De inspiratione sacrae Scripturae: theologica disquisitio

In our age they have attempted in two ways to elude the Tridentine decree on the use and interpretation of the sacred books. Some have said that this decree is merely disciplinary, and does not have absolute value for every time, but only for those circumstances in which it was issued. Others, however, perceiving that this cannot even probably be persuaded, took refuge in another cavil, asserting that the council's prohibition—that no one may dare to interpret Sacred Scripture contra the sense which the Church has held and holds—is to be understood purely and simply of this, that it is not lawful, in interpreting the Scriptures, to exclude or deny any dogma of faith defined by the Church; but that otherwise full liberty is left as regards the positive exegesis of any texts whatsoever, provided that the doctrine of the Church is holily retained at least as a negative norm. Therefore, for example, do not explicitly deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, or His real presence in the Eucharist, and never draw the words of Scripture to a positive sense that can by no means be reconciled with these dogmas, and you have done enough. In everything else, nothing will prevent you, by your wisdom or even your fancy, from understanding those passages also which have always been regarded by the Church as expressive and demonstrative of our dogmas, in a sense that is indeed not contradictory, yet in any other way or respect whatever that differs.

Take a specimen from a very recent work of positive theology on the Eucharist, the real presence, and transubstantiation¹. The author reviews and submits to his criticism the things that concern the Eucharist in the New Testament, namely the testimonies of Paul, Luke, Mark, and Matthew, and finally of John. — In the first chapter, he says of Paul that his words, 1 Cor. X-XI, by no means show the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament: « The Christian eats the flesh of the victim immolated on the cross; but is it in reality, or only in figure? To this question Paul does not answer, and has not even a word by which it might be satisfied »². And further on, in the conclusion: « The doctrine of Paul affirms that in the Eucharist the bread and the wine procure participation in the body immolated on the cross, but according to some manner (real or figurative), which « Paul does not define »³. — In the second chapter, concerning the value of the testimony of Luke's gospel as regards the dogma of the real presence, the author is silent, and not without reason. For what need had he to add anything to what he had said previously about Paul's narrative, to which that of the evangelist not only adds nothing, but is known to correspond exactly in all things? There remained, however, the breaking of bread, of which the same Luke makes mention several times in the book of Acts, and there was room to inquire what this observance meant. And the answer is given differently according to the various phases of the evolution of the Christian conscience. For in the beginning, Act. II-46, it was a private observance, an act of domestic piety which very often was distinguished from the familiar breaking of bread at the common table only by the directing intention. « But the better the profound religious sense of the eucharistic breaking was understood, the more also the trace of primitive familiarity disappeared, and growing reverence and solemnity surrounded the august gesture. Such already was the supper of Troas, Act. XX-7, seq. »⁴. So much concerning Luke in the second chapter. — Now in the third chapter, which is on Mark and Matthew, the same observation as above occurs: namely, that nothing is found in the author concerning the value of the testimonies for the reality of the sacramental presence. For again, if the narrative of the first epistle to the Corinthians has not even a word by which it might be positively determined to the Catholic rather than the Protestant sense, the reader has already understood more than enough that the substantially identical narrative of the two former synoptics is in precisely the same condition. And this point had already been secured. Therefore the author turned the tools of demolition elsewhere, and after adducing the antilogies between John and the synoptics as to the day of the celebration of the supper, he concludes that the more probable solution is the one that denies to that supper every paschal character. In vain Matthew says: Now on the first day of the unleavened bread... the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them, and prepared the passover. But when evening had come, He sat at table with the twelve disciples. In vain Mark: They found as He had said to them, and prepared the passover. And when evening had come, He came with the twelve. In vain Christ in Luke: With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer. In vain the author himself observed above that Luke's narrative is in this most distinguished from Paul's narrative, namely that Luke notes and describes as clearly as can be the paschal character of the supper⁵. In vain the Church sings: The last supper of the night is recalled, at which Christ is believed to have given the lamb and the unleavened bread to the brethren according to the legal ordinances granted to the fathers of old. After the typical lamb, the dishes being finished, etc., and again: Reclining on the night of the supreme supper with the brethren, the law being fully observed in legal foods, etc. Notwithstanding all these things, the more probable explanation is: that the passover was not celebrated by Christ on the night in which He was betrayed, but a family ceremony which the Jews called Kiddûsch, of which Kiddûsch the author then sets forth several things from the rabbinic commentaries⁶. — Finally in the sixth chapter, which is on John, we are taught that the difference between John himself and the four preceding is this, that Paul, Luke, Mark, and Matthew truly spoke of the Eucharist, although they in no way define what the Eucharist is, whether bread or the body of Christ; whereas John has nothing at all about this sacrament, unless perhaps allusively in three or four little verses: « It is found that John spoke very little of the Eucharist, since in sum he alludes to it in chapter 6 only in verses 53-56. »⁷.

Here, then, you have a sufficiently clear example of the manner in which the historico-critical school understands the decrees of the Church concerning the interpretation of the sacred books. It is enough for them if by their exegesis they do not openly and in so many terms stab the dogma solemnly defined, so that thereafter they think everything permitted them. But there is no need of much consideration to make it clear that this method carries with it nothing less than the complete destruction of the faith and of the Christian religion, as throughout his whole book, with regard to the special dogma of the Eucharist, the aforesaid author clearly shows in actual exercise, as they say.

He has now denied the value of all the scriptural sources in which the Church had from the beginning recognized the documents of her faith concerning the sacrament of the altar. Where, then, is the firm foundation of this same Catholic faith? Perhaps in the monuments of tradition, in the testimonies of the Fathers? But against this is, first, that the Fathers in their treatises on the Eucharist are wont to appeal to the Scriptures, for instance to John in the discourse on the bread of life, to Paul, Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the narrative of the institution of the sacrament.

Now, however, if neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Mark, nor Luke, nor John say those things from which the reality of the presence can be established, how are the attestations of those who rely on the authorities of Paul and Matthew and Mark and Luke and John still acceptable on this matter? How a firm building whose foundation is imaginary? Or was it ever worthy and just to trust those authors who distort the texts, in order to find in them what they do not contain? — But against this is, second, that the authority of the Fathers is not greater in testifying to dogmas than in testifying to the dogmatic sense of the texts of Scripture. Accordingly, if this authority is rejected as regards the second, there is no reason imaginable why it should be admitted as regards the first. — But against this is especially, third, that the liberty they claim for themselves in scriptural exegesis they will retain a fortiori in patristic exegesis. And what testimony of tradition, I ask, will seem firm and demonstrative to those who say that the texts: this is my body, this is my blood, contain not even a word by which the curiosity of one inquiring whether the flesh of the victim immolated on the cross is really eaten under the species of the sacrament, or only figuratively, might be satisfied? At their pleasure, then, they will have the Fathers, some as symbolists, others as realists. At the same pleasure they will divide the realists themselves into two classes. Some with Ambrose will believe that the body present in the sacrament is identical with the historical body of Christ. Others on the contrary with Augustine will hold that the sacramental body is by no means that very body born of the Virgin, which suffered on the cross, and is now glorious in heaven, but another, plainly different, devoid of matter, absolved from all concretion, of which it is impossible to know what it is, a body finally which is not a body. Furthermore, this erroneous, nay even heretical, sentence, which throughout his whole book the author inculcates in every way as his own, he will stubbornly defend as truly Augustinian. « The scholastic theologians, he says, wish to find in Augustine their theory (sic) of the presence in the Eucharist of the historical body of Christ. We have seen how far Augustine was from so precise an affirmation. They insist nevertheless, and appeal to certain famous texts. The first is where Augustine asks how we can adore, as the Psalmist wills (Psalm. XCVIII-5), the footstool of the Lord, which is the earth? This is so, Augustine answers, because the earth there can be understood of the flesh of Christ: He took earth from the earth, because the flesh is of earth, and from the flesh of Mary He took flesh. And because He walked here in that flesh, and gave us that flesh to eat for salvation, and no one eats that flesh unless he has first adored, it has been found how such a footstool of the Lord is adored. If therefore the flesh of Christ, that very flesh which He took from Mary, is not in the Eucharist, why does Augustine speak of its adoration? No one, he says, eats that flesh unless he has first adored. » You have heard the theologians' argument. Now hear the answer. For the author continues and says: « I do not think the text is so peremptory as the theologians are pleased to assert. For « if it be read integrally, it is found that Augustine claims adoration for God, whose footstool the earth is, and that for the flesh itself the same Augustine claims nothing: Does the flesh, he says, give life? The Lord Himself said, when He spoke of this very commendation of the same earth: It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing. Therefore even when you bow down and prostrate yourself before any earth whatever, you do not look upon it as it were earth, but you adore that holy One whose footstool it is: for it is on account of Him that you adore. The Lord therefore in the supper instituted the sacrament of His flesh, of that flesh which was earth. But this flesh, whether historical or sacramental, avails nothing except through the spirit which gives it life. And so, when you prostrate yourself before the sacrament, you do not consider any earth whatever, but you adore the holy One whose footstool this earth is. It is on account of Him that you adore »⁸. Here you have a specimen of the interpretation of the Fathers, as above you had a specimen of the interpretation of the Scriptures. If, the author says, you read integrally, you will find that Augustine claims adoration for God, but for the flesh itself in the sacrament he claims nothing. And yet Augustine expressly said: Because He gave that very flesh in which He walked here, that very flesh which He took from Mary, to be eaten for salvation, and no one eats that flesh unless he has first adored, it has been found how the earth, the footstool of the Lord, is adored. And Augustine further added that which the author passed over in silence, which he dissembled, which he cut from the integrity of the text, citing only a half and unfinished phrase: It has been found how such a footstool of the Lord is adored, and not only do we not sin by adoring, but we sin by not adoring. Where it evidently appears that he speaks of the adoration of something which of itself could not be adored without the sin of idolatry. Where it is still more evident that that thing which otherwise would seem unable to terminate adoration without impiety is certainly not the divinity. What then is it that has been found to be adored in such a way that not only do we not sin by adoring, but we sin by not adoring? What, I ask, if not the flesh? the flesh hypostatically united to God, which is proposed to us in the sacrament to be eaten? the flesh of which the Fifth Council, can. 9: « If anyone does not adore with one adoration the incarnate God the Word together with His own flesh, according as it has been handed down from the beginning by the holy Church of God, let such a one be anathema? » In vain! Augustine claims adoration for God, but for the flesh itself he claims nothing, because, he says, when you bow down and prostrate yourself, you must not look upon the flesh precisely as flesh, but upon that Holy One of whom it has been made the own, on account of whom you adore. As if I should say: you must not look upon in your neighbor that which is not lovable in itself, but you must look upon God whose image he is, and to whose society he is called in eternal beatitude; for you love on account of God; therefore for the neighbor himself the law of charity claims nothing! This is patristic exegesis, wholly translated from Protestant sources, which spreads itself with the same arbitrary levity through the whole work; which is everywhere employed also as an instrument of demolition, and by which the most lucid testimonies of the Fathers, whether concerning the real presence of the true and proper body of Christ in the sacrament, or concerning transubstantiation, and thereby concerning the permanence, not of the substance, but of the accidents of the bread, go to ruin and are destroyed.

But now let us return to scriptural exegesis. It has been said that the liberty they claim for themselves in this part they wish to legitimate by appealing to the Tridentine decree, as above. That they attempt this in vain will easily appear from two reasons. First, because the words of Trent by no means admit the interpretation they impose on them. Second, because against this exposition of theirs the authentic declaration of the Vatican Council directly comes forward, Const. Dei Filius, cap. 2.

First, I say, the words of Trent by no means admit the interpretation they impose on them, as if, that is: « That which the Council forbids, namely to interpret Scripture contra the sense which the Church has held and holds, is to be understood thus, that it is only not lawful, in interpreting the Scriptures, to exclude and deny any dogma of faith defined by the Church »⁹. For it must be considered that the Council did not say: the sacrosanct synod decrees that no one may dare to interpret sacred Scripture contra dogma which holy mother Church has preached and preaches; but it said: contra sensum which she has held and holds concerning Scripture itself. Nor did it say: holy mother Church, whose it is never to teach anything that is in opposition with the true sense of the Scriptures; but it said: cuius est iudicare de vero sensu et interpretatione Scripturarum sanctarum. Wherefore the Church not only always teaches those things which, as infallibly true, cannot be in contradiction with any truth, whether naturally known, or revealed from above, or dictated by right reason, or contained anywhere in the written word of God: but also, by the witness of Trent, she feels and holds that certain of her dogmas are contained in certain determinate passages of the Scriptures, and by her authority and infallibility in interpreting the word of God, she judges that such is the proper and true sense of these passages. And from this it clearly follows that he interprets contra the rule proposed by the Council, whoever dares to assert that that sense, determined by the ecclesiastical magisterium and manifested by unanimous usage, whether theological, or liturgical, or polemical, is not the true sense of Scripture itself.

This indeed was understood clearly enough even from the words of the Tridentine Fathers alone. But now a new declaration of the Vatican Council has been added, which was expressly directed against that broad opinion of the critics. One reads in the annotations on the first schema of the constitution on Catholic doctrine: « As regards the norm of interpreting the sacred books, a restoration and also some explanation of the Tridentine decree is to be desired for our times.. It is manifest that the sense to which certain rash recent critics and interpreters have twisted the decree of the Council is altogether preposterous... Wherefore it is necessary so to propose that supreme norm of Catholic interpretation, which is the judgment and consensus of the Church concerning the true sense of the Scriptures, that it be manifest that not only is excluded the interpretation which is contradictorily opposed to the sense which the Church teaches to underlie some passage of Scripture, but that it is also necessary that that very sense be retained by the Church as the true sense of Scripture »¹⁰. Hence therefore you will now perfectly understand to what that clause added by the Vatican Fathers, Sess. 3, to the second chapter, looks: « But since the things which the holy Tridentine Synod wholesomely decreed concerning the interpretation of divine Scripture, for the restraint of petulant minds, are by certain men perversely expounded, We, renewing the same decree, declare that this is its mind, that in matters of faith and morals..., is pro vero sensu sacrae Scripturae habendus sit, quem tenuit ac tenet Sancta mater Ecclesia, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures, and that therefore no one may interpret the sacred Scripture itself against this sense, or even against the unanimous consensus of the Fathers ».

Finally, observe that it is by no means necessary that that sense from which it is not lawful to depart in any way should have been defined by the Church through a solemn judgment. For the mind of the Church becomes known not only through solemn definitions, but also through the ordinary and universal magisterium, as is expressly had in the same Vatican Council, cap. 3 on faith. Now I call ordinary magisterium that whose document is not equivocal to find in the exegetical usage of councils and pontiffs, in liturgical institutions, in catechetical instructions, in the consenting and unanimous judgment of approved theologians or interpreters, etc. Observe also that the question is not restricted merely to this, what may or may not be said, under penalty or no penalty of incurring heresy: because, prescinding even from formal heresy, it happens that one sins in many ways against the law of faith, and he shows himself unworthy of the Catholic name who avoids only that which is precisely heretical, and expressly condemned as such by the Church¹¹.