Lambertini Latin–English Quotation Bank

The Latin quotations below are normalized only for typography and obvious scan/OCR corruption in the supplied research transcription. The English renderings are working translations. Statements quoted by Lambertini from other theologians are identified as such rather than attributed to Lambertini as original formulations.

1. Two levels of miracle: beyond all created nature vs. beyond visible corporeal nature

“At nos majoris claritatis gratia dicimus, Miracula majora excedere vires totius naturae creatae, & Miracula minora excedere vires naturae tantum corporeae, & visibilis.”

“For the sake of greater clarity, however, we say that greater miracles exceed the powers of the whole of created nature, while lesser miracles exceed only the powers of corporeal and visible nature.”

Book IV, Part I, ch. II, printed p. 14.

2. God alone is the principal efficient cause of miracle

At the opening of Chapter II:

“Solus Deus causa est efficiens principalis Miraculorum, independens, & authoritativa.”

“God alone is the principal, independent, and authoritative efficient cause of miracles.”

Book IV, Part I, ch. II, p. 14.

3. Creatures remain instruments, not rival miracle-producing powers

After reviewing the dispute over physical versus moral instrumentality, Lambertini deliberately brackets the scholastic disagreement:

“Sufficiet, Deum solum esse veram causam efficientem, independentem, authoritativam Miraculorum, & creaturas in operatione Miraculorum esse Divinae Potentiae instrumenta, sive id referatur ad causam moralem, sive ad physicam.”

“It will suffice [to affirm] that God alone is the true, independent, authoritative efficient cause of miracles, and that creatures in the working of miracles are instruments of the Divine Power, whether this be referred to moral or to physical causality.”

Book IV, Part I, ch. II, p. 22.

This directly supports the distinction between principal divine agency and saintly or angelic instrumentality.

4. The power of miracles is not a permanent supernatural possession of an ordinary creature

Lambertini immediately adds that miraculous power is not simply handed to a creature as a permanent stock of power:

“Miraculorum potentia purae creaturae a Deo non communicatur per modum habitus, sed per modum actus, & qualitatis transeuntis.”

“The power of miracles is not communicated by God to a mere creature by way of a habit, but by way of an act and of a transient quality.”

Book IV, Part I, ch. II, p. 22.

5. Exceeding corporeal nature is not by itself sufficient for miracle

Discussing the demonic use of the serpent, Lambertini makes the distinction explicitly:

“Daemonis locutio per Serpentem fuit aliquid excedens vires, & facultatem naturae corporeae, & sensibilis; sed deficientibus circumstantiis Utilitatis, & Finis, ea locutio verum Miraculum dici non potest.”

“The demon’s speech through the serpent was something exceeding the powers and capacity of corporeal and sensible nature; but because the circumstances of utility and end were lacking, that speech cannot be called a true miracle.”

Book IV, Part I, ch. III, p. 30.

6. Neither good nor evil angels can, by natural power, transcend all created nature

Lambertini's summary is concise:

“Uno verbo, nec Angelus bonus, nec Angelus malus sui naturali virtute possunt Miracula facere, quae excedant vires, & facultatem cujuscumque naturae creatae.”

“In a word, neither a good angel nor an evil angel can by his own natural power work miracles that exceed the powers and capacity of every created nature.”

Book IV, Part I, ch. III, p. 30.

This is the metaphysical boundary Lambertini needs to distinguish preternatural created agency from miracle in the strictest sense.

7. Miracles are testimonies of divine power and truth

One of Lambertini's most important propositions:

“Miracula enim sunt testimonium Divinae Virtutis, & Veritatis.”

“For miracles are a testimony of Divine Power and Truth.”

Book IV, Part I, ch. III, p. 30.

This short sentence may be one of the best quotations for the entire vindicatory-miracle project. Miracle is not merely causal anomaly. It belongs to the order of testimony.

8. Pagan context does not automatically exclude genuine divine miracle

Here Lambertini states in his own synthesis a point especially relevant to the comparative question:

“Posse videlicet Paganos a Deo assumi unquam instrumenta in patratione Miraculorum, ut per ea aliqua veritas ad Fidem, aut mores pertinens approbetur; non posse eosdem a Deo assumi tamquam instrumenta in patratione Miraculorum pro confirmando errore, vel peccato.”

“[Pagans] can at times be assumed by God as instruments in the working of miracles, so that through them some truth pertaining to faith or morals may be approved; but they cannot be assumed by God as instruments in the working of miracles for the confirmation of error or sin.”

Book IV, Part I, ch. III, p. 35.

This is among the most valuable Lambertini quotations for the comparative-religion problem.

It supports almost exactly the distinction developed here:

non-Catholic context ≠ divine approval of the total non-Catholic system.

9. Lambertini states the negative side even more explicitly

Immediately before this, after considering various theological opinions:

“At, stricte procedendo, dicimus, Infideles, Haereticos, Schismaticos non posse a Deo assumi tamquam instrumenta pro patrandis Miraculis … ad confirmandum errorem, vel peccatum.”

“But, proceeding strictly, we say that unbelievers, heretics, and schismatics cannot be assumed by God as instruments for the working of miracles … for the confirmation of error or sin.”

Book IV, Part I, ch. III, p. 34.

10. The primary end of miracles is God's glory

At the opening of his chapter specifically on final causality:

“Finis generalis primarius Miraculorum est gloria Dei.”

“The general primary end of miracles is the glory of God.”

Book IV, Part I, ch. IV, p. 40.

11. Two principal secondary ends: doctrinal truth and sanctity

Lambertini then names the two forms of vindication already distinguished:

“Inter fines Miraculorum secundarios, qui tamen ad primarium finem ordinantur, recensentur tum confirmatio pro ostendenda veritate doctrinae Fidei, & morum, tum attestatio verae Sanctitatis alicujus.”

“Among the secondary ends of miracles, which nevertheless are ordered to the primary end, are numbered both confirmation for manifesting the truth of doctrine concerning faith and morals, and attestation of the true sanctity of some person.”

Book IV, Part I, ch. IV, p. 40.

doctrinal vindication from hagiological vindication.

12. Lambertini carefully limits his claim to the providential order actually given

This is the scholastic nuance I especially wanted preserved:

“Nobis sufficere Deum in praesenti Providentia, & de Potentia Ordinaria Miraculum operari non posse petitum pro confirmatione falsae doctrinae, aut falsae Sanctitatis.”

“It is sufficient for us that, in the present Providence and according to what is called God's ordinary power, God cannot work a miracle sought for the confirmation of false doctrine or false sanctity.”

Book IV, Part I, ch. IV, p. 42.

A second pool: authorities Lambertini quotes as governing principles

13. Aquinas: miracles testify to the particular thing for which they are adduced

This may be the most important sentence for the scope-of-vindication principle:

“Miracula semper sunt vera testimonia ejus, ad quod inducuntur.”

“Miracles are always true testimonies of that to which they are adduced.”

Aquinas, ST II-II, q.178, a.2, ad 3, quoted by Lambertini, Book IV, Part I, ch. IV, p. 42.

This is extraordinarily precise.

It does not say:

a miracle validates every belief held by everyone associated with it.

It says the testimony tracks “that to which” the miracle is directed.

That is almost a scholastic statement of semantic scope.

14. Aquinas: true miracle cannot confirm false doctrine

“Unde a malis, qui falsam doctrinam enuntiant, numquam fiunt vera Miracula ad confirmationem suae doctrinae.”

“Hence true miracles are never worked by evil persons who proclaim false doctrine for the confirmation of their doctrine.”

And then:

“Nullus contra Fidem facit vera Miracula, quia Deus non est testis falsitatis.”

“No one works true miracles against the Faith, because God is not a witness to falsehood.”

Aquinas, quoted by Lambertini, ch. IV, p. 42.

15. The crucial qualification: a miracle can commend Christ without commending everything about the human agent

“Quamvis quandoque fieri possint ad commendationem nominis Christi, quod invocant, & in virtute Sacramentorum, quae exhibent.”

“Although at times [miracles] can occur for the commendation of the name of Christ which they invoke, and by virtue of the sacraments which they administer.”

Aquinas, quoted by Lambertini, ch. IV, p. 42.

divine action through person P does not necessarily equal divine vindication of person P's entire theology or moral state.

16. Viguer, quoted by Lambertini: God is Truth by essence and therefore cannot authenticate falsehood

“Miracula sunt vera testimonia, & a solo Deo, qui non potest esse testis falsitatis, cum sit Veritas per essentiam.”

“Miracles are true testimonies, and [come] from God alone, who cannot be a witness to falsehood, since he is Truth by essence.”

Viguer, quoted by Lambertini, ch. IV, p. 42.

17. Gotti's “divine seal” analogy, preserved by Lambertini

Lambertini introduces the analogy by saying theologians use the example of a prince's seal, and then quotes Cardinal Gotti:

“Non potest Deus facere Miraculum; nam alias Deus fieret illo Miraculo testis falsitatis, & quodammodo ceu Sigillo obsignaret falsum, eo modo, quo Rex, si Sigillum suum traderet in circumstantia, in qua sciret adhibendum fore ad obsignandum falsum Diploma.”

“God cannot perform such a miracle; otherwise God would by that miracle become a witness to falsehood and would, as it were, seal what is false with his seal, in the same way that a king would if he handed over his seal in circumstances in which he knew it would be used to seal a false document.”

Cardinal Gotti, quoted by Lambertini, Book IV, Part I, ch. IV, p. 44.

This is superb for the present notion of contextual signification.

18. Bellarmine: what a genuine miracle confirms must be true

Lambertini then gives Bellarmine almost as a formal argument:

“Vera Miracula non possunt fieri, nisi Dei virtute.”

“True miracles cannot be worked except by the power of God.”

“Deus autem non potest esse testis mendacii. Igitur, quod Miraculo confirmatur, verum sit, necesse est.”

“But God cannot be a witness to a lie. Therefore, that which is confirmed by a miracle must necessarily be true.”

Robert Bellarmine, quoted by Lambertini, ch. IV, p. 45.

Lambertini's epistemology of investigation

19. He explicitly identifies different sources of doubt

After discussing true and false miracles, Lambertini turns to practical discernment:

“Ex variis capitibus, & causis dubitationem oriri posse de Miraculorum falsitate.”

“Doubt concerning the falsity of miracles can arise from various heads and causes.”

He then distinguishes testimonial problems, questions about whether the event exceeds nature, suspicion of demonic illusion, and the possibility that an event exceeds visible corporeal nature without exceeding invisible created spiritual power.

The key second “head of doubt” is especially useful:

“Controversia tamen rationabilis excitatur, an ea excedat vires naturae seu quo ad factum, seu quo ad modum faciendi.”

“A reasonable controversy may nevertheless arise as to whether it exceeds the powers of nature, either with respect to the thing done or with respect to the manner of its being done.”

what happened and how it happened can independently matter.

20. One does not need exhaustive knowledge of every law of nature

“Necessarium non est, veluti quidam male seriati autumant, quod nobis cognitae sint omnes naturae leges.”

“It is not necessary, as certain ill-advised persons suppose, that all the laws of nature be known to us.”

He continues that it suffices to know the stable regularity that bodies of the same nature follow the same laws and the same causes under the same circumstances ordinarily produce the same effects.

21. Miracles and virtue do not form a vicious epistemic circle

“In Canonizationis Judicio ante omnia praecedere debere exactissimam Virtutum, aut Martyrii discussionem, & post eam feliciter resolutam transitum fieri ad discussionem Miraculorum.”

“In the judgment of canonization, before all else there must precede the most exact examination of the virtues or martyrdom, and once that has been successfully resolved, one proceeds to the examination of miracles.”

Book IV, Part I, ch. V, p. 55.

22. Invocation is the principal evidence for identifying whose sanctity a miracle attests

Lambertini asks explicitly how one can know that God performed a miracle to disclose a particular person's holiness:

“Quaeres, quomodo ostendi possit, a Deo fuisse patratum Miraculum ad patefaciendam alicujus Sanctitatem. Facilis autem est responsio, probationem potissimum ab invocatione esse desumendam.”

“You will ask how it can be shown that a miracle was worked by God for the manifestation of someone's sanctity. The answer is easy: the proof is chiefly to be derived from invocation.”

Book IV, Part I, ch. V, p. 56.

23. A miracle must be individually attributable if it is to prove a particular saint's sanctity

When several servants of God are invoked, Lambertini becomes very strict:

“Hoc unum certum est, assertum Miraculum non posse deservire pro Beatificatione, vel Canonizatione, ad quas oportet, ut de Miraculis in individuo constet, a quo sint, ut sint illius certae Sanctitatis signa.”

“This one thing is certain: the alleged miracle cannot serve for beatification or canonization unless it is established, with respect to the miracle individually, from whom it is, so that it may be a certain sign of that person's sanctity.”

Book IV, Part I, ch. V, p. 57.

A phenomenon might be extraordinary or even genuinely miraculous without yet telling us whose claim it vindicates.

Medical and psychological controls

24. The cure must be evaluated for gravity, suddenness, natural crisis, treatment, completeness, and permanence

Lambertini later summarizes what must be established in healing cases:

“Probanda est gravitas morbi una cum difficultate sanationis per media naturalia; probanda est subita, & instantanea sanatio; docendum est de statu morbi tempore sanationis … de defectu crisis, de independentia a medicamentis, & aliis humanis remediis, de perfectione sanitatis … de ejusdem sanitatis permanentia.”

“The gravity of the disease together with the difficulty of curing it by natural means must be proved; the sudden and instantaneous cure must be proved; the state of the disease at the time of the cure must be established … the absence of a crisis, independence from medicines and other human remedies, the completeness of health … and the permanence of that health.”

That is about as strong primary-source support as possible for describing his procedure as a causal exclusion protocol.

25. Physicians are necessary precisely because natural sudden recoveries sometimes happen

Lambertini explicitly recognizes sudden natural improvement and then concludes:

“Judicium Medicorum necessarium est in hoc secundo requisito: idemque judicium necessarium est in tertio.”

“The judgment of physicians is necessary in this second requirement, and the same judgment is necessary in the third.”

The surrounding discussion explains that diseases can sometimes undergo sudden natural crises and that physicians must determine whether medication or the natural course of the disease explains the apparent cure.

This is useful whenever someone caricatures the traditional process as “the Church saw something surprising and declared miracle.”

26. Lambertini explicitly takes imagination and psychosomatic effects seriously

After citing cases in which confidence or imagination produced apparent improvement, he says:

“Haec omnia facile admitti possunt.”

“All these things can readily be admitted.”

He then insists that the real question is whether imagination can account for a cure possessing the full required characteristics: grave disease, difficulty of natural cure, absence of effective medication, suddenness, completeness, absence of an ordinary crisis, and no relapse.

Apparitions and epistemic restraint

27. The Congregation could approve a miraculous cure without endorsing the apparition narrative

Lambertini describes an established practice:

“Inolevit consuetudo Sacrae Congregationis Rituum examinandi sanationem, illam approbandi tamquam miraculosam, si necessaria concurrant requisita, sed nullo facto Apparitionis verbo.”

“A custom has grown up in the Sacred Congregation of Rites of examining the cure and approving it as miraculous, if the necessary requirements concur, while saying nothing at all about the apparition.”

the evidentially established effect may be affirmed while the associated interpretation is left undecided.