De locis theologicis

ON THE VARIOUS KINDS OF APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS

Before confirming the authority of this locus, I think it should be observed that the commands and institutions of the apostles are of two kinds. Some were temporary, their reason being brief and confined to a time; others were permanent, since they had an enduring cause for being observed in the Church. Examples of the first kind are baptism in the name of Jesus and abstinence from blood and from what has been strangled; an example of the latter is mixing water into the chalice. There is another division of apostolic tradition as well. The apostles received some traditions from the Lord Christ, such as that Matrimony, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction are Sacraments of the New Law. Christ himself instituted these—he is the first and only author of his Sacraments—but handed them on to the apostles to be administered to the Christian people. Other traditions were set forth by the apostles themselves, at the prompting of the Holy Spirit, for the benefit of the Church, though the Lord Christ did not set them forth anywhere while he lived on earth, such as the Lenten fast. Although Jerome, in his commentary on Jonah 2, Ambrose in sermon 36, and Chrysostom hom. 1 in Genes. seem to attribute it to Christ as its author, I think it was in fact an apostolic institution. It is attributed to Christ either because the apostles instituted it after Christ’s example when he fasted, or because apostolic decrees are considered to be Christ’s, since he spoke to the Church through the apostles and, indeed, spoke by the Holy Spirit to the apostles, in accordance with what is written in Ioannis 16 cap.: “I have many things yet to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will teach you all truth; for he will not speak on his own, but whatever he hears he will speak, because he will receive from what is mine and announce it to you.” And when the Apostle gave advice on his own, he said, “I think that I too have the Spirit of God”; and again: “Are you seeking proof of Christ, who speaks in me?” In these kinds of traditions we must consider the same matters that we noted in the preceding book about the laws of Scripture; but above all, the distinction made there regarding scriptural commands must be applied here to traditions. For the Church cannot release the faithful from the bond of traditions that the apostles received from Christ and left for the faithful to observe, nor can it abolish them by some contrary custom. For example, if the apostles received from Christ the matter and forms of the Sacraments of Confirmation, Orders, and Extreme Unction, and we received them from the apostles; and if in the same way the Lord Christ declared to the apostles, and they to us, that unconsummated marriages are dissolved by a solemn profession of chastity, while consummated marriages are dissolved when an unbelieving spouse departs after the other spouse has converted to the faith, the Church has no power in these matters, which are divine institutions. In this sense the two chapters “Sunt quidam” and:

“Contra statuta,” 25 Distinct., quaest. 1, must be explained. Such traditions cannot be rendered obsolete by a contrary custom; the chapters “Veritate,” “Si consuetudinem,” and “Frustra,” in 8 Distinct., rightly oppose such a contrary custom. In other matters, however, namely those that the apostles established as pastors of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff may dispense, as with the Church’s other laws (to use the language of the schools); and a contrary custom of the people may likewise abolish institutions of this kind. Such is the triple immersion that, according to Apostolic Canon 49, the Church received by apostolic tradition in the Sacrament of baptism, but which was abolished by a contrary custom. The Lenten fast is of the same kind, as are the penalties the apostles set for crimes, which are reported from the Council of Gangra in 8 Distinct.2, chapter “Presbyter.” To this kind belongs what heretics often cite from Anacletus’s first letter: “After the consecration, let everyone communicate who does not wish to be deprived of the church’s thresholds, for so the apostles decreed.” Anacletus is speaking of ministers who assisted the bishop when he celebrated Mass on solemn days. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that all who attended Mass had to receive the Eucharist then too, especially on days that were not more solemn. For although in ancient practice, according to the institution of the apostles, communion of the whole people was required from the very beginning of the newly born Church, it is clear that by Chrysostom’s time the command had been relaxed, and communion was left to the will of those present: the deacon invited them to it in a loud voice but did not compel them. These and other things of this kind, although handed down by the apostles, are not so fixed that they cannot be changed; Christ’s own commands and institutions, as we have said, are so firm and settled that no human authority may overturn them. The reason for this was given in the preceding passage; it would be pointless for us to repeat it here. I mean this to be understood of institutions pertaining to the governance of the people. For dogmas of faith, whether Christ himself revealed them directly to the apostles or the Holy Spirit did so after Christ’s ascension into heaven, cannot be changed; they remain firm in truth just like those declared by Christ’s own mouth.