Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

On the visible constitution of the organ of Tradition, most perfectly fitted to the office enjoined upon it.

« Although the supreme reason from which the perennial preservation of the integrity of doctrine and certitude and security concerning this preservation arises is the promise and the bestowal by Christ of a perpetual charism of truth; yet the visible constitution itself and communion of the guardians of the faith at every time has been such that, in accordance with the sweet providence of God, it fully corresponds to the office of perpetually preserving Tradition. »

Without doubt the adequate cause by which, through the successors of the Apostles, the preservation of revelation long since consummated is effected and rendered infallibly certain is the Spirit of truth, who assists the successors of the Apostles perpetually according to the promises of Christ, which — both clear in themselves and understood in this sense by the whole Christian name from the Apostles onward — we have demonstrated in the preceding theses. But since the Holy Spirit is present to the successors of the Apostles not as to heralds of a new revelation but as to guardians of the deposit (th. V.), nor is He present through continual revelations but through assistance, direction, and protection, lest « however most zealous speculation » and human diligence ever « go into error »; therefore the human element — human action, I say, inquiry, solicitude, and diligence — is not excluded, but rather is required in accordance with the sweet disposition of God, and this human element itself, under the action and direction of the Holy Spirit, is as it were the visible body informed by the invisible spiritual charism. Hence it will be worthwhile to have considered more distinctly the visible subject itself of the ministry instituted for the custody of the faith, that we may understand with what perfection this ministry itself, even according to its visible element, has at every time corresponded to its office.

We say, then, that a) the visible union and communion of the guardians of the faith, and b) their character and conduct taken universally together with the principles on which they relied, are of such a kind that the suspicion of defection from the doctrine originally handed down and of innovation introduced into the universal ecclesiastical preaching is utterly excluded.

I. That we may understand that an innovation contrary to apostolic Tradition is repugnant even to the human element itself, considered historically and philosophically in itself, the chief place is surely held by the hierarchical union and communion of the Bishops and faithful of the whole Church.

1°. Not only was the apostolic institution always observed, that no Bishop be elected unless the sincerity of his faith had first been established by certain testimonies, « lest any unworthy man creep into the sacerdotal place, » as Cyprian says, ep. 68; but also, and especially, the Bishops of the greater sees continually after their election set forth to their other colleagues, and above all to the Roman Pontiff, by synodical letters a distinct profession of their faith. « The apostolic and ancient Tradition has held in the holy Churches of God throughout the whole world, that those who are advanced to the episcopate should sincerely set forth everything to those who before them ruled the chief priesthoods — what they think and how they stand with regard to the faith.... lest they run in vain » St. Sophronius, Bishop of Jerusalem, in his synodical epistle to Honorius the Pontiff and Sergius of Constantinople, in which he comprises a distinct profession of faith (Council VI. Hard. III. p. 1259.). The reason of this holy institution is evident of itself, and is admirably set forth by St. Gregory the Great: « For when we transmit to one another in turn the confession of our faith and show our charity toward one another, what else do we do in the holy Church of God but daub the ark with pitch, lest the wave of error enter? » Gregory, l. VII. ep. 4. to Cyriacus of Constantinople. See the same Gregory, l. IX. ep. 52. to Secundinus; Leo the Great, ep. 69. al. 52. n. 1; ep. 70. al. 54. n. 1; ep. 14. al. 84. n. 1; Hilary the Pontiff, epp. 5. and 6; Gelasius, epp. 1. and 2. By the communicatory or formate letters sent to one another, and namely by the communicatory letters with the Roman Pontiff, all Bishops were secure of communion in faith with the whole world (Optatus, l. II. n. 3. §. 13.). « We communicate with the apostolic Churches, because to none is doctrine diverse: this is the testimony of truth » Tertull. Prescript. c. 21. (cf. th. VIII.). But he to whom communion was denied, « whoever he was, was not a Christian, because he was not in the Church » (Cyprian, ep. 51. to Antonian.).

2°. Just as the Bishops, both individually and all together, were solicitous that the faith of each should be most fully attested as agreeing with the common faith of all, and diligent care was taken lest anyone in any way dissenting from the common faith should seem to share in ecclesiastical communion; from the same reason they with vigilant zeal took care that the one faith of the Bishops succeeding one another in the several sees should be certainly established. Cf. above p. 69. sq. Hence the series of orthodox Bishops inscribed in the diptychs of the several Churches was most diligently preserved, those being rejected who had fallen under suspicion of defection from the faith or from the communion of the universal Church. See Leo the Great, ep. 80. c. 3. to Anatolius; the epistle of the Bishops of Egypt to the same (Hard. T. II. p. 698. 699.). How highly this matter was esteemed appears from the protracted controversies, e.g., over the restoring of the name of St. Chrysostom to the diptychs; over the erasing of the names of Acacius and his successors in the see of Constantinople, a dispute which lasted from the time of Gelasius down to Hormisdas the Pontiff. Cf. Card. Bona, de Rebus liturgicis, l. II. c 12.

3°. If at any time in any Church a novelty of doctrine contrary to the common handed-down faith had begun to creep in, it was the Bishop's duty not only to repress it, but also to inform the other Bishops, and above all the Roman Pontiff, that the error, condemned everywhere by common sentence, might be warded off from the Church. The Bishops of Egypt, against the Monophysite Timothy Aelurus, implore the aid of Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, « to the end that the holy and undefiled faith may be kept immovable and unassailable against all heretical subtlety; and that he make known our groans by synodical letters to Leo, the most holy Pontiff of the Roman Church, as also to the most God-beloved Bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem and Thessalonica and Ephesus, or to such other Churches as shall seem good, since this offense is a common injury, so that all the Bishops of the whole world, learning what has been presumed by Timothy, and that he has practiced novelties, ... may not delay to furnish the fitting form which shall in this matter be pleasing » (Hard. T. II. p. 699.). So the Bishops gathered in the Council of Antioch denounce Paul of Samosata to Dionysius the Roman Pontiff and Maximus of Alexandria (apud Euseb. H. E. VII. c. 25.); Cyprian denounces the schismatics Felicissimus and Fortunatus to Cornelius the Pontiff (ep. 55.); Alexander of Alexandria denounces Arius to all Catholic Bishops (ep. among the Works of Athanasius, T. I. p. 397.). In the cause of Nestorius, of the Eutychians, of the Pelagians, many letters of admonition were exchanged on both sides among the Bishops. Cf. Stapleton, T. I. l. VII. c. 7.

To the same solicitude for guarding the faith and forestalling danger belongs the custom that to clerics as well as to other faithful passing from one Church to another there were given by their Bishops communicatory letters testifying to their sincere faith, lest men deviating from the handed-down faith should anywhere creep into the communion of the faithful. Cf. the Apostolic canons 10. and 26. (in the version of Dionysius Exiguus 13. 34.); Elvira 58; Laodicea 41; Chalcedon 11. (Act. XV.); Apostolic Constitutions, l. II. c. 58; Basil, ep. 191. T. III. p. 284; ep. 203. p. 301; Zosimus, Poecis, ep. 1. n. 1. to the Bishops of Gaul, etc.

4°. Besides these things, an extraordinary indeed, but — where the danger of an impending novelty or the necessity already arisen somewhere seemed to require it — efficacious safeguard of union and agreement, and alike for the more solemn confirmation of antiquity and the condemnation of novelty, were and are the Councils of Bishops, whether from single provinces or from the universal Church of the whole world. Of this, as also of the far chiefest and ordinary bond of unity (as Cyprian calls it) through the communion of all pastors with the successor of Peter as of members with the head (Council of Chalcedon), we cannot treat more distinctly here, since another place is proper to that treatment.

Now this so great communion of all the Bishops of the universal Church among themselves, and this so great common solicitude for the one faith, must be considered together with the fundamental principle on which all relied and on which it was certain among all that the whole economy of faith depended; namely, that the faith once handed down must be retained, and that every novelty opposed to it is the subversion of faith and salvation: « let nothing be innovated, except what has been handed down. » See above, th. VIII. But with these things viewed together, who does not see how fittingly the ministry instituted for preserving Tradition corresponds, even according to its visible constitution, to its office? For with this union and these principles of the united pastors posited, it could never come about that either suddenly and as it were by a single assault, or by creeping in gradually, novelty should prevail against antiquity and infect the whole Church — and this in such a way that neither the time nor the manner nor the history of such an innovation could be designated from certain and manifest facts. This demonstration will be still fuller if there be added the other consideration, of what and how great men they were who in this union were joined both among themselves and with their predecessors through the long series of ages and in all the Churches of the whole world.

II. If we turn our mind first to the age of the holy Fathers, those guardians of the faith, dispensed by divine providence throughout all the Churches from the Apostles through many centuries, were distinguished by a moral universality — all of them by love and zeal for the doctrine handed down from the Apostles and by equal detestation of every novelty; many of them confirmed by the martyrdom of blood or of grievous confession the doctrine which they had received and handed down as apostolic; eminent not only in knowledge of the doctrine which they had received from their predecessors and on which they had been nurtured, but also in holiness of Christian life; many of them illustrious in genius and in the amplest knowledge of things divine and human. These men, so many and so great, all conspiring together in their judgments, united in communion, devoted all their solicitude, all their cares, to that of which we spoke just above: that antiquity should always be preserved and every novelty of doctrine — that is, the subversion of the whole Christian religion — be warded off. There were therefore applied the greatest and fittest resources; they were applied by the fittest men; they were applied in the fittest ways for the preservation of the handed-down doctrine; therefore, if divine providence attends to the greatest things, on which depend the religion and salvation of the Christian people, innovation and corruption of the handed-down doctrine could not come about.

This consideration, moreover, at least as to its essential parts, can be applied to all ages of the Church and of the apostolic succession. If at any time, as regards sanctity and learning, certain clouds have been cast, certainly the same zeal for guarding Tradition always remained, the same horror of novelty, the same agreement in the doctrine received from the holy Fathers; and so, if in the age of the Fathers the apostolic doctrine persevered intact, not less inviolate has it been brought down even to us.

By these reasons, which we have here scarcely indicated in a few words, at every time the most holy guardians of Tradition themselves have vindicated the authority and fidelity of their predecessors in the same office of guarding the deposit. The Fathers of the Lateran Council under Martin I, after the unanimous judgments of the preceding Fathers had been read aloud, exclaimed: « Accomplishing with the utmost devotion the word of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, the holy Fathers did not hide the lamp of grace and knowledge given them by Him under the bushel of unfruitful obscurity, but lifted it upon the candlestick of saving doctrine, that it may shine to all who are in the house, that is, to the people of the Catholic Church.... Which things we, discerning through the reading of their venerable discourses, glorify indeed the Father of lights, from whom every good gift and every perfect present was sent down to them for the fulness of His Catholic and Apostolic Church; but we shall deservedly condemn their accusers, who strive to overshadow the true confession of so great a light by the figment of novelty » (Harduin, T. III. p. 886.). Augustine in many places commends, in the manner we have described, the authority of the preceding Fathers most eloquently. Thus, after he had adduced the judgment of several against Julian the Pelagian: « These are Bishops, he says, learned, grave, holy, most keen defenders of the truth against prating vanities, in whose reason, erudition, liberty — which three things you attributed to a good judge — you can find nothing to despise. If an episcopal synod were gathered from the whole world, it would be a wonder if so many such men could easily sit therein. For neither did these live at one time, but God Himself dispenses His faithful stewards, few and more excellent than many, through the diverse ages of times and distances of places, as it pleases Him and as He judges expedient... They are so much the more terrible to you, because you assail the Catholic faith, which they sucked in with their milk, which they took in with their food, whose milk and food they ministered to small and great... After the Apostles, the holy Church grew through such planters, waterers, builders, pastors, nourishers; therefore she shuddered at the profane voices of your novelty... You will seek judges, where you accuse so many holy, eminent, and memorable doctors of Catholic truth... and moreover the whole Church of Christ, to whom, faithfully ministering the Lord's provisions to the divine household, they shone with immense glory in the Lord » August. cont. Julian. l. II. n. 37. See the same, against Julian, l. I. n. 30-34; l. II. n. 31. 34; Op. imperf. l. II. n. 37; Clement Alex. Strom. VII. p. 762; Tertull. Prescript. c. 29; Athanas. de Synodis n. 4. 43. 47; Basil contra Eunom. l. I. n. 3; Gregor. Naz. to Cledonius, ep. 2. Works, T. II. p. 97; Hilar. to Constantius, l. I. n. 5; Lerinens. n. 33.

Now if all the things we have said in this thesis be taken together — the manner and scope of the communion of all pastors, the solicitude and safeguards for guarding Tradition, the ardent zeal for one and ever the same doctrine with detestation of novelty, the sanctity and learning of the same pastors — the fullest aptness of the apostolic succession, according to its visible element, for guarding the integrity of the handed-down doctrine is evident, so that, these things being considered in themselves, under even the common providence of God change and corruption appear morally impossible. But since all these gifts, this perpetual preservation of unity and agreement, are according to the promises of Christ and are shown to be the effect of the guardianship of Christ abiding with the successors of the Apostles all days even unto the consummation of the age, and of the Spirit of truth abiding with the same forever (th. V.), there arises a theological, supernatural, and absolute certitude.

First corollary to the two preceding theses. When the existence and authority of the ever-living magisterium and ministry for preserving Tradition, according to the manner demonstrated in the preceding theses, is established; it suffices to have demonstrated, at some time obtaining, the agreement of faith in the apostolic succession, whereby the divine revelation and apostolic Tradition of any head of doctrine may be vindicated. The inquiry into revealed truth, therefore, and disputation with the heterodox must begin not from single heads of doctrine, but from the demonstration of the universal principle of knowledge, namely, from the authority and office of the apostolic succession for preserving and propagating revelation whole. « The order of things required that this first be set forth which is now alone to be disputed: to whom the faith itself belongs, whose are the Scriptures, by whom and through whom and when and to whom that discipline has been handed down by which men are made Christians... There will be the truth of the Scriptures and of the expositions and of all Christian traditions » Tertull. Prescript. 19. See above, th. VIII. cf. p. 5. sq. 21.

Nevertheless, that there may be demonstrated historically, for the fruit of theological science, and vindicated polemically, against those who deny the principle of authority, the apostolic origin and revealed truth of single dogmas, a mere appeal to the present agreement does not suffice; yet it suffices to demonstrate agreement in the same truth of a dogma some centuries past, those times which are called the times of the Fathers, without its being always necessary to exhibit by express testimonies the agreement of the apostolic age or of that immediately following from the scanty monuments which survive to us. For scientifically, even against those who deny the authentic magisterium, the derivation of a doctrine from apostolic times can be inferred from the agreement of Christian antiquity, albeit somewhat later, and the present agreement can be shown connected with the doctrine of the apostolic age through the demonstrated agreement of the intermediate time, provided the doctrine which we now profess be demonstrated identical with the doctrine of the Fathers, say, of the fourth or fifth century from express testimonies, and this same doctrine be shown identical with the doctrine of the apostolic age from the impossibility of change and innovation.

Second corollary. Although in the handed-down doctrines which must be believed explicitly by all there has always been full agreement (Aug. contr. Julian. l. I. n. 31.); yet there can be contained in objective revelation heads of doctrine in which at some time agreement either was not sufficiently discerned or in fact did not obtain (August. ibid. n. 22.). Hence it can indeed never come about that in the apostolic succession, after an agreeing affirmation and explicit profession of some doctrine of faith, there should follow within the bounds of the Church a denial of the same doctrine, or conversely, after an agreeing denial and condemnation of it, an affirmation; it can happen, however, that after discordant opinions there should follow the fullest agreement.

Therefore a) a discordant opinion concerning some doctrine among guardians of the faith persevering in mutual communion is not of itself a sufficient argument for proving that the doctrine is not divinely handed down; although it proves that concerning its divine Tradition, at least unto the obligation of faith for all, that is, of Catholic faith, it is not yet sufficiently established. But on the other hand b) in whatever communion a change introduced after an antecedent agreement of profession of faith can be demonstrated — from affirmation to denial or conversely — that communion is not the Church of Christ.