint Joseph received more grace than any other saint, and hence was holier than any other saint, and thus Saint Joseph is entitled to a veneration above all saints, and this veneration is that of Protodulia.[42]
Moreover, the attitude or stance that the Church has taken on Saint Joseph’s rank in Heaven and his entitlement to the cultus of Protodulia is evident in Pope Leo XIII’s papal encyclical Quamquam Pluries. Here, Leo XIII confirms this teaching about Saint Joseph when he writes the following:
In truth, the dignity of the Mother of God is so lofty that naught created can rank above it. But as Joseph has been united to the Blessed Virgin by the ties of marriage, it may not be doubted that he approached nearer than any to the eminent dignity by which the Mother of God surpasses so nobly all created natures.[43]
Now, Leo XIII establishes in this quote that Saint Mary is clearly the greatest saint in Heaven when he writes the following, “[i]n truth, the dignity of the Mother of God is so lofty that naught created can rank above it.” Next, Leo XIII affirms that Saint Joseph has the second highest place in Heaven underneath Our Lady and thus that Saint Joseph is the second greatest saint after her when he writes that “it may not be doubted that he [viz., Saint Joseph] approached nearer than any to the eminent dignity by which the Mother of God surpasses so nobly all created natures.” Thus, since Saint Joseph is the second greatest saint in Heaven, this means that Saint Joseph is also entitled to the veneration or cultus of Protodulia. Further, Pope Pius XII states in Humani Generis that whatever topics which the Pope discusses and passes judgement on in a Papal Encyclical ends the discussion of that topic if such a topic has been a matter of debate before the pope’s treatment of that topic in his Papal Encyclical.[44] Therefore, since Quamquam Pluries is a Papal Encyclical, and since Leo XIII in Quamquam Pluries says that Saint Joseph is the second greatest saint in Heaven, this means that the debate about whether some other saint — such as Saint John the Baptist — is greater or holier than Saint Joseph is no longer a question that is open to debate, and thus Catholics must accept that Joseph is the second greatest saint in Heaven. Further, the doctrine which teaches that Saint Joseph is the second greatest saint in Heaven after Mary must be believed with what is called “religious submission of mind and will,” and this is because this Josephite teaching: 1) is promulgated in Quamquam Pluries, which has the nature or character of a formal papal teaching document;[45] 2) because Leo XIII’s “manner of speaking” is certain,[46] since he says that “it may not be doubted that” Saint Joseph is the second highest saint in Heaven after Mary.
Hence, a denial of this proposition without a sufficient or good reason for denying it would incur the theological censures of propositio erronea or “an Erroneous Proposition,” an error theologicus or a “Theological Error,” and a propositio temeraria or “a Temerarious Proposition.”[47]
Saint Joseph’s Prenatal Sanctification in which he was cleansed from Original Sin in the womb of his mother is also a sententia communis[48] for the following reasons: 1) there is a consensus or unanimous acceptance of this teaching on Saint Joseph by the Scholastics, being held by Theologians such as Suarez,[49] Gerson,[50] Isidore de Isolanis,[51] Cornelius à Lapide,[52] and Segneri;[53] 2) the reasoning for this doctrine is very solid. For if the prophet Jeremiah and Saint John the Baptist also had the grace of experiencing a Prenatal Sanctification, then since Saint Joseph is closer to Jesus Christ and has a more important role in salvation history than both these prophets do for the precise reason that Saint Joseph was the father of the Son of God, this means that Saint Joseph would also have the grace of experiencing a Prenatal Sanctification.[54] Hence, since Saint Joseph’s Prenatal Sanctification is a sententia communis, a denial of this proposition without a sufficient or good reason would also incur the theological censures of propositio erronea, error theologicus, and propositio temeraria.[55]
Saint Joseph’s Confirmation in Grace from at least the time of his marriage with Saint Mary — which is to say that Saint Joseph was free from all mortal and venial sin at least from the time that he was betrothed to the Queen of Heaven and more probably from the time that he was sanctified from Original Sin in his mother’s womb[56] — is a sententia bene fundata.[57] This is for the following two reasons: 1) this doctrine is accepted by a fair amount of Scholastics, such as Suarez,[58] Gerson,[59] Isidore de Isolanis,[60] and Segneri,[61] but there is not unanimity or consensus on this reality of Saint Joseph by the Scholastics as would be possessed by a sententia communis, making Saint Joseph’s Confirmation in Grace a sententia bene fundata; 2) the reasoning for this conclusion is also very characteristically strong of a sententia bene fundata. For children learn by implicit learning — which is the process by which children learn how to do things by watching their parents do things — and since — aside from the transmission of Original Sin — implicit learning is one of the main ways that children contract sin from their parents for the reason that children watch how their parents sin and them imitate the sins of their parents. Therefore, Saint Joseph would need to be completely free from all mortal sin and all venial sin at least by the time that he was betrothed to his immaculate spouse because Jesus Christ — being fully human — would also have learned through implicit learning, and if Saint Joseph were a sinful man, even having the slightest spot of venial sin on his soul, then Jesus Christ would have through implicit learning contracted personal sin from watching His earthly father Joseph sin,[62] and would also disfigure the reflection or image of God the Father that Jesus saw reflected in Joseph.[63] Therefore, to prevent this transmission of sin, it was necessary for Saint Joseph to be free from all personal sin — both mortal and venial — and thus Joseph would be confirmed in grace at least from the time of his betrothal.[64] To deny that Saint Joseph was confirmed in grace would incur the theological censure of a propositio temeraria.[65]
Saint Joseph’s freedom from the fomes peccati or concupiscence is most likely a sententia bene fundata for the following reasons: 1) since a sententia bene fundata is not a consensus or unanimous agreement among the Scholastics like a sententia communis is, while there are still a fair number of Scholastics who acknowledge that Saint Joseph was free from concupiscence, such as Suarez,[66] Gerson,[67] Echius,[68] and Segneri,[69] the number of Scholastic Theologians who accept this doctrine determines that this teaching is most likely a sententia bene fundata; 2) the reasoning for this teaching is very strong, because the reasoning is that since Saint Joseph was always in the presence of the most beautiful and holiest woman to ever exist, viz., the Immaculate Conception herself, this means that Saint Joseph would have been tempted to violate her virginal purity if he experienced concupiscence. Hence, it was necessary for Saint Joseph to be free from the fomes peccati in order for him to co-exist and live with his spouse.[70] To deny that Saint Joseph possessed freedom from concupiscence and to affirm instead that he experienced the fanning of the fomes peccati would most likely incur the theological censure of a propositio temeraria.[71]
Saint Joseph’s Perpetual Virginity is a sententia probabilior,[72] and this is because of two reasons: 1) it is held by some Scholastics, such as Saint Thomas Aquinas,[73] Saint Albert the Great,[74] Gerson,[75] Isidore of Isolanis,[76] Saint Bernardine of Siena,[77] Saint Francis de Sales,[78] and Suarez,[79] but Saint Joseph’s Perpetual Virginity is certainly not held unanimously by the Scholastics after the fashion of a sententia communis,[80] and yet this Josephite doctrine is still believed by more Scholastic Theologians than the number of Scholastics which would determine a sententia bene fundata, and hence this teaching about Saint Joseph’s Perpetual Virginity merits this slightly higher theological note; 2) the reasoning for this Josephite teaching is also fairly strong, the argument being based on the virginity of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Saint John the Evangelist, and it runs thus: if Jesus Christ and His mother were perpetual virgins, and if Jesus Christ entrusted His mother to Saint John the Evangelist who was also a perpetual virgin, then it seems fitting that Saint Joseph was also a perpetual virgin due to his connection with these persons.[81] A denial of Saint Joseph’s perpetual virginity would incur the theological censure of a propositio temeraria.[82]
Saint Joseph’s Bodily Assumption is a sententia pia,[83] and the reason that this is a sententia pia is because there has not been enough theological discussion by the Scholastics on this doctrine,[84] and hence this is why one is free to accept or deny Saint Joseph’s Bodily Assumption free from pain of sin and without incurring a theological censure.[85]
In summary, the purpose of this article is to help Catholics to realize that the realities belonging to Saint Joseph which were presented and discussed in this article — excluding Saint Joseph’s Bodily Assumption — are actually teachings that are binding for Catholics to believe in varying degrees; in other words, Catholics should believe these realities connected with Saint Joseph. It is my sincere hope that more Catholics will come to know, hold, and love these great realities about Saint Joseph, in part so that Saint Joseph will no longer be forgotten by Catholics like Joseph the Patriarch was forgotten when he was thrown into prison,[86] but also so that all Catholics will see all of the glory, splendor, and majesty of Saint Joseph the Greatest of all the Patriarchs by recognizing these wonderous realities about him as true as the whole world recognized the greatness of Joseph the Patriarch after his elevation to his positions as steward, prime minister, and priest of Pharaoh.[87] For the sooner that all Catholics recognize the truth of these glories connected with Saint Joseph, the sooner these realities about Saint Joseph will be raised by the Church from their current theological grade and beyond the realm of theological opinion to the status of de fide definita dogmas of the faith, and when this happens, Mary’s Immaculate Heart will triumph, which shall commence the beginning of the prophesied restoration of Christendom in the Age of Peace.
[1] Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible, D.D., trans. Patrick Lynch, Ph.D. (Charlotte: TAN Books, 1974), 3.
[2] Ibid., 9-10; For a definition of what a theological note or grade of certainty is, see, Fr. Chad Ripperger, The Binding Force of Tradition (Sensus Traditionis Press, 2013), 35: “A theological note is the name given by which the certitude of the particular doctrine is known or we may say that different doctrines have different degrees of certitude based upon author, Church pronouncements, etc. and the degree of the certitude of the doctrine is known as its theological note.”
[3] Father Chad Ripperger and Ryan Grant, “The Theological Notes of the Church ~ Fr Ripperger w/ Ryan Grant,” Sensus Fidelium, February 4, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4hIgDR29bg.
[4] Ibid; Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 10. For a definition of a theological censure, see Ibid: “By a theological censure is meant the judgement which characterizes a proposition touching Catholic Faith or Moral Teaching as contrary to Faith or at least as doubtful.”
[5] Father Chad Ripperger and Ryan Grant, “The Theological Notes of the Church ~ Fr Ripperger w/ Ryan Grant,” Sensus Fidelium, February 4, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4hIgDR29bg; Ripperger, The Binding Force of Tradition, 35-40, 42 and 44.
[6] Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 13-496.
[7] Father Chad Ripperger and Ryan Grant, “The Theological Notes of the Church ~ Fr Ripperger w/ Ryan Grant,” Sensus Fidelium, February 4, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4hIgDR29bg, 8:10-8:28.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Josephology is the subdivision of Dogmatic Theology and the further subdivision of Christology and Mariology which treats of the theological study of Saint Joseph. See Francis L. Filas, S.J., S.T.D., Joseph Most Just: Theological Questions about St. Joseph (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1956), 1-4; see also Joshua Francis Filipetto, “The Nature and Extent of Josephology,” Catholic Insight, December 28, 2021, https://catholicinsight.com/the-nature-and-extent-of-josephology/.
[10] Christology is the subdivision of Dogmatic Theology which treats of the theological study of Jesus Christ.
[11] Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 125-195.
[12] Mariology is the subdivision of Christology and the further subdivision of Dogmatic Theology which treats of the theological study of Saint Mary.
[13] Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 196-216.
[14] Filas, Joseph Most Just, 101: “Next to the Blessed Virgin no one more than St. Joseph co-operated in preparing for the Redemption. Jesus took His human nature within the bonds of Joseph’s virginal marriage to our Lady, and this was a necessary prelude according to God’s plans. Jesus was reared to full manhood by St. Joseph. This vocation of Joseph was directly chosen by God to fit into the divine plan of the Redemption also.”
[15] Alexis Henri M. Cardinal Lépicier, O.S.M., Saint Joseph, Époux de la Très Sainte Vierge: Traité Théologique (Paris: P. Lethelleux, 1932), http://jouzourouna.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Saint-Joseph-Epoux-de-la-Tres-Sainte-Vierge-par-Cardinal-Lepicier-1932.pdf and https://livres-mystiques.com/partieTEXTES/Lepicier/StJoseph.html, 3.5.9 and 4.2.1; John Paul II, Redemptoris Custos, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, August 15,1989, https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_15081989_redemptoris-custos.html, sec. 1, emphasis in italics and in bold are mine: “Persuasum enim habemus, rursus si Mariae Sponsum [videlicet, Sanctum Joseph] divini mysterii participem [videlicet, mysterii divini Redemptionis] Ecclesia consideraverit, posse eam una cum omni hominum genere ad venturum tendentem aevum continenter propriam suam naturam intra idem redemptionis consilium denuo reperire, quod suum habeat in mysterio Incarnationis fundamentum. Velut alius omnino nemo homo, Verbi Incarnati excepta Matre Maria, hoc plane arcanum “communicavit” Iosephus Nazarethanus. Is [videlicet, Ioseph] sane ipse particeps ibidem cum illa [videlicet, cum Maria] simul fuit, in veritatem eiusdem insertus salvifici eventus atque eiusdem etiam custos amoris, cuius virtute Pater aeternus “praedestinavit nos in adoptionem filiorum per Iesum Christum” (Eph. 1, 5). [I am convinced that by reflection upon the way that Mary’s spouse [viz., Joseph] shared in the divine mystery [viz., in the divine mystery of the Redemption], the Church – on the road towards the future with all of humanity – will be enabled to discover ever anew her own identity within this redemptive plan, which is founded on the mystery of the Incarnation. This is precisely the mystery in which Joseph of Nazareth ‘shared’ like no other human being except Mary, the Mother of the Incarnate Word. He [viz., Joseph] shared in it with her [viz., with Mary]; he was involved in the same salvific event; he was the guardian of the same love, through the power of which the eternal Father ‘destined us to be his sons through Jesus Christ’ (Eph 1:5)].” Ibid., sec. 8, emphasis in italics and in bold are mine: “A Deo est Sanctus Iosephus arcessitus ut Iesu recta via munerique eius per suae paternitatis exsecutionem famularetur: eo ipso prorsus modo ille in temporis plenitudine magno redemptionis mysterio adiutricem praestitit operam reque vera ‘salutis minister’ exsistit (Cfr. S. IOANNIS CHRYSOSTOMI In Matth. Hom., V, 3: PG 57, 57s.). Concreta autem ratione paternitas illius inde declarata est ‘quod sua ex vita ministerium effecit ac sacrificium ipsi incarnationis mysterio necnon redimendi officio ei inhaerenti, quod legis auctoritate utebatur quam iure in sacram habebat Familiam ut sui ipsius et vitae suae et sui operis inde donationem illi Familiae praeberet, quod humanam suam domesticum ad amorem vocationem transfiguravit is idem in oblationem vires humanas excedentem sui cordisque sui et omnis facultatis, in amorem ministerio Messiae destinatum iam domi suae generatum’ (Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, IV (1966) 110). [St. Joseph was called by God to serve the person and mission of Jesus directly through the exercise of his fatherhood. It is precisely in this way that, as the Church’s Liturgy teaches, he ‘cooperated in the fullness of time in the great mystery of salvation’ and is truly a ‘minister of salvation.’(21) His fatherhood is expressed concretely ‘in his having made his life a service, a sacrifice to the mystery of the Incarnation and to the redemptive mission connected with it; in having used the legal authority which was his over the Holy Family in order to make a total gift of self, of his life and work; in having turned his human vocation to domestic love into a superhuman oblation of self, an oblation of his heart and all his abilities into love placed at the service of the Messiah growing up in his house.’(22)].” Ibid., sec. 14, emphasis in italics and in bold are mine: “Hoc nempe pacto iter Iesu reditus de Bethlehem ad Nazareth per Aegyptum transmittitur. Quem ad modum Israël exodi sive egressionis viam “de domo servitutis” arripuit ut Foedus Vetus iniret, ita plane Iosephus, sequester ac providentiae Dei mysterii adiutor [videlicet, providentiae mysterii Redemptionis], in exsilio eum aequabiliter tuetur qui Novum Foedus in actum deducit. [And so Jesus’ way back to Nazareth from Bethlehem passed through Egypt. Just as Israel had followed the path of the exodus “from the condition of slavery” in order to begin the Old Covenant, so Joseph, guardian and cooperator in the providential mystery of God [viz., in the providential mystery of the Redemption], even in exile watched over the one who brings about the New Covenant.]”; Francis, Patris Corde, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, December 8, 2020, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20201208_patris-corde.html, sec. 3, emphasis in italics and in bold are mine: “Ex omnibus his rebus apparet ut Ioseph «a Deo est arcessitus ut Iesu recta via munerique eius per suae paternitatis exsecutionem famularetur: eo ipso prorsus modo ille in temporis plenitudine magno Redemptionis mysterio adiutricem praestitit operam reque vera salutis minister exsistit».[17]. [All this makes it clear that ‘Saint Joseph was called by God to serve the person and mission of Jesus directly through the exercise of his fatherhood’ and that in this way, ‘he cooperated in the fullness of time in the great mystery of salvation and is truly a minister of salvation.’[17].” It is worth noting that in this part of paragraph three of Patris Corde, Pope Francis is actually quoting paragraph eight of Saint Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation Redemptoris Custos, wherein John Paul II teaches that Saint Joseph is a Coredemptor or Coredeemer by using the words “salutis minister” or “minister of salvation” in the passage; Joannes Chrysostomus, Commentarius in Sanctum Matthaeum Evangelistam (a), in Patrologia Graeca, ed. J.P. Migne (1862), https://patristica.net/graeca/, PGn. 57, Homilia V, n. γ (Graecum) n. 3 (Latina Translatio) (57-58): “ϰαὶ [Ἰωσὴφ] διαϰονεῖται τῇ οἰϰονομία πάσῃ. [ac totius dispensationis minister effectus est [Joseph]].”
[16] Filas, Joseph Most Just, 4; Joshua Francis Filipetto, “The Nature and Extent of Josephology,” Catholic Insight, December 28, 2021, https://catholicinsight.com/the-nature-and-extent-of-josephology/.
[17] For the Insertion of the Name of St. Joseph in the Prayers of the Mass (Kansas City: Romanitas Press, 2019), 109 [29], 109 [29] n67.
[18] Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 9.
[19] Ibid., 10; Father Chad Ripperger and Ryan Grant, “The Theological Notes of the Church ~ Fr Ripperger w/ Ryan Grant,” Sensus Fidelium, February 4, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4hIgDR29bg.
[20] Ripperger, The Binding Force of Tradition, 38; Father Chad Ripperger and Ryan Grant, “The Theological Notes of the Church ~ Fr Ripperger w/ Ryan Grant,” Sensus Fidelium, February 4, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4hIgDR29bg, 50:46-54:27.
[21] Ibid; Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 9.
[22] Ibid; Ripperger, The Binding Force of Tradition, 39; Father Chad Ripperger and Ryan Grant, “The Theological Notes of the Church ~ Fr Ripperger w/ Ryan Grant,” Sensus Fidelium, February 4, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4hIgDR29bg, 50:46-54:27.
[23] Ibid., 1:02:42-1:06:47; Ripperger, The Binding Force of Tradition, 39.
[24] The reason for why it is binding for Catholics to accept the theological doctrines which have the theological notes of sententia bene fundata, sententia probabilior, and sententia probabilis is due to the connection of the Scholastic Theologians to the Magisterium. See footnote 24 for more information and explanation on this point as well as Ripperger, The Binding Force of Tradition, 33-44.
[25] Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, December 21, 1863, https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/la/documents/epistola-tuas-libenter-21-decembris-1863.html, emphasis and translation are mine: “[I]ccirco eiusdem Conventus viri recognoscere debent, sapientibus catholicis haud satis esse, ut praefata Ecclesiae dogmata recipiant ac venerentur, verum etiam opus esse, ut se subiiciant tum decisionibus, quae ad doctrinam pertinentes a Pontificiis Congregationibus proferuntur, tum iis doctrinae capitibus, quae communi et constanti Catholicorum consensu retinentur, ut theologicae veritates et conclusiones ita certae, ut opiniones eisdem doctrinae capitibus adversae quamquam haereticae dici nequeant, tamen aliam theologicam merentur censuram. [Therefore the men of the same Convention ought to recognize that it is by no means sufficient for wise catholics that they accept and venerate the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, [but the men of the same Convention ought to recognize] that it is necessary even true that they subject themselves both to the decisions which are revealed by the Pontifical Congregations pertaining to doctrine, and to those heads of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consensus of Catholic [Scholastic Theologians] as theological truths and even certain conclusions, that although the opinions for the same heads of doctrine are unable to be called heretical, nevertheless merit another theological censure.]” In this quote from Tuas Libenter, Pius IX is speaking about the necessity of adhering to, accepting, or believing the sententia communis or the common/general teaching/belief/opinion of the Scholastic Theologians as truths of the Catholic Faith or as certain conclusions of the Christian Faith. The reason that a sententia communis is so binding is because of the connection of the Scholastic Theologians to the Magisterium; for since the Magisterium had authority and governance over the universities that the Scholastic Theologians studied and taught at, and since it was the Magisterium who elected men to become Scholastic Theologians, gave such men their licenses to teach theology at one of the universities which the Magisterium exercised a watchful eye over, gave the permission for the books written by Scholastic Theologians to be published and censored errors or heresies written in such books, these things mean that the Magisterium was exercising its teaching authority given to it by Christ over the doctrines which the Scholastic Theologians wrote in their books, and thus “the common and constant consensus” of the Scholastic Theologians implies “the common and constant” consensus of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the bishops and the pope and therefore the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium’s consent to the truth or certitude of that particular doctrine which the Scholastics taught unanimously, and since Tuas Libenter says that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is binding for belief by all Catholics, so also is the sententia communis or the common/general teaching/belief/opinion of the Scholastic Theologians due to the connection of the Scholastics to the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. In other words, the common and constant consensus or unanimous agreement of the Scholastic Theologians is a manifestation of the common and constant consensus of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and hence due to the connection of the Scholastic Theologians to the Magisterium, the common teaching of the Scholastics is also the official teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. For the additional sources for this information and for more explanation on this topic, see also Fr. Chad Ripperger, Ph.D., The Consensus of the Fathers and Theologians (Sensus Traditionis Press, 2020), 25-34, especially 31-34, Fr. Chad Ripperger, Ph.D., Magisterial Authority (Sensus Traditionis Press, 2014), 30-31, and Ripperger, The Binding Force of Tradition, 33-44.
[26] Father Chad Ripperger and Ryan Grant, “The Theological Notes of the Church ~ Fr Ripperger w/ Ryan Grant,” Sensus Fidelium, February 4, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4hIgDR29bg, 40:50-41:43 and 50:46-54:27; Ripperger, The Binding Force of Tradition, 35-40, 42 and 44: “Again, unless there is a sufficient reason [to not believe the teachings of the Church which are proposed within the realm of theological opinion], we are bound to hold even those [teachings] of lower theological notes [viz., the theological notes which are within the realm of theological opinion, more specifically the sententia bene fundata, the sententia probabilior, the sententia probabilis, and the sententia communis].”
[27] Edward Healy Thompson, M.A., The Life and Glories of Saint Joseph: Husband of Mary, Foster-Father of Jesus, and Patron of the Universal Church (Charlotte: TAN Books, 1888), 48-49, emphasis mine: “If, then, it be now the common opinion of Doctors that Joseph in his dignity, in his ministry, and in holiness surpassed all the angels and saints.”
[28] Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, December 21, 1863, https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/la/documents/epistola-tuas-libenter-21-decembris-1863.html, emphasis mine: “[I]ccirco eiusdem Conventus viri recognoscere debent, sapientibus catholicis haud satis esse, ut praefata Ecclesiae dogmata recipiant ac venerentur, verum etiam opus esse, ut se subiiciant tum decisionibus, quae ad doctrinam pertinentes a Pontificiis Congregationibus proferuntur, tum iis doctrinae capitibus, quae communi et constanti Catholicorum consensu retinentur, ut theologicae veritates et conclusiones ita certae, ut opiniones eisdem doctrinae capitibus adversae quamquam haereticae dici nequeant, tamen aliam theologicam merentur censuram. [Therefore the men of the same Convention ought to recognize that it is by no means sufficient for wise catholics that they accept and venerate the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, [but the men of the same Convention ought to recognize] that it is necessary even true that they subject themselves both to the decisions which are revealed by the Pontifical Congregations pertaining to doctrine, and to those heads of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consensus of Catholic [Scholastic Theologians] as theological truths and even certain conclusions, that although the opinions for the same heads of doctrine are unable to be called heretical, nevertheless merit another theological censure.]”; Ripperger, The Consensus of the Fathers and Theologians, 25-34.
[29] Franciscus Suarez, De Incarnatione: Pars Secunda (1645), disp. 8, sect. 2; Franciscus Suarez, Mysteria Vitae Christi, in Opera Omnia, Tomus Decimus Nonus, Editio Nova (Paris, 1760), disp. 8, sec. 1, resp. (125), https://archive.org/details/rpfranciscisuare19suar/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater.
[30] Joannes Gersonius, Sermo de Nativitate Gloriosae Virginis Mariae, Et de commendatione Virginei Sponsi ejus Joseph, quarta consideratio, in Opera Omnia Joannis Gersonii Doctoris Theologi & Cancellarii Parisienis (Antwerpia: Sumptibus Societatis, 1706), 1355-1356.
[31] Fr. Isidorus de Isolanis, O.P., Summa de Donis Sancti Ioseph (1603), Denuo Edita Berthier, (Rome: S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1887), tertia pars, cap. vi (170-171), xvii (230-233), quarta pars, cap. vi-vii (276-279).
[32] Saint Francis de Sales, The True Spiritual Conferences of Saint Francis of Sales, Internet Archive, accessed July 18, 2022, https://archive.org/details/truespiritualco00salegoog/page/n8/mode/2up, conference 19.
[33] Père Binet, S.J., The Divine Favors Granted to St. Joseph, trans. M.C.E. from the edition of the Rev. Fr. Jennesseaux, S.J. (Charlotte: TAN Books, 1983), 116.
[34] Father Joseph Patrignani, S.J., A Manual of Practical Devotion to the Glorious Patriarch St. Joseph (Charlotte: TAN Books, 1982), 20, 22-23, 27-29.
[35] Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP, The Mother of the Savior and Our Interior Life (Charlotte, NC: TAN Books, 1993), 277-290, in Donald H. Calloway, MIC, Consecration to St. Joseph: The Wonders of Our Spiritual Father (Stockbridge: Marian Press, 2020), 271.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid., 272.
[38] Thompson, The Life and Glories of Saint Joseph, 49-50.
[39] Ibid., 50.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, trans. Fr. Laurence Shapcote, O.P., ed. John Mortensen and Enrique Alarcón (Lander: The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2012), III, q. 27, a. 5, co., https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I: “[Q]uanto aliquid magis appropinquat principio in quolibet genere, tanto magis participat effectum illius principii…Christus autem est principium gratiae, secundum divinitatem quidem auctoritative, secundum humanitatem vero instrumentaliter.”
[42] Thompson, The Life and Glories of Saint Joseph, 47-48; Suarez, Mysteria Vitae Christi, disp. 8, sec. 1, resp. (125).
[43] Leo XIII, Quamquam Pluries, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, August 15, 1889, https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15081889_quamquam-pluries.html, para. 3, emphasis mine: “Certe matris Dei tam in excelso dignitas est, ut nihil fieri maius queat. Sed tamen quia intercessit Iosepho cum Virgine beatissima maritale vinculum, ad illam praestantissimam dignitatem, qua naturis creatis omnibus longissime Deipara antecellit, non est dubium quin accesserit ipse, ut nemo magis.”
[44] Pius XII, Humani Generis, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, August 12, 1950, https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html, para. 20: “Neque putandum est, ea quae in Encyclicis Litteris proponuntur, assensum per se non postulare, cum in iis Pontifices supremam sui Magisterii potestatem non exerceant. Magisterio enim ordinario haec docentur, de quo illud etiam valet: « Qui vos audit, me audit » (Luc. 10, 16); ac plerumque quae in Encyclicis Litteris proponuntur et inculcantur, iam aliunde ad doctrinam catholicam pertinent. Quodsi Summi Pontifices in actis suis de re hactenus controversa data opera sententiam ferunt, omnibus patet rem illam, secundum mentem ac voluntatem eorumdem Pontificum, quaestionem liberae inter theologos disceptationis iam haberi non posse. [Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: ‘He who heareth you, heareth me’; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.]”
[45] Paul VI, Lumen Gentium, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, November 21, 1964, https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html, n. 25, emphasis mine: “Hoc vero religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium singulari ratione praestandum est Romani Pontificis authentico magisterio etiam cum non ex cathedra loquitur; ita nempe ut magisterium eius supremum reverenter agnoscatur, et sententiis ab eo prolatis sincere adhaereatur, iuxta mentem et voluntatem manifestatam ipsius, quae se prodit praecipue sive indole documentorum, sive ex frequenti propositione eiusdem doctrinae, sive ex dicendi ratione. [This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.]”
[46] Ibid, emphasis mine: “Hoc vero religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium singulari ratione praestandum est Romani Pontificis authentico magisterio etiam cum non ex cathedra loquitur; ita nempe ut magisterium eius supremum reverenter agnoscatur, et sententiis ab eo prolatis sincere adhaereatur, iuxta mentem et voluntatem manifestatam ipsius, quae se prodit praecipue sive indole documentorum, sive ex frequenti propositione eiusdem doctrinae, sive ex dicendi ratione. [This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.]”
[47] Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 10.
[48] Thompson, The Life and Glories of Saint Joseph, 42, emphasis mine: “The mind of the Doctors of the Church has been so freely expressed on this point [of Saint Joseph’s Prenatal Sanctification in the Womb] that [Saint Joseph’s Prenatal Sanctification in the Womb] may be reckoned as a common opinion.”
[49] Suarez, De Incarnatione: Pars Secunda, disp. 8, sect. 2.
[50] Gersonius, Sermo de Nativitate Gloriosae Virginis Mariae, Et de commendatione Virginei Sponsi ejus Joseph, secunda consideratio, 1349-1350, tertia consideratio, 1352.
[51] Isidorus, Summa de Donis Sancti Ioseph, prima pars, cap. ix, (31-35).
[52] Thompson, The Life and Glories of Saint Joseph, 45.
[53] Ibid., 50.
[54] Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 27, a. 6, co: “Sed quia expresse in Evangelio dicitur quod spiritu sancto replebitur adhuc ex utero matris suae; et de Ieremia expresse dicitur, antequam exires de vulva, sanctificavi te; asserendum videtur eos sanctificatos in utero, quamvis in utero usum liberi arbitrii non habuerunt (de quo Augustinus quaestionem movet); sicut etiam pueri qui sanctificantur per Baptismum, non statim habent usum liberi arbitrii…Et quamvis iudiciorum Dei non possit ratio assignari, quare scilicet huic et non alii hoc munus gratiae conferat, conveniens tamen videtur fuisse utrumque istorum sanctificari in utero, ad praefigurandam sanctificationem per Christum fiendam. Primo quidem, per eius passionem, secundum illud Heb. ult., Iesus, ut sanctificaret per suum sanguinem populum, extra portam passus est. Quam quidem passionem Ieremias verbis et mysteriis apertissime praenuntiavit, et suis passionibus expressissime praefiguravit. Secundo, per Baptismum, I Cor. VI, sed abluti estis, sed sanctificati estis. Ad quem quidem Baptismum Ioannes suo Baptismo homines praeparavit. [But since it is expressly said (of John) in the Gospel that he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb; and of Jeremias, Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee; it seems that we must needs assert that they were sanctified in the womb, although, while in the womb, they had not the use of reason (which is the point discussed by Augustine); just as neither do children enjoy the use of free will as soon as they are sanctified by baptism…And although it is not possible to assign a reason for God’s judgments, for instance, why He bestows such a grace on one and not on another, yet there seems to be a certain fittingness in both of these being sanctified in the womb, by their foreshadowing the sanctification which was to be effected through Christ. First, as to His Passion, according to Heb. 13:12: Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered without the gate: which Passion Jeremias foretold openly by words and by symbols, and most clearly foreshadowed by his own sufferings. Second, as to His Baptism (1 Cor 6:11): But you are washed, but you are sanctified; to which Baptism John prepared men by his baptism.]”; Ibid., arg. 2: “Praeterea, aliqui videntur propinquius accessisse ad Christum quam Ieremias et Ioannes Baptista, qui dicuntur sanctificati in utero. [Obj. 2: Further, some men seem to have been more closely connected with Christ than Jeremias and John the Baptist, who are said to have been sanctified in the womb.]”
[55] Thompson, The Life and Glories of Saint Joseph, 39-45.
[56] Thompson, The Life and Glories of Saint Joseph, 49-50; “Saint Joseph: The Model of Manhood,” Sensus Fidelium, March 19, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OXUfeFFjXg, 3:29-4:21: “The great theologian Father Reginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange — he’s written a number of books — he was basically the last of the neo-thomist theologians in Rome before the Second Vatican Council. He writes about Saint Joseph and he says — this was in the 50’s, late 50’s early 60’s — he says that the general consensus among Josephologists — and a Josephologist is a theologian who specializes in Saint Joseph — he says that the general consensus is that at least from the time of the marriage between Our Lady and Saint Joseph that Saint Joseph did not commit any sin — no venial sins at all; and that’s at least from that time, probably from before then.”
[57] Father Chad Ripperger and Ryan Grant, “The Theological Notes of the Church ~ Fr Ripperger w/ Ryan Grant,” Sensus Fidelium, February 4, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4hIgDR29bg, 1:00:18-1:01:15; Thompson, The Life and Glories of Saint Joseph, 50, emphasis mine: “[W]e may well conclude with very solid grounds of probability, that [Joseph] was, not only sanctified in his mother’s womb, but also confirmed in grace and exempted from all malice.” See also Ibid., 49-50.
[58] Suarez, De Incarnatione: Pars Secunda, disp. 8, sect. 2.
[59] Gersonius, Sermo de Nativitate Gloriosae Virginis Mariae, Et de commendatione Virginei Sponsi ejus Joseph, tertia consideratio, 1350-1352.
[60] Isidorus, Summa de Donis Sancti Ioseph, tertia pars, cap. xi (193-197), cap. xv (224).
[61] Thompson, The Life and Glories of Saint Joseph, 49-50.
[62] Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins, “St. Joseph in the Church since 1917 – Msgr. Calkins, Fatima Centennial Conference – October 7, 2017,” franciscanfriars, October 10, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rAJaFIly2I, 22:02-23:34.
[63] Joshua Francis Filipetto, “Joseph, the Very Type of the ‘Just Man,’” Catholic Insight, December 4, 2021, https://catholicinsight.com/joseph-the-very-type-of-the-just-man/.
[64] Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins, “St. Joseph in the Church since 1917 – Msgr. Calkins, Fatima Centennial Conference – October 7, 2017,” franciscanfriars, October 10, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rAJaFIly2I, 22:02-23:34.
[65] Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 10.
[66] Suarez, De Incarnatione: Pars Secunda, disp. 8, sect. 2.
[67] Gersonius, Sermo de Nativitate Gloriosae Virginis Mariae, Et de commendatione Virginei Sponsi ejus Joseph, tertia consideratio, 1350-1352.
[68] Thompson, The Life and Glories of Saint Joseph, 47-48.
[69] Ibid., 49-50.
[70] Ibid., 46-54.
[71] Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 10.
[72] Florent Raymond Bilodeau, “The Virginity of Saint Joseph in the Latin Fathers and Medieval Ecclesiastical Writers,” (STL diss., St. Mary’s University, 1957), Conclusion, para. 10, https://osjusa.org/st-joseph/church-fathers/, emphasis mine: “If we were to characterize the teaching in favor of Joseph’s virginity, perhaps the best note we could give to this doctrine is that it is at least very probable.” One way to translate a sententia probabilior is “very probable,” and hence since Florent Raymond Bilodeau classifies the doctrine of Saint Joseph’s perpetual virginity as being “very probably,” this means that he is classifying Saint Joseph’s perpetual virginity as a sententia probabilior.
[73] Ibid., c. III, sec. c; Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 28, a. 3, ad 1; Ibid., a. 4, co: “Postmodum vero, accepto sponso [viz., Sancto Josepho], secundum quod mores illius temporis exigebant, simul cum eo votum virginitatis emisit.” Saint Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Sentences, trans. Beth Mortensen, STD, ed. and annot. Michael Bolin, PHD, Jeremy Holmes, PHD, and Peter Kwasniewski, PHD (Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine), IV, d. 30, q. 2, a. 3, ad 4, https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Sent.I: “Joseph, qui etiam virgo fuit.”
[74] Bilodeau, “The Virginity of Saint Joseph in the Latin Fathers and Medieval Ecclesiastical Writers,” c. III, sec. c.
[75] Gersonius, Sermo de Nativitate Gloriosae Virginis Mariae, Et de commendatione Virginei Sponsi ejus Joseph, tertia consideratio, 1350-1351.
[76] Isidorus, Summa de Donis Sancti Ioseph, prima pars, cap. xiii, (42-45).
[77] Bilodeau, “The Virginity of Saint Joseph in the Latin Fathers and Medieval Ecclesiastical Writers,” c. III, sec. d.
[78] Ibid.
[79] Ibid; Suarez, Mysteria Vitae Christi, disp. 7, sec. 1, no. 9 (117): “Eadem autem revelatione intellexit B. Virgo suum sponsum libenter in perpetuam virginitatem fuisse consensurum, nullumque detrimentum perfectioni suae virginitatis allaturum.”
[80] Bilodeau, “The Virginity of Saint Joseph in the Latin Fathers and Medieval Ecclesiastical Writers,” Conclusion, para. 9-10, emphasis mine: “We can also say that, on this point, there is no general tradition which clearly reaches back to antiquity… Thus, today, this opinion has gained ‘all but the universal agreement of theologians.’”
[81] Ibid., sec. c. and d.
[82] Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 10; Bilodeau, “The Virginity of Saint Joseph in the Latin Fathers and Medieval Ecclesiastical Writers,” Conclusion, para. 9: “We may safely say, with regard to Saint Joseph’s perpetual virginity, that today it would be rash to deny this doctrine or to speak against it.” Since the direct translation of a propositio temeraria is “a temerarious proposition,” and since the adjective “temerarious” is a synonym for “rash,” and since Bilodeau says that “it would be rash to deny [Saint Joseph’s perpetual virginity] or to speak against it,” this means that the theological censure that he is assigning to a denial of Saint Joseph’s perpetual virginity is a propositio temeraria.
[83] Father Chad Ripperger and Ryan Grant, “The Theological Notes of the Church ~ Fr Ripperger w/ Ryan Grant,” Sensus Fidelium, February 4, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4hIgDR29bg, 1:03:40- 1:03:45.
[84] Ibid., 1:02:53-1:03:30.
[85] Ibid., 1:03:40-1:03:45.
[86] Genesis 39:20.
[87] Genesis 41:37-57; John Bergsma, Jesus and the Old Testament Roots of the Priesthood (Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2021), 46-47.