Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus II (Pars Altera): Demonstratio Catholica

¹

1. Notion. Tradition is sometimes taken in a wider sense as any doctrine or doctrinal institution transmitted from some to others either by word of mouth or in writing. In this sense the Apostle commends the Christian traditions, both oral and written: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by my epistle"² Likewise the Fathers sometimes understand by Tradition all revealed doctrine transmitted down to us whether in writing or by word of mouth.

Nevertheless, for the most part Tradition is understood in a stricter sense as something distinct from sacred Scripture. In the divine writings the word "to hand down" occurs at least twelve times used in this signification,³ and only once, 2 Thess 2, 15, is it certainly used promiscuously both of the doctrine handed down through Scripture and of the doctrine handed down by word of mouth. The Fathers also everywhere either oppose Tradition to Scripture or at least distinguish it from Scripture, as will appear in the course of this chapter. Hence, according to common usage of speech, Tradition designates that revelation which, inasmuch as it is not sacred Scripture, has come down to us by oral institution. This, indeed, is not to be so understood as though Tradition consisted of no written monuments, but in this very sense, that the hagiographers themselves, i. e. the authors of the sacred books, did not commit it to writing. For although Tradition was at first transmitted by word of mouth only and is even now for the most part transmitted orally, nothing nevertheless prevents its having been consigned and being consigned to writing in the course of the centuries.

Tradition thus accepted comprises a twofold element: the doctrine or matter transmitted and the mode or form by which it is transmitted. The former is called material Tradition; the latter is called formal Tradition. Both together constitute Tradition in the complex sense. In our disputation Tradition is indeed sometimes taken in the complex sense; first and principally, however, it is taken as formal Tradition. For the discussion is not about all and singular truths that are made known by Tradition, but about the formal principle of knowledge by which they are made known, or about the source from which they are drawn. Therefore:

2. The question is whether besides sacred Scripture there is another source of revelation, namely divine Tradition. Catholics affirm it; Protestants deny it.

Protestants acknowledge Scripture both as the sole judge of faith (the proximate rule of faith),⁴ and profess it as the sole source of faith (the remote rule of faith). Thus already the reformers themselves, e. g. Luther: "But I, against the opinions of all the Fathers, against the arts and eloquence of all angels, men, and demons, set Scripture and the Gospel... Here I stand, here I defy, here I glory, and I say: The word of God above all; the majesty of God stands with me!"⁵ All the reformed Confessions, one and all, follow them to the letter, e. g. the Formula of Concord: "We believe, confess, and teach that the only rule and norm, according to which all dogmas and all teachers ought to be estimated and judged, is none other than the prophetic and apostolic writings of both the Old and the New Testament... The remaining writings, however, whether of the Fathers or of the moderns, under whatever name they come, are by no means to be equated with the sacred letters.⁶ The more recent Protestants entirely agree with their predecessors.⁷ If they admit Tradition, they admit it as merely human, by which men, without God intervening and assisting, transmit their own Christian ideas to posterity and adulterate them in the very transmitting. The Modernists favor the same notion of Tradition, who hold that "in sacred Tradition there is nothing divine . . .; so that nothing now remains but a bare and simple fact, to be equated with the common facts of history; namely, of men who by their own industry, skill, and genius continue through subsequent ages the school begun by Christ and his apostles."⁸

Catholics, however, acknowledge Tradition equally with sacred Scripture as a divine source of revelation, through which the truths of faith have come down and continue to come down to us from Christ and the apostles. Thus the Council of Trent expressly teaches that the saving truth "is contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received from the mouth of Christ himself by the apostles, or by the apostles themselves, the Holy Spirit dictating, transmitted as it were from hand to hand, have come down even to us".⁹ Likewise the Vatican Council: "By divine faith . . . all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God, written or handed down."¹⁰

In order that this Catholic doctrine may fully appear and stand firm against the innovators, we shall treat in two articles of the existence and the monuments of divine Tradition.

That Tradition is a source of revelation is proved by the testimony of the Christian economy, of the apostolic Scripture, and of the patristic literature.

As the Christian economy bears witness, revelation was propagated not so much by Scripture as rather by oral Tradition: 1° it was always propagated, and 2° it will always be propagated.

1. The Christian religion was always propagated by Tradition. For Christ Himself propagated His gospel not in writing, but delivered it to men by word. And in order to establish in perpetuity the religion preached by Himself, He did not confine it in a book from which individuals might draw their faith; rather, He instructed disciples by word of mouth, and from the disciples He chose teachers armed with magisterial authority. But to these teachers of the faith He did not say: "Sitting, write", but: "Going, preach to every creature". Likewise He did not enjoin upon men: "Whoever shall not have read and understood will be condemned", but: "Whoever hears you, hears me", and: "Whoever [while you preach] shall not have believed will be condemned".¹

The apostles discharged the office imposed upon them by preaching the gospel, by teaching Jews and Gentiles, by propagating the Church everywhere throughout the world. Of writing they took little or no care. Some wrote not even a single word; others wrote little. Those, however, who did write, wrote only as occasion offered, and after the gospel had at length been spread far and wide by means of oral Tradition. Finally, for the most part they did not send their faithful back to written books, but to oral preaching and Tradition, and for this reason they constituted bishops in the individual churches, endowed with authentic magisterium.²

Therefore, before the books of the New Testament existed — much more, before they were gathered into the canon and, translated into various languages, could be read in all the churches — the faith already flourished splendidly through the oral Tradition of the apostles and their successors. Hence in that time, that most glorious era of faith and Christian life, no other source of faith can be found than oral Tradition. And since, as the Protestants themselves admit, the apostles did not depart from Christ's ordinances, it must be said altogether that Christ Himself established Tradition as the first and ordinary source by which the Christian religion would be contained, from which it would be drawn, and through which it would be propagated. Indeed:

2. The Christian religion will always be propagated by Tradition, just as it was propagated from the beginning. The manner of propagating and preserving religion established by Christ and observed by the apostles belongs without doubt to the essence of the Christian economy, and consequently to its immutable character. Nothing indeed prevents the divine doctrine from being contained also in books, destined both for the living magisterium itself and for the faithful who depend on it. Nevertheless, the living magisterium, just as it is the supreme judge or proximate rule of faith,³ so it must be regarded as the fundamental remote rule, or the source perpetually instituted by Christ, to which Sacred Scripture has been added by special divine providence as a partial source. Therefore the manner of preserving revelation which prevails in the Catholic Church and has always prevailed is truly Christian, i.e. innate to the very nature of the Christian religion; whereas the manner of preserving doctrine devised by the Protestants in the sole instrument of Scripture is anti-Christian, by which the very immutable character impressed by Christ upon His religion is subverted.

By the same principle the universal character of the Christian religion is moreover subverted. The Christian religion must be preached to "all nations" and to "every creature", because God "wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth".⁴ But it is evident that not all men of all times can arrive at the knowledge of the truth by the reading of Scripture. Some lack copies of Scripture; think of so many centuries which did not yet know printing, and of so many regions which as yet know neither manuscript nor printed books! Others, although the sacred books are not wanting to them, either do not know letters, or are destitute of the leisure necessary for reading, or are kept away by youth or dullness of mind from rightly understanding the things read. Nay more, as we have shown elsewhere,⁵ the genuine understanding and interpretation of Scripture is so difficult and requires so many historical, philological, and theological attainments that even the most learned are unequal to it, unless they are enlightened by the light of Tradition and directed by the magisterium of the Church. Therefore the Christian religion cannot be transmitted to all by writings alone. This even the Protestants admit in practice. For in order to instruct the faithful in religion, they explain the Bible through "ministers of the word", substituting for divine Tradition and the authentic magisterium the arbitrary exposition of teachers devoid of all mission. By this manner of acting they clearly show that Scripture alone does not suffice, and that the Protestant principle, which rejects oral Tradition, is foreign to the Christian economy.

Protestants are bound to prove their principle from Scripture, since they affirm that nothing is to be believed unless it is proved from Scripture. But so far is Scripture from holding that principle ratified that it is rather reprobated, 1° implicitly by the character of the New Testament, and 2° explicitly by the words of the New Testament.

1. Implicitly by the character of the New Testament. No one is unaware that the individual books of the apostles were written on a given occasion and out of a particular necessity, that they were accommodated to the particular circumstances then existing, and that they were for the most part directed to individual churches or persons. The internal disposition of the books, too, is such that the sacred writers by no means treat each and every head of revelation in a catechetical manner and a didactic order; indeed, some of Christ's deeds and sayings are narrated by all, others, however most grave, are signified only very briefly by one, and still others are scarcely indicated in passing, so that they can be known only by theological speculation. Now such a character of the books evidently shows that the apostles did not consider their writings the sole formal rule of believing, to the exclusion of Tradition and of the living magisterium instituted by Christ.

Moreover, on the testimony of the same character of the New Testament, the Protestants affirm altogether gratuitously that Scripture comprehends the whole of Christian revelation and is therefore a sufficient material rule of believing. For since the individual apostles consigned certain heads of doctrine to writing only occasionally and independently of one another, it could have come about only by the sole divine direction of the Holy Spirit that at length all the books taken together should comprise the whole of revelation. But such a special direction of God is demonstrated by no argument; indeed, it seems to be excluded by the New Testament itself. For in the Gospels we not rarely read that Christ taught very many things without the things that He taught being narrated.¹ From this it is apparent that the apostles were not moved by the Holy Spirit to write the whole of revelation. Besides, the Protestants themselves admit as divinely revealed several things that are not written: the baptism of infants, the Lord's day in place of the sabbath (against Exod 20, 8), that not every oath is forbidden (against Mt 5, 34), that blood and things strangled may licitly be eaten (against Act 15, 28 sq.), that it is lawful to use the sword (against Mt 26, 52), etc.

Therefore Scripture is the sole rule, or the sole source, of faith no more materially than formally. The same is established:

2. Explicitly by the words of the New Testament, above all by the Pauline and Johannine texts. St. Paul praises the Corinthians because they followed the doctrine that he had delivered to them only by word of mouth as the norm of faith: "I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me, and as I delivered to you, you hold my precepts (παραδόσεις = traditions)."² To lead the Galatians back to the right faith, he set his oral preaching as a rule to be followed absolutely: "I marvel that you are so quickly removed from him who called you into the grace of Christ to another gospel ... But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."³ He admonishes the Thessalonians that oral Traditions and written Traditions are of the same weight: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the Traditions that you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."⁴ He beseeches Timothy strictly to keep the deposit of faith received by oral Tradition: "Hold the form of sound words, which you have heard from me in faith and in love in Christ Jesus. Keep the good deposit through the Holy Spirit, who dwells in us."⁵ And since he felt that the time of his dissolution was at hand,⁶ he lays upon the same Timothy to commend the doctrine received by word to men fit for teaching others: "You therefore, my son, be strengthened in the grace which is in Christ Jesus; and the things that you have heard from me through many witnesses, commend these to faithful men, who will be fit to teach others also."⁷ St. John, who outlived all the sacred writers of the New Testament, nowhere, however, appeals to their writings, but most of all inculcates Tradition as the norm of faith. For he says: "Let that which you have heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you have heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father."⁸ That the same apostle most highly esteemed oral Tradition and preferred it to written instruction appears from these words: "Having many things to write to you, I would not by paper and ink: for I hope to be with you, and to speak mouth to mouth."⁹

From all these things it is clear that Tradition was, in the time of the apostles, the principal source of revelation, and that, according to the apostles, it was always to remain the principal source of faith. Hence the apostles differ by the whole heaven from the principle of the Protestants, who establish sacred Scripture as the sole source of revelation and the only norm of faith.

Whatever the Protestants may babble against the authority of the Fathers, they must nonetheless concede that those most ancient writers hand on in a genuine manner the Christian sense then prevailing, and that they interpret the sense of Christ, of the apostles, and of their disciples more correctly than the innovators of the sixteenth or twentieth century. Now the Fathers, from the apostolic age onward, proclaim Tradition in innumerable places to be a source of divine revelation. Since, however, we cannot review six hundred texts bearing on this point, we allude only to the systematic treatises which St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Vincent of Lérins elaborated on our question.

1. St. Irenaeus sets forth the principle of Tradition most excellently and applies it against the heretics of his own time in the work: "Adversus haereses" (about A.D. 180). For he teaches that by Tradition the faith of the apostles is kept one and unharmed in the churches throughout the whole world: "For the Church, sown throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, received from the apostles and their disciples the faith ... This faith the Church, and indeed disseminated throughout the whole world, diligently guards, as though inhabiting one house, and likewise believes in them, namely as though having one soul and one heart, and preaches, teaches, and hands these things on harmoniously, as though possessing one mouth. For even if the languages in the world are dissimilar, yet the power of the tradition is one and the same. And neither do the churches which are founded in Germany believe otherwise or hand on otherwise; neither those which are in Hiberia, nor those which are among the Celts, nor those which are in the East, nor those which are in Egypt, nor those which are in Libya, nor those which are established in the middle of the world: but just as the sun, the creature of God, is one and the same in the whole world, so also the light, the preaching of the truth, shines everywhere and enlightens all men who are willing to come to the knowledge of the truth."¹

But when disputes have arisen, they are to be settled and all heresies repelled by having recourse to Tradition rather than to the Scriptures: "One ought not still to seek elsewhere the truth, which it is easy to take from the Church, since the apostles, as into a rich depository, most fully conferred upon her all things which belong to the truth ... For what? And if there were a dispute about some small question, would it not be necessary to have recourse to the most ancient churches, in which the apostles conversed, and to take from them concerning the present question what is certain and clear in the matter? But what if the apostles had not even left us the Scriptures, would it not be necessary to follow the order of the tradition which they handed to those to whom they were committing the churches? To this ordinance many nations of barbarians assent, those who believe in Christ, having salvation written without paper and ink by the Spirit in their hearts, and diligently keeping the ancient tradition ... If anyone announces to them the things which have been invented by the heretics, speaking in their own language, immediately closing their ears they will flee far, far away, not even bearing to hear the blasphemous discourse. Thus through that ancient tradition of the apostles they do not admit even into the conception of the mind whatever portentous speech of theirs is: for neither was there a congregation [of bishops in council] among them, nor a doctrine established [by writings]."²

Finally, the authentic witnesses of Tradition itself are the bishops, who duly succeed the apostles: "Wherefore it is necessary to obey those presbyters who are in the Church, those who have the succession from the apostles; who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the sure charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father ... Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord are placed, there it is necessary to learn the truth, with those among whom is that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, and that which is sound and irreproachable of conduct and unadulterated and incorruptible of speech is established. For these ... keep our faith ... and expound the Scriptures to us without danger, neither blaspheming God, nor dishonoring the patriarchs, nor despising the prophets."³ "But since it is very long to enumerate the successions of all the churches" — the episcopal ones — it suffices to inspect the Tradition of the Roman church:⁴ "For to this church, on account of its more powerful principality, it is necessary that every church come together, that is, those who are the faithful from everywhere, in which, always by those who are from everywhere, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles."⁵

2. Tertullian, in the book "De praescriptione haereticorum" (about A.D. 200), reduces the principle of Tradition set forth by Irenaeus to a juridical form, so as to confound the heretics of all ages. The prescription of civil law consists in this, that every judicial action against the long-standing possessor of a thing is rejected from the threshold. Thus, according to Tertullian, every complaint of the heretics against the Church is refuted from the threshold by the right of religious prescription, by which the Church, from the time of Christ and of the apostles, possesses the handed-on doctrine: "Hence, therefore, we direct the prescription: if the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, no other preachers are to be received than those whom Christ instituted ... But what they preached, that is, what Christ revealed to them, here too I shall prescribe that it ought to be proved in no other way than through those same churches which the apostles themselves founded, by preaching to them as much by the living voice, as they say, as afterwards by letters. If these things are so, it follows accordingly that every doctrine which agrees with those apostolic churches, the matrices and originals of the faith, is to be assigned to the truth, holding without doubt what the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God; but every other doctrine which savors against the truth of the churches and of the apostles and of Christ and of God is to be prejudged as falsehood ... We communicate with the apostolic churches, because no doctrine is diverse: this is the testimony of the truth."⁶

Tertullian says that it is absurd that Tradition has strayed or could stray from the truth, thus sharply rebuking the arrogance of the heretics: "Come now, let all have erred; let the apostle have been deceived in rendering testimony; let the Holy Spirit have had regard for no [church], so as to lead it into the truth, sent for this purpose by Christ, asked for this purpose of the Father, that He might be the teacher of truth; let the steward of God, the vicar of Christ, have neglected his office, allowing the churches meanwhile to understand otherwise and to believe otherwise than He Himself preached through the apostles: is it at all likely that so many and so great [churches] erred into one faith? Among many events there is no single outcome: the error of the churches ought to have varied. Besides, what is found one among many is not erred, but handed on. Let someone, therefore, dare to say that those erred who handed on? However the error came about; certainly error reigned for so long as there were no heresies. The truth that was to be liberated was waiting for some Marcionites and Valentinians: in the meantime the Gospel was preached wrongly, believed wrongly ... so many works of faith wrongly administered, so many virtues, so many charismata wrongly wrought ...

Against this Tradition of the Church it is unlawful for heretics to appeal to Scripture, since the Church alone, by right of prescription, duly possesses and expounds the sacred books: "Therefore one must not appeal to the Scriptures: nor is the contest to be engaged in those things in which the victory is either none, or uncertain, or equal to the uncertain. For even if the comparison of the Scriptures would not turn out so as to place both sides equal, the order of things required that to be proposed first which now alone is to be disputed: to whom does the faith itself belong? whose are the Scriptures? from whom, and through whom, and when, and to whom was handed on the discipline by which men become Christians? For where it shall have appeared that the truth both of the discipline and of the Christian faith is, there will be the truth of the Scriptures and of the expositions and of all Christian traditions ..."⁷ "If these things are so, that the truth is adjudged to us, whoever of us walk in that rule which the Church handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God, the rationale of our purpose stands, defining that heretics are not to be admitted to entering upon a challenge concerning the Scriptures, whom we prove, without the Scriptures, not to pertain to the Scriptures."⁸

Scarcely could the Protestant principle of Scripture alone be rejected more clearly and explicitly, scarcely could the Catholic principle of Scripture and Tradition be more firmly established.

3. St. Vincent of Lérins wrote two "Commonitoria" (A.D. 434), constituting a proper compendium on the rule of faith. And indeed he enunciates the rule of faith theoretically, overthrowing the Protestant principle in advance: "Often, therefore, with great zeal and the utmost attention inquiring of very many men eminent in holiness and doctrine, in what way I might be able by a certain and, as it were, general and regular path to discern the truth of the catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity, I always received this sort of answer from almost all, that whether I or anyone else should wish to detect the frauds of rising heretics and to avoid their snares and to remain sound and whole in the sound faith, he ought, with the Lord's help, to fortify his faith in a twofold manner: first, namely, by the authority of the divine Law, and then by the tradition of the catholic Church. Here perhaps someone may ask: Since the canon of the Scriptures is perfect and suffices by itself more than enough for all things, what need is there that the authority of ecclesiastical understanding be joined to it? Because, namely, the sacred Scripture, on account of its own depth, is not received by all in one and the same sense, but one and another interprets its utterances now one way, now another; so that almost as many men as there are, so many opinions may seem to be able to be drawn from it. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius another; Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillianus another, Iovinianus, Pelagius, Caelestius another; finally Nestorius another. And therefore it is very necessary, on account of so many windings of so varied an error, that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed according to the norm of the ecclesiastical and catholic sense."⁹

Having established this rule theoretically, Vincent of Lérins affirms that antiquity also always used it in practice: "We have said that it has always been and is even today the custom of catholics to approve the true faith in these two ways, first by the authority of the divine Canon, then by the tradition of the catholic Church ... Lest we should seem to bring this forth by our own presumption rather than by ecclesiastical authority, we brought forward the example of the holy council which was celebrated almost three years before (431) in Asia at Ephesus. ... Where, when there was a dispute about establishing the rules of the faith, lest some profane novelty should creep in there after the manner of the perfidy of Rimini, it seemed to all the priests, who had come together there to the number of about two hundred, the most catholic, most faithful, and best thing to do, that the opinions of the holy Fathers should be brought into the midst, of whom it was certain that some had been martyrs, others confessors, but that all had been and had remained catholic priests; so that, namely, duly and solemnly, by their consensus and decree, the religion of the ancient dogma might be confirmed and the blasphemy of profane novelty condemned."¹⁰

In vain do the adversaries object those texts of the Fathers and of the Scholastics in which the sufficiency of Scripture alone is extolled.¹¹ For the Fathers and theologians understand that Scripture alone suffices when illustrated and fructified by ecclesiastical Tradition alone, as, for example, Vincent of Lérins expressly explains in the passage praised above. Led by the hand of Tradition, the Fathers and theologians found in Scripture many things which are found in the letter of the sacred books either scarcely or nowhere, whether because they rested content in allusions, or because they admitted the spiritual sense almost everywhere, or because they drew conclusions from the texts of Scripture. Although, however, from Scripture thus explained through Tradition almost all revealed truths are established, the Fathers nonetheless judge that there are certain truths which are made known by Tradition alone. Thus St. Basil: "Of the dogmas and preachings preserved in the Church, some we have from the doctrine delivered in writing, but others we have received, delivered to us in mystery, from the tradition of the apostles, both of which have the same force for piety, and no one will contradict them: certainly no one who knows even by slight experience what the institutions of the Church are."¹²

Therefore the Protestants, who set up the Bible alone, to the exclusion of Tradition, as the rule of faith, openly contradict the whole economy ordained by Christ, the whole New Testament founded by the apostles, and finally the whole antiquity described by the Fathers. But the Catholic rule, which holds that besides Scripture Tradition also is a genuine source of faith, and indeed the principal one, is in agreement with the Christian economy, the apostolic Scripture, and the patristic literature. Therefore the Protestant rule of faith is openly a-Christian, the Catholic rule openly Christian.

After it has been established that oral Tradition is the principal source by which revelation flows down to us from Christ and the apostles, we must now treat of the monuments or ancient documents by which the truths handed down by word of mouth were gradually committed to writing. And indeed we shall speak of the monuments of Tradition in general, and likewise individually of the works of the Fathers and of the writings of the theologians.

Concerning the monuments in general, three things are considered: necessity, species, and certitude.

1. Necessity of the monuments. The monuments of Tradition are necessary not indeed absolutely, but nevertheless in a certain respect.

a) The monuments of Tradition are not absolutely necessary. For the principal organ chosen by Christ for witnessing, transmitting, and preserving Tradition is the apostolic succession, i. e. the ever-living magisterium of the Church, as is evident from the preceding article. Hence Tradition is perpetually safeguarded and manifested by the living testimony of the bishops who actually rule the Church. And indeed the moral consensus of the bishops, since it coincides with the magisterium of the whole dispersed Church,¹ is an infallible testimony of Tradition. Therefore, even if no monuments existed or were employed to prove the transmitted truth, the transmitted truth would be certain by the very fact that the college of bishops consents to it. Nevertheless:

b) The monuments of Tradition are necessary in a certain respect for preserving and investigating Tradition. For although the magisterium of the Church possesses a "sure charism of truth," it nevertheless does not attain the truth by the charism of a new revelation. Hence an inquiry into the faith and profession of Christian antiquity is often necessary, either when the present consensus is not sufficiently clear, or whenever, in order to instruct the faithful or to confound heretics, the connection of the present profession with antiquity and the unity of faith through all ages must be demonstrated. Therefore the living magisterium of the Church and, a fortiori, theological science stand in need of the support of the monuments of Tradition.

2. Species of the monuments. The pristine traditions were committed to writing in various documents by the rulers of the Church, by the simple faithful, and sometimes also by heretics and unbelievers. The principal documents are these:

a) The acts of councils, of the supreme pontiffs, and of individual bishops. These acts are placed in the first place both because they are immediate testimonies of the guardians of Tradition, and because they are at the same time authentic judgments of the magisterium, which constitute also the proximate rule of faith.

b) The symbols of faith, namely the apostolic symbol, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan, the Athanasian, and the Tridentine. The commentaries on the symbols are the catechisms of various times and of various churches, among which stands out the "Roman Catechism published by Pius V by decree of the Council of Trent."²

c) Liturgical books: missals, sacramentaries, pontificals, rituals, breviaries, finally all the monuments which pertain to religious worship. These indeed are of outstanding authority according to that saying: "The law of praying establishes the law of believing."³ For the liturgies express in practice the dogmas of faith and set before the eyes the most ancient Traditions of the Church.

d) The canon law of all ages: penitential books, disciplinary canons, ecclesiastical laws general and particular. For by all these the life of Christians is directed according to the norm of faith, and hence faith itself is copiously manifested.

e) The works of Christian art, sculpted, painted, architectural, in the catacombs, crypts, sanctuaries, sarcophagi, chairs, and furnishings destined for the sacred or profane use of the faithful, in which inscriptions or epigraphs are very often found. Monuments of this kind sometimes illustrate the transmitted doctrine more vividly than written books, because they set before the eyes by art the life, the worship, and faith itself of the ancients.

f) Whatever documents of ecclesiastical history: acts of the martyrs, lives of the saints, the history of heresies, of dogmas, of popes, of bishops, of religious orders, etc.

g) The writings of the Fathers and of the theologians, which so excel all the other monuments of Tradition that they deserve to be treated individually.

3. Certitude of the monuments. The monuments of antiquity furnish a certain argument of divine Tradition insofar as they manifest the consensus of the successors of the apostles. This indeed happens:

a) When the concordant monuments of all ages attest some doctrine as revealed. This is surely the same as if the successors of the apostles, that is, the living magisterium of all centuries together with the learning Church, stood present to testify to the faith preached always from the apostles onward. But no more manifest demonstration of Tradition can be conceived. Therefore...

b) When the concordant monuments of one age only attest some doctrine as revealed. For in this way it is shown that the living magisterium of the respective age consented to that doctrine. But the consensus of the living magisterium of every single age infallibly testifies the faith. Therefore...

c) When monuments are at hand which are indeed few in number, but of such weight that they represent the common faith of the Church. For there are truths which have been expressed in rare monuments. Likewise very many ancient monuments have perished in the course of the centuries. Nevertheless, having weighed their character and circumstances, the few monuments that remain are sometimes able to demonstrate with certainty the consensus of the magisterium. Therefore...

d) When finally it is proved even by a single monument that the Church has proposed some doctrine as revealed by a solemn judgment. For if it infallibly stands by the solemn judgment of an ecumenical council or of the supreme pontiff that some doctrine is revealed, a fortiori it stands that it was handed down by the apostles and their successors. Therefore...

Scholion. From what has been said one may estimate the well-known canon of s. Vincentii lirinensis: "Great care must be taken that we hold what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is truly and properly catholic."⁴ This rule is positive, i. e. everything is catholic "which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all"; but not exclusive, i. e. as if only that is catholic "which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all". For very many things are contained in Tradition only implicitly, and at length in the course of the centuries and with the progress of knowledge and of proposition they are preached explicitly by the teaching Church, and are likewise believed by the learning Church. Although, however, that saying of s. Vincentius taken in the exclusive sense does not hold for these, nevertheless they are truly and properly catholic. Nor indeed does Vincentius himself deny this, since in his work he sets the greatest store by the progress of faith through the more explicit knowledge and proposition of those truths which previously were admitted only implicitly.⁵

By the name of Fathers, in the broad sense, are understood all ecclesiastical writers who in the earlier centuries illustrated Christian doctrine by their writings.¹

They are called by the name of Fathers because they upheld the Church in her youth, i. e. during the first eight centuries or so. Hence St. John Damascene († 764) is called the last Father. Less aptly is the age of the Fathers sometimes extended up to the twelfth century; for then some particular Churches, indeed, were younger in age, but not the universal Church, which the title of Father regards. Now we must weigh the authority both of the consenting Fathers and of the individual Fathers.

1. The authority of the consenting Fathers. Proposition: The unanimous consensus of the Fathers on some doctrine as revealed is a certain argument of divine Tradition.

It is explained. The proposition says:

a) The unanimous consensus of the Fathers. For the Fathers testify infallibly to Tradition inasmuch as they represent the faith of the universal Church. But neither individual Fathers nor the Fathers of several particular Churches are able to represent the faith of the universal Church, but only the Fathers of the whole world, that is, the consensus of all the Fathers taken morally. This consensus can be established directly or indirectly. It is established directly, or by an accumulation of consensus, if so many Fathers can be cited that a moral unanimity, numerically proven, appears. To this pertains the rule of Cardinal Perron, commonly received by the theologians: "Then the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, proved cumulatively, ought to be esteemed, when the most eminent men of individual nations agree in the assertion of some matter, so that among them no one who, always orthodox, has always adhered to the orthodox, dissents." It is established indirectly, or by inference, if the condition of the testifying Fathers is such that from the testimony of several, the opinion of all and the faith of the whole Church can be inferred. And this happens when all the Western Fathers agree,² or all the later Fathers, who flourished after some doctrine first began to be impugned or treated, or several Fathers diverse in age and homeland, the rest not objecting,³ or finally a few Fathers, whom the whole Church follows as leaders in some controversy, e. g. Basil, Hilary, Athanasius, the two Gregories, and Augustine defending the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity against the Arians; Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great, Agatho, Sophronius establishing the christological dogma against the Nestorians and Monophysites; Augustine and Fulgentius fighting for grace against the Pelagians.

b) On some doctrine as revealed. It does not, therefore, suffice that the Fathers affirm some doctrine, but it is required that they affirm it to be revealed. And this they must teach either in express words or at least in equivalent ones, saying e. g. that the whole Church so believes, that the contrary opinion is heretical, that it is altogether necessary to embrace such a doctrine, etc. On the other hand, the opinion of the Fathers, even when consenting, is not safe, if they do not teach that the doctrine is revealed, professed by the Church, absolutely necessary. A fortiori, the testimony of the Fathers is not certain when, by opining, by doubting, by inquiring, they act as private doctors. You have a celebrated example in the chiliasm of several of the older Fathers, namely Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Commodianus, Sulpicius Severus. This opinion of theirs about the millennial kingdom is not safe, both because very many other Fathers reject it, and because the chiliasts themselves frankly confess that the opposite opinion does not contradict the faith.⁴

c) It is a certain argument of divine Tradition. Doctrines, namely, which are affirmed as revealed by the consensus of the Fathers, are by that very fact proved with infallible certainty to pertain to Tradition. And indeed to divine or divine-apostolic Tradition, i. e. to the deposit of faith handed down by God through the apostles, not to merely ecclesiastical traditions (namely, the precepts and institutions which took their beginning in the Church after the apostles), nor to human-apostolic traditions (which have their origin from the apostles themselves as the first pastors of the Church).

Proof. Our proposition is established invincibly by:

a) All Christian teachers. And first indeed the Fathers themselves, whom, however, we cite here only as historical witnesses. Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria: One will easily correct himself from his errors, "if he has examined the labors of the holy Fathers, who are celebrated by all on account of the rectitude and certainty of their dogmas and have merited the approbation of all; then he will diligently examine his own faith. For to all who are of sound mind this goal is set, that they follow their opinions, since they themselves, having filled their mind with the apostolic and evangelical tradition and having treated the doctrine of faith rightly and without stain and error, were lights in the world, holding the word of life."⁵ St. Vincent of Lérins: "It is surely necessary for all Catholics henceforth, who strive to prove themselves legitimate sons of mother Church, that they cleave to, be glued to, and die in the holy faith of the holy Fathers, and that they detest, abhor, attack, and persecute the profane novelties of the profane."⁶ Cassiodorus: "Let us follow with pious zeal the ways of understanding discovered by the labor of the Fathers ... Let us without doubt believe this to be divine; if anything dissonant or discordant with the rules of the Fathers should happen to be found, let us judge that it must be avoided."⁷

The scholastic theologians of the whole Middle Ages also trod the path of the Fathers. Thus St. Anselm of Canterbury, the father of scholastic theology, professes that in the exposition of Scripture he admits nothing "that does not cohere with the writings of the Catholic Fathers",⁸ and that several truths alone can be proved by the "invincible reasons of the holy Fathers after the apostles and evangelists ... without the authority of Scripture".⁹ Peter Lombard protests that the Book of Sentences follows the path of the Fathers: "In which [book] you will find the examples and the doctrine of the ancients ... But wherever our voice resounded with the voice of the Fathers, it has not departed from the paternal limits."¹⁰ According to St. Bonaventure the concordant documents of the Fathers are of the same firmness as the utterances of the Scriptures.¹¹ All the scholastics think likewise, indeed all the theologians of all ages, except the Protestants alone and the favorers of liberalism and modernism.

b) All the councils are of this mind, that they closely follow the doctrine of faith handed down by the Fathers. Concerning the First Council of Nicaea (325) St. Athanasius writes: "The bishops, not devising words for themselves, but having them from the Fathers, wrote down the testimonies."¹² The First Council of Constantinople (381) drove the Macedonians to stand by "the judgment of the Fathers, who flourished before those heresies which were in question were born".¹³ The Council of Ephesus (431) decreed: "It pleased God to decree nothing else to be believed by posterity, except what the sacred antiquity of the holy Fathers, agreeing with itself, has held."¹⁴ The Second Council of Constantinople (553): "We confess that we hold and preach the faith ..., which the holy Fathers confessed and explained."¹⁵ The Lateran Council of the year 649: "If anyone does not confess, according to the holy Fathers, properly and according to truth, all things which have been handed down and preached to the holy catholic and apostolic Church of God ... let him be condemned."¹⁶ The Fourth Council of Constantinople (869): "Willing to walk inoffensively along the equal and royal way of divine justice, we ought to retain the definitions and senses of the holy Fathers, as certain lamps always shining and illuminating our steps, which are according to God."¹⁷ Concerning the later councils there is no reason for us to speak.

c) The theological argument from the relation of the Fathers to the contemporary and subsequent magisterium of the Church. The Fathers grew together in an intimate relation with the contemporary magisterium of the Church. Most of them were bishops and therefore belonged to the then living magisterium; those, however, who were not bishops were consulted and approved by the bishops as the best interpreters of the faith. Therefore either the concordant doctrine of the Fathers was foreign to error, or the living magisterium itself erred. — Moreover, as is clear from what has been said (under a and b), the Fathers have cohered and still cohere in an intimate relation also with the subsequent magisterium of the Church. The living magisterium of all ages has pressed and presses the footprints of the Fathers, nor has it ever turned aside or turns aside from their consensus. Therefore either the consensus of the Fathers does not err, or the whole teaching Church errs. Since, however, the teaching Church, the principal organ of divine Tradition and the infallible rule of faith, cannot err, our proposition is surely established: The consensus of the Fathers on some doctrine as revealed is a certain argument of divine Tradition.

2. The authority of individual Fathers. Proposition: The testimony of individual Fathers in a matter of faith and morals is a probable argument of divine Tradition.

It is explained. The proposition is to be understood thus:

a) The testimony of individual Fathers. Individual Fathers, therefore, are presupposed, i. e. one or another only, or certainly not such a number of Fathers as could constitute a patristic consensus. Moreover, the testimony of the Fathers is presupposed, i. e. that the respective Fathers speak as witnesses of Tradition, not that as private doctors they bring forth their own subjective opinion. For if as witnesses they report the Tradition of the Church, they borrow a greater or lesser authority of the Church; but if as private doctors they put forward their own opinion, they are worth only as much as they prove. Wherefore the weight of witnesses is greater than that of doctors.¹⁸ That they, however, speak as witnesses and not from their own opinion, is evident, if they affirm this expressly or equivalently, if they appeal to the faith of the Church, if they reject the opposite doctrine as heretical, etc.

b) In a matter of faith and morals, i. e. in a matter which pertains to the object of the ecclesiastical magisterium. For in profane matters the Fathers have no greater authority than the Church itself; indeed they do not judge such matters from supernatural revelation, but from natural reason, following the opinions of the age and the scientific systems then in favor. Whence not even the consensus of the Fathers in merely philosophical, physical, mathematical matters, etc. is binding; therefore a fortiori the opinion of individual Fathers is not binding in these matters.

c) It is a probable argument of divine Tradition. The testimonies of individual Fathers do not provide a certain argument, since each single one is neither subjectively infallible nor a resounding voice of the whole living magisterium, the infallible organ of Tradition. Indeed, many Fathers erred in matters of faith, and scarcely one can be adduced who has not erred in some point. This notwithstanding, the testimony of individual Fathers provides a probable argument, and indeed the more probable, the greater the authority of the Father is. This force of individual testimony grows, if several Fathers consent, and the probability of the argument is increased the more the number and the weight of the witnesses is increased. On the other hand, the testimony of individual or of several Fathers is weakened or even entirely taken away, if other Fathers dissent.¹⁹

Proof. The proposition, thus understood, is readily established:

a) From the character of the Father. The Fathers, having regard to their antiquity, their learning, and, for the most part, their holiness, knew the revealed and handed-down truth in the highest degree, propagated it with all zeal, and defended it with a singular love, often undergoing the gravest hardships or sometimes even death ... Therefore of them that saying holds most fully: "Those skilled in an art are to be believed."

b) From the practice of the Church. The Church has received and receives the holy Fathers, even without regard to their consensus, with pious veneration, reverence, and devotion. St. Augustine writes of them: "God himself dispensed his stewards, faithful and in many respects most excellent, though few, through the diverse ages, the distances of times and places, as it pleases him and he judges expedient."²⁰ Leontius of Byzantium: "After the apostles and prophets God placed teachers in the Church according to the incomprehensible providence of the Holy Spirit, for the work of ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ."²¹ By the Second Council of Nicaea (787) there is extolled "the doctrine of our holy Fathers, that is, the Tradition of the holy catholic Church"²² The Fourth Council of Constantinople (869) declares: "Therefore we profess to keep and preserve the rules which ... have been handed down by any God-speaking Father and teacher of the Church."²³ Pius IX laments that by certain moderns there is not had "that reverence for the holy Fathers which the canons of the councils prescribe and which the most splendid lights of the Church altogether merit"²⁴ Pius X binds Catholic theologians by oath: "I sincerely receive the doctrine of faith, transmitted to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers, always in the same sense and always in the same meaning ... I most firmly retain the faith of the Fathers and will retain it to the last breath of life."²⁵

By theologians are here understood those distinguished cultivators of sacred science who, after the Fathers, illustrated the Catholic truth in the name and by the mission of the ecclesiastical magisterium. Hence by the name of theologians are called the scholastics of the Middle Ages and their followers down to our own age, insofar as, imbued with the same scholastic principles, they wrote and taught. For this reason all these theologians are sometimes called scholastics simply, although not all lived in the scholastic age, nor did all use and do all use the scholastic method. We must speak of the authority of the consenting theologians, and likewise of the authority of individual theologians and especially of St. Thomas.

1. The authority of the consenting theologians. Proposition: The unanimous consensus of the theologians concerning a doctrine as to be believed is a certain argument of divine revelation.

The proposition needs no explanation, since it is subject to the same conditions as the thesis on the consensus of the Fathers. It is proved, however:

a) From the connection with the magisterium of the Church. For from the twelfth century down to our times the whole magisterium of the Church came forth from the Catholic schools: priests, confessors, preachers, bishops, supreme pontiffs were and are instructed in scholastic principles and doctrines. If therefore all the schools had taught errors, the whole magisterium itself would have been imbued with errors. Moreover, the ecclesiastical magisterium at all times kept watch over the theological schools, inspecting their doctrine, approving or reprobating scholastic books, praising or restraining doctors. Therefore it would have to be imputed to the ecclesiastical magisterium if errors were commonly taught in the schools. Finally, the whole magisterium relied on the Catholic schools in preparing, elaborating, publishing, and proposing to the faithful the documents of faith. Therefore either the schools as a whole do not err, or the whole Church, both teaching and learning, errs, which is absurd.

b) From the pontifical decrees by which scholastic theology is extolled and its assailants are condemned. Among very many¹ let the letters of Pius IX alone suffice, sent to the archbishop of Munich in the year 1863: "Nor were we unaware that in Germany too a false opinion had prevailed against the old school and against the doctrine of those great doctors whom the universal Church venerates on account of their admirable wisdom and the sanctity of their life. By this false opinion the authority of the Church herself is called into peril, since the Church herself not only permitted through so many continuous centuries that theological science be cultivated according to the method of those same doctors and according to the principles sanctioned by the common consent of all Catholic schools, but also very often extolled their theological doctrine with the highest praises and vehemently commended it as the strongest bulwark of the faith and as formidable arms against her enemies."²

c) From heretical persecution. "Contempt of the school and the plagues of heresies are and always have been connected after the school was born."³ Heretics always hated scholastic theology. Thus Luther: "I simply believe that it is impossible for the Church to be reformed, unless the canons, decretals, scholastic theology, philosophy, logic, as they now exist, are rooted out and other studies instituted."⁴ Melanchthon: "Scholastic theology is nothing but a vain, feigned, invented, damned, diabolical cavil and the dream of monks."⁵ Hatred of scholastic theology always led to heresy. For history teaches that the unanimous consensus of the schools or of the theologians was never pertinaciously opposed without heresy itself being incurred sooner or later. Certainly, e. g., de Lamennais, Bautain, Gioberti, Hermes, Bonnetty, Günther, Döllinger, Tyrrell and other modernists fell into their deplorable errors for this reason, because they despised and abandoned the footsteps of the scholastic theologians.

2. The authority of individual theologians. Proposition: The authority of individual theologians is diverse according to the number and weight of the authors; St. Thomas surpasses all in authority, without however the other scholastic masters, and especially St. Bonaventure, being to be neglected.

a) The authority of individual theologians is diverse according to the number and weight of the authors. By individual theologians we understand theologians taken apart from the consensus. Their authority of itself does not equal the authority of the Fathers. For most of the Fathers were bishops and therefore authentic witnesses of Tradition; not so the theologians. Moreover, the Church approved the individual holy Fathers at least in general; but she approved not individual theologians, but the schools of theologians, as witnesses of Tradition. Hence the opinion of a single theologian does not produce a probable argument, unless perhaps he be among the weightiest authors, e. g. the Master of the Sentences, Bl. Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure, Scotus, Bellarmine, Suarez. But several grave and respected authors procure for themselves a probable authority. And the more the weight and the number of the assenting theologians increases, the greater becomes the probability of the argument. Nevertheless neither is the opinion of the very many altogether certain and necessarily to be embraced, if other schools or other approved authors contradict it.⁶ On this matter Canus speaks most aptly: "The testimony of scholastic theologians, even of many, if other learned men fight against it, avails no more for producing faith than their reason or an even weightier authority would have approved. Namely, in scholastic disputation the authority of the many ought not to overwhelm a theologian; but if he have with him few men, provided they be grave, he will surely be able to stand against the very many. For these things are judged not by number, but by weight... For if something is contrary to Scotist or Thomistic pronouncements, it is not immediately an error."⁷

b) St. Thomas surpasses all in authority, without however the other scholastic masters, and especially St. Bonaventure, being to be neglected. For "among the scholastic doctors the prince and master of all, Thomas Aquinas stands out far above the rest, who, because he supremely venerated the old sacred doctors, therefore in a manner obtained the understanding of all. Their doctrines, like the scattered members of some body, Thomas gathered and joined together into one, disposed them in wonderful order, and increased them with such great increments that he is rightly and deservedly held the singular safeguard and glory of the Catholic Church. Indeed, docile and keen in genius, easy and tenacious in memory, most upright in life, a unique lover of truth, richly endowed with divine and human science, compared to the sun, he warmed the whole world with the heat of his virtues and filled it with the splendor of his doctrine ... So he disputed that in him there is wanting neither a copious harvest of questions, nor a fitting disposition of parts, nor the best manner of proceeding, nor the firmness of principles or the strength of arguments, nor the perspicuity or propriety of speech, nor the facility of explaining every abstruse point ... He obtained this from himself, that he alone conquered all the errors of earlier times, and supplied most invincible arms for destroying those which are to arise in perpetual succession in the future. — Moreover, distinguishing reason, as is fitting, from faith above all, yet consociating both amicably, he preserved the rights of each and consulted the dignity of each, so that reason, borne up on Thomas's wings to the human summit, can now scarcely rise higher; nor can faith scarce expect more or stronger aids from reason than those which it has already obtained through Thomas."⁸

On account of this intrinsic authority the writings of St. Thomas likewise obtained the highest extrinsic authority. The most learned Catholic philosophers and theologians of all ages delivered themselves to the divine Thomas not so much to be cultivated as to be thoroughly nourished. Almost all the founders and legislators of religious orders either commended the doctrine of Aquinas to their followers or altogether prescribed it to be followed. The most celebrated universities, academies and schools chose the Angelic prince and supreme master. But, what is of more value, ecumenical councils and supreme pontiffs pursued him with wonderful praises and the amplest documents. "In the councils of Lyons, Vienne, Florence and the Vatican you would say that Thomas took part in the deliberations of the fathers and almost presided over them ... The fathers of Trent, in arranging the order of the very midst of the council chamber, wished the Summa of Thomas Aquinas to lie open upon the altar together with the codices of divine Scripture and the decrees of the supreme pontiffs, whence counsel, reasons and oracles might be sought."⁹ The supreme pontiffs themselves, from John XXII down to our age, commended the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas in almost innumerable documents.¹⁰ Especially, however, Leo XIII, Pius X and Benedict XV often ordered "that in Catholic schools, where sacred youth is instructed in the science of philosophy and theology, Thomas Aquinas be held the supreme master"¹¹ Finally, the new code of canon law strictly prescribes to all schools, both of secular clerics and of religious orders: "The professors shall treat the studies of rational philosophy and theology and the instruction of the students in these disciplines entirely according to the method, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor, and hold them sacredly."¹² This law, insofar as it regards sacred theology, is to be understood in this way, that in the common schools "it be permitted to use the books of those authors who expound in compendium the doctrines derived from the source of Aquinas",¹³ but in the universities and other institutes to which power has been given of conferring academic degrees, "schools be held on the Summa theologica itself",¹⁴ i. e. the masters "are to have the Summa theologica of St. Thomas as the text of their lectures and explain it in the Latin tongue"¹⁵ Hence the doctrine of St. Thomas enjoys the most special approbation of the Church, and he who follows it follows the doctrine most commonly received in the Church.

Nevertheless, by this approbation St. Thomas is set as the common master of theology only with regard to the scholastic part (which they also call dogmatic and moral), since positive theology in the broad sense (apologetics, introduction, patrology, canon law, pastoral theology, ecclesiastical history) is wholly or for the most part foreign to St. Thomas and is to be taken from elsewhere. But even with regard to the scholastic part not all and singular points of the doctrine of St. Thomas are approved, but the doctrine in general, in which "if you regard its substantial elements, nothing is found that could not be defended."¹⁶ Therefore, the body of doctrine being preserved, it will sometimes be lawful in individual opinions reverently to dissent from St. Thomas; nay, in some opinions, though few, it is necessary to dissent from him.¹⁷ From which at length it is evident that the Church, by more solemnly approving and preferring St. Thomas, does not disapprove or neglect the other scholastics. The Church, as we have shown above, makes much of the whole genuine scholasticism. However much she extols St. Thomas, she nevertheless warns that the newer doctors also follow the other scholastic masters as "distinguished leaders".¹⁸ Nay, she acknowledges the consensus of the scholastics as an irrefragable testimony of divine Tradition. This one thing she disapproves, if by certain scholastics some things are established "repugnant to the principles of St. Thomas".¹⁹ Therefore "if the doctrine of some author or saint ... has ever been approved with singular praises, it is easily understood to have been approved to that extent in which it cohered with the principles of Aquinas or was in no way repugnant to them".²⁰

With this singular praise, before all other scholastics, St. Bonaventure was approved, so that after the divine Thomas indeed, but together with him, he is to be venerated by the Catholic schools.

Likewise the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and of Universities of Studies decreed on 7 March 1916: "The Summa theologica of St. Thomas is to be held as the text of the lectures with regard to the scholastic part of the questions; namely so that, together with some text which ... contains the positive part, the Summa theologica be held in hand and explained with regard to the scholastic part." Acta ap. sed. II, 656 sq.; VIII, 157.

The supreme pontiffs themselves, who extol the Angelic Doctor, likewise concelebrate the Seraphic Doctor. Sixtus V declares: "By the gift of that Divine One, who alone gives the spirit of knowledge and wisdom and understanding, and who increases his Church through the ages of centuries, as need requires, with new benefits, and furnishes it with new safeguards, scholastic theology was found out by our ancestors, the wisest men, which two most glorious doctors especially, the angelic St. Thomas and the seraphic St. Bonaventure, the most distinguished professors of this faculty, ... cultivated and adorned with excellent genius, assiduous study, great labors and vigils, and handed it down to posterity best disposed and in many ways most excellently explained ... For these are the two olive trees and the two candelabra shining in the house of God, who illuminate the whole Church with the richness of charity and the light of knowledge: these, by the singular providence of God, at the same time came forth like two stars rising from two most distinguished families of religious orders. These two Saints, since they were contemporaries devoted to the same studies, fellow students, at once masters, honored in equal measure by Gregory X, the supreme pontiff, and in this pilgrimage of life were most closely united by fraternal charity, spiritual familiarity, and the fellowship of holy labors, ... so that Sixtus IV, recognizing these two Saints as most similar and almost twin brothers in Christ, rightly decreed that St. Bonaventure be adorned with a prerogative of veneration and honor like St. Thomas."²¹ Leo XIII, fully confirming this encomium of his predecessor, adds: "How great a bond existed between St. Thomas and the Seraphic Doctor, how great a likeness of holiness and doctrine, is known to all ... Wherefore there is in no way any doubt but that Catholic youths especially, growing up to the hope of the Church, who betake themselves to philosophical and theological studies to be pursued according to the doctrine of Aquinas, will draw the greatest utility from reading the works of St. Bonaventure, and from the writings of both, as from the principal armories, take up swords and weapons, with which in the most foul war stirred up against the Church and human society itself they may strenuously overcome the enemies."²² Finally Pius X: "We judge that Bonaventure, as one divinely given not only to his own century but to all posterity, can benefit this age also outstandingly ... The more so, because he stood forth as the second prince of the scholastics together with Aquinas."²³

We have seen that there are two sources of revelation, namely Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition. If it is finally asked how these sources are related to the ecclesiastical magisterium itself, the answer is at hand and already evident from what we have discussed on the one hand concerning the sources and on the other concerning the magisterium. Scripture and Tradition (understand: the monuments of Tradition) are inanimate instruments of doctrine, whose authentic and infallible interpreter is the living magisterium of the Church. Sacred Scripture contains the word of God, and thus constitutes one part of revelation, whose custody, explanation, and preaching have been divinely entrusted to the ever-living apostolic succession under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Hence it belongs to the Church herself authentically and infallibly to declare the genuine sense of the inspired books. Likewise, the monuments of Tradition, inasmuch as they bear witness to the faith of the apostolic succession that has already passed away, contain the word of God, and thus constitute the other part of revelation, whose custody, explanation, and preaching likewise pertain to the apostolic succession that continues to live. Accordingly, the living apostolic succession itself, that is, the living magisterium of the Church, authentically and infallibly adjudicates the sense and consensus of the monuments of Tradition. Therefore, individual faithful are bound to seek from the ecclesiastical magisterium the word of God deposited both in the Sacred Scriptures and in the monuments of Tradition, and to understand and believe it according to the norm of this magisterium. For this reason, the sources of revelation, namely Scripture and Tradition, are the remote rule of faith; the proposition, however, through the magisterium of the Church is the proximate rule of faith.

Having discussed these things concerning the Church as a society and as the teacher of the faithful, we bring the Catholic demonstration to a close.

Jesus Christ truly founded an ecclesiastical society, which was to contain all the faithful, and in this society He established an ecclesiastical magisterium, which was to teach all the faithful. But this Church of Christ is none other than the Catholic Church. Therefore the Catholic Church is the religion of Christ in the concrete, the person of Christ mystically ever living and acting on earth, the house of God built upon "the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone."¹

It remains to say briefly what manner of conduct befits us in the house of God, that is, what piety toward the Church. The Apostle of the Gentiles himself already admonishes Timothy: "These things I write to you, that you may know how you ought to behave in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."² Applying this text of Paul, St. Bonaventure observes as learnedly as piously: "Whoever wishes to behave rightly in the house of the Church ought to dwell in it with voluntary subjection, with mutual love, with holy zeal, with devout prayer."³

1. With voluntary subjection. The Church rules and teaches the faithful in the name, in the place, and with the authority of Christ. In all things, therefore, that pertain either directly or indirectly to the worship of religion and to the ordering of life in the Christian manner, let us be subject to the Church in deed and in affection. Let us never neglect those solemn words of the Lord: "If he will not hear the Church, let him be to you as the heathen and the publican. ... He who hears you, hears me; and he who despises you, despises me; but he who despises me, despises Him who sent me."⁴ Wherefore let the supreme law of the faithful, and especially of clerics, be this: to live, to speak, to believe, to feel with the Catholic Church. "Laying aside all private judgment, the soul [be] always ready and prompt to obey the true spouse of Christ and our holy mother ... Let us be wholly of one mind and conformed with the Catholic Church; if she shall have defined that something which appears white to our eyes is black, we ought likewise to pronounce that it is black. For without doubt it must be believed that the spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the orthodox Church, His spouse, is one and the same, by which we are governed and directed unto salvation."⁵ Whoever, therefore, has the spirit of the Church has the Spirit of Christ; and whoever does not have the spirit of the Church does not have the Spirit of Christ. "But if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, he is not His."⁶

2. With mutual love. "If by the law of nature we are bidden to love and protect especially the city in which we were born and brought into this light, even to the point that the good citizen does not hesitate to meet death for his fatherland, it is the duty of Christians to be disposed toward the Church in a like manner, and by far a greater one. For the Church is the holy city of the living God, born of God Himself and established by the same author: she sojourns indeed on earth, but she calls men, instructs them, and leads them to everlasting happiness in heaven. The fatherland, therefore, from which we have received the enjoyment of mortal life, must be loved; but the Church must be preferred in charity, to which we owe the life of the soul that shall endure forever."⁷ As Christ "loved the Church, His spouse, and delivered Himself up for her,"⁸ so let us also love the Church, our mother, with the tenderest charity, and devote our whole life to her. Nay, let us pursue Christ and the Church with one and the same love, because "Christ with His whole Church, whether that which still sojourns on earth or that which already reigns with Him in heaven, is one person."⁹

3. With holy zeal. For since the Church is the kingdom of God; since Christ renders the work of His redemption perpetual through the Church; and since no one can be saved "unless he shall have remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church",¹⁰ all Catholics must labor with the greatest effort for the propagation, preservation, and defense of the Church. By word, therefore, by example, and by assistance let us strive to make the Church known to unbelievers, to lead heretics and schismatics back to the Church, and finally to vindicate the rights of the Church from the snares of her enemies. Above all, "the ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God"¹¹ ought to promote whatever redounds to the advantage of the Church. Let the clergy always hold the cause of the Church, that true city of God, in their desires, so that they may be able to say with the psalmist: "Let my tongue cleave to my jaws, if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem in the beginning of my joy."¹²

4. With devout prayer. By devout prayer the faithful ought to, and can, greatly assist the Church, shaken as she is by so many storms. Let us therefore follow the example of Christ praying for the rulers and the subjects of the Church: "Holy Father, keep them in Your name, whom You have given Me, that they may be one, as We also are ... that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves ... that You keep them from evil ... that they also may be sanctified in truth. And not for them only do I pray, but for those also who through their word shall believe in Me: that they all may be one ... that they may be made perfect in one ... that where I am, they also may be with Me, that they may see My glory ... that the love wherewith You have loved Me may be in them, and I in them."¹³ Whether rulers of the Church or subjects, let us all pray daily for the supreme pastor and father of all, namely the Roman pontiff. For Christ Himself also prayed for him in particular: "I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not."¹⁴ To him Christ entrusted the whole flock of the faithful to be kept: "Feed My lambs ... Feed My sheep."¹⁵ Lastly, in him He foretold that the whole Church would remain unharmed: "Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."¹⁶