Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

Ecclesiastical preaching is the supreme norm of interpretation of Holy Scripture.

« The Catholic understanding 1°. considered in the authentic judgment addressed to the universal Church, or manifested in the consenting doctrine of the apostolic succession, under the assistance of the Holy Spirit is the infallible interpreter of Holy Scripture; whence 2° such an authentic interpretation, insofar as it concerns particular texts of Scripture, must simply be held as the rule of understanding; 3° considered universally, ecclesiastical preaching is the canon of interpretation in the negative sense, that a sense contradicting it can never be true, and in the affirmative sense, that it generally guides and not a little helps toward finding or confirming the true sense. »

I. The truth of this thesis follows from all that we demonstrated in Section I concerning the conservation and explication of the whole of revealed doctrine through the authentic magisterium under the assistance of the Holy Spirit. When we are taught that the whole “discipline by which men are made Christians” is conserved and propagated in the perpetual succession of the guardians of the faith; that “into the Church as into a rich depository have been conferred all things that are of the truth, so that whoever wills may draw from her a draught of life”; that “in the Church as in a good vessel there is the excellent deposit of faith, ever made young by the Spirit of God and making the vessel itself young,” and that the principle of this ever-young life of faith is therefore the Holy Spirit: certainly there is understood not merely the conservation of words, formulas, and theorems considered materially; but there is understood the conservation and propagation of the sincere understanding of revealed truths, whose expression is contained in words, formulas, and theorems. Hence we saw that those appellations solemn among the Fathers are most excellent: Catholic understanding, ecclesiastical sense, the common consciousness of faith; for in these is admirably expressed the proper character of Tradition in the complex, that is, considered with its organ. Now to the deposit to be guarded by the Church belong also, and in the first place, the Scriptures, in which “Christian discipline and the things that are of the truth” have in part been consigned in words and sentences with the Holy Spirit as author. Therefore there is perpetually conserved in the Church by the Spirit of God not only the material word of Scripture, but the Catholic understanding of the truths contained in the words of Scripture, in this manner and to this end, that the authentic magisterium itself does not err in judging concerning the true sense of Scripture and in expounding it. Therefore the Church, equipped with this Catholic understanding, is the infallible interpreter of Scripture, which infallibility is ultimately traced back to the assistance and direction of the Holy Spirit.

These things need no further demonstration. For what we demonstrated in th. VIII concerning the conservation of the whole of revealed doctrine, and universally of the Catholic understanding, through the charism and operation of the Holy Spirit, in like manner demonstrates the conservation of the Catholic understanding as referred to the doctrine consigned in Scripture. In particular, that the conservation and handing down of the true understanding of Scripture in the apostolic succession is perpetual, we showed in th. X n. II from the common principles of the most ancient Fathers. Indeed, where the Fathers speak of the Catholic understanding, of the ecclesiastical sense, of ecclesiastical intelligence, they consider above all the understanding of the Church in relation to the interpretation of Scripture (see th. XI n. II).

For just as the whole doctrine flourishing in the communion and agreement of the whole Church is contained and conserved by the authentic magisterium, and nothing is ratified that is disjoined and dissenting, that is done privately ἴδιῳ, as Ignatius says (to the Magnesians n. 7); so Scripture is not of private interpretation (ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως), but the Spirit of truth who is its author, as St Peter argues (2 Pet. I. 20. 21.), is also its interpreter ¹, through that same ordinary public magisterium which, instituted by Christ, is universally the organ of the Holy Spirit for the conservation and explication of doctrine. “To those,” says Origen On Principles IV. n. 9, “who believe that the sacred books are not writings of men, but were written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ and have come down to us, we shall show the paths of understanding that present themselves, so that they may adhere to the rule of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the apostolic succession” ². Theirs, therefore, with whom “the Spirit of truth abides forever,” and who through the charism of the Spirit guard the Tradition of the Apostles, is also the office of authentically declaring the true sense of Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit and containing the doctrine and preaching of the Apostles. See the Council of Trent Sess. IV; cf. Melchior Cano bk XII. c. 7. first precept.

II. From what has been said it is therefore established that ecclesiastical preaching, whether proposed through agreement in the authentic magisterium or through definitive judgment, just as it generally is and is called the rule of faith, so also in particular is the rule of understanding Scripture, and the supreme canon of interpretation.

1°. If a definition or solemn judgment concerns a determinate place of Scripture, and has for its purpose to declare its sense authentically, it is certainly established that this is the true and genuine sense which the Holy Spirit willed to be expressed in inspiring the writing ³. Therefore such a definition or judgment is the supreme canon of interpretation, so that all other rules of interpreting drawn from grammar, philology, archaeology, the proximate and remote context, the scope of the author, the collation of other places, etc., are subordinated to it, that is, are to be directed by it alone and applied to this end, that the sense which is already certainly established to be true be also scientifically demonstrated to be true, and thus that it be shown why and how it is true. For what, pray, is the scope of any interpretation except that the true sense come to be understood? Since therefore what the true sense is already stands established from elsewhere, the aids of interpretation cannot rightly be applied except toward understanding that very sense as true. But if from the rules of merely human and scientific interpretation one were to arrive at a sense in any way contrary to it or even other than and diverse from it, by that very fact it would be established (on the hypothesis that there is only one sense of the passage) that the interpretation is fallacious, and thus that the aids applied were either not fit and sufficient or were not rightly applied. If therefore at any time the discipline of human interpretation should not attain its scope, the sense determined by ecclesiastical definition would not thereby be rendered less certain; but the defect of human science would be exposed, and science itself and reason well consulted would demand that we confess that something necessary for attaining the true understanding escapes us.

2°. It is further plain that it can be established concerning the Catholic understanding, to whose norm the “line of interpretation” is to be directed, not only by the solemn definition of Councils or of the Pontiff, but also from agreement otherwise discerned in a determinate sense of some passage. For just as it can be authentically defined by the Roman Pontiff or by a Council what the true sense of some passage is, so also the understanding of the Church manifests itself in the unanimous agreement of the Fathers, where they conspire in a certain and definite sentence in the interpretation of some passage pertaining to dogma or to the moral law, although by that former judgment the ecclesiastical sense becomes known more openly and easily than in this latter way. The Council of Trent in its decree of session IV established the agreement of the Church, both of the present and of preceding ages, as the supreme canon of interpretation: “No one, relying on his own prudence, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, twisting Holy Scripture to his own senses against that sense which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose it is to judge concerning the true sense and interpretation of Holy Scripture, or even against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers, shall dare to interpret Holy Scripture itself.” From what has been said it is established that by this decree nothing else was defined than what is already contained in the economy of handing down the faith instituted by Christ Himself, and, that being supposed, follows from the very natures of things. “The Council established nothing new,” says Pallavicino speaking of this decree, “nor willed to impose a new obligation, but willed to teach and confirm an obligation already existing, which our faith from its nature induces” Hist. of the Council of Trent bk VII. c. 18. n. 3. 6.

3°. It is no less evident that ecclesiastical preaching manifested whether by solemn judgment or by unanimous agreement, when referred to the determinate sense of individual texts, is not only the canon of interpretation in the negative sense, that is, so that it is forbidden to attribute to Scripture a sense contradicting the doctrine enunciated through the Catholic understanding; but is also the rule of understanding in the affirmative sense, that is, so that that very sense of the text of Scripture must be believed true which has been defined by the agreement of the Church or by solemn judgment to underlie it. For by such a definition it is declared not only that the enunciated doctrine is true and revealed, and it is taught not only what sense of Scripture does not underlie it; but it is also taught what sense does underlie it, namely that the enunciated doctrine is contained in that very determinate place of Scripture. But the Church through the charism of truth is no less infallible in explicating the sense of Scripture, in which the deposit of faith is consigned, than generally in guarding and explicating the deposit. Whence not only an interpretation contradictory or contrary to the sense defined by the Church, but also an explanation so diverse that the sense defined by the Church is denied to be contained in this determinate text, is convicted of being “against that sense which Holy Mother Church has held and holds.”

The Tridentine decree in negative form: “that no one dare interpret Holy Scripture against that sense... or the unanimous agreement...,” contains two things; namely a) that no one dare interpret Scripture in a sense repugnant to universal doctrine, even if the sense of the passage of Scripture called into question had not been positively defined by the Church, of which we shall speak presently. Thus the decree has a negative sense. But b) it directly and explicitly establishes that no one dare interpret Scripture against the sense defined by the Church. Thus the sense of the decree is equipollent to an affirmative one, that no one interpret Scripture except according to the sense of the Church, because, as we said, an interpretation which is not according to the defined sense is by that very fact against the same. Whence in the profession of faith prescribed by Pius IV the affirmative form is used. “I admit Holy Scripture according to that sense which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose it is to judge concerning the true sense and interpretation of Holy Scripture, nor will I ever receive and interpret it except according to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.”

Finally, this genuine sense of the Tridentine decree was solemnly declared by the holy ecumenical Vatican Council in the Constitution on the Catholic Faith c. 2. “We, renewing that same decree (of the Council of Trent), declare this to be its mind, that in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose it is to judge concerning the true sense and interpretation of Holy Scripture; and that therefore it is lawful for no one to interpret Holy Scripture itself against this sense or even against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.”

Proscribed, therefore, is the view of certain recent critics, who said it was lawful to interpret such places of Scripture even in a diverse sense, and to deny that the sense which the Church understood in them, or even declared by solemn judgment, underlies those very places, provided no doctrine otherwise adverse to the Catholic faith be inferred, and that the Tridentine decree is to be taken in this negative sense alone. No less excluded is the opinion of those who acknowledged in that same decree only a certain disciplinary caution and not a dogmatic and irreformable declaration and doctrine. See the Most Illustrious Ranolder, Hermeneutics 2nd ed. P. III. §§. 56. 61.

III. Ecclesiastical preaching considered universally, without being referred per se and explicitly to determining the sense of a singular place of Scripture, is nevertheless the canon of interpretation in the first place in the negative sense, so that no interpretation can be true which attributes to any text of Scripture whatever, as enunciated from the very mind of the sacred writer, a sense repugnant to the proximate rule of faith, because truth cannot be repugnant to truth. Moreover the same ecclesiastical preaching also helps positively toward understanding the sense of difficult passages more safely and fully. For to have the apostolic doctrine and understanding concerning some head of faith already discerned from elsewhere greatly helps interpretation, both universally in all places pertaining to that head, and above all in those texts which are indeed easily understood as able to be referred to that head of doctrine, yet are not so explicit that the sense can be determined from them alone considered per se without any ambiguity. For in such places the sacred writers themselves presuppose in their readers a fuller knowledge of doctrine for attaining the true sense (see above p. 60.). Compare e.g. the presupposed Catholic understanding concerning the sacrament of matrimony with Eph. V. 32. in the context of the whole passage vv. 23-32; concerning the sacramental character with 2 Cor. I. 22; Eph. I. 13. (see the Treatise on the Sacraments in general th. XII. n. II.); concerning the power left to the Church of granting indulgences with Matt. XVI. 19; concerning the Son of God begotten of the Father and subsisting in two natures with John X. 36; XIV. 28; concerning the perfection of the knowledge of Christ with Luke II. 53; concerning the perfection of sanctity in the immaculate Virgin with Luke I. 28. etc. In accordance with this Augustine concerning the value of baptism conferred by heretics confesses (On Baptism bk II. c. 4.): “we ourselves would not dare assert any such thing, unless strengthened by the authority of the universal Church”; strengthened by this, he both refutes the interpretations of texts of Scripture brought forward by St Cyprian and other Catholics and then by the Donatists against the value of such baptism, and himself undertakes to prove from various places of Scripture the truth already demonstrated by the authority and Tradition of the Church ⁴.

Anyone easily sees that the whole rationale of ecclesiastical preaching as the norm of interpreting Scripture, here declared in both the positive and the negative signification, is nothing else than what is commonly called the law of interpreting according to the analogy of faith. Its application is to be seen everywhere in the holy Fathers. Thus Augustine, even as to an ambiguous reading or punctuation, admonishes the interpreter to “consult the rule of faith, which he has received from the plainer places of Scripture and from the authority of the Church” On Christian Doctrine bk III. c. 2. Elsewhere he hands down the negative canon most distinctly. “I have learned,” he says, “that a man answering according to faith, which is to be answered to men who strive to calumniate the books of our salvation, is not stuck, so that whatever they shall have been able to demonstrate concerning the nature of things by truthful documents, we show not to be contrary to our writings. But whatever from any of their volumes they shall have brought forward contrary to these our writings, that is, to the Catholic faith, we either show by some means, or believe without any doubt to be most false ⁵. ... And when we read the divine books in so great a multitude of true understandings, which are drawn from a few words and are fortified by the soundness of the Catholic faith, let us choose above all what shall have appeared certain that he whom we read felt; but if this is hidden, at least what the circumstance of Scripture does not hinder and agrees with sound faith; but if even the circumstance of Scripture cannot be examined and discussed, at least only what sound faith prescribes. For it is one thing not to discern what the writer chiefly felt; another to err from the rule of piety” Literal Commentary on Genesis I. c. 21. n. 41; cf. on John tract. 18. n. 1. You see here the rule of faith commended as the necessary and universal canon both of any science whatever and of the interpretation of Scripture, if the canon is understood in the merely negative sense; yet it is not handed down universally as a canon in the positive sense and as a source from which either all truths of human science or the interpretations of all places of Scripture could be derived. The distinction between the rule of faith as it is a positive canon of interpretation and as it is a merely negative canon was excellently expressed by the same Augustine in bk III. On the Merits and Remission of Sinners c. 4. n. 9., where treating of Rom. V. 12. sqq. he says that the sense of only those words in which Adam is called “the figure of the future” remains ambiguous. “For we ourselves have at one time said one thing from it and perhaps shall say another, which nevertheless is not adverse to this understanding (of original sin) (you have the negative canon). But the rest that is said there, if diligently noted and treated...... even if through the very necessity of the matter it produces a somewhat obscure discourse, yet cannot have another sense than that through which it came about that from ancient times the universal Church retained that faithful infants obtained remission of original sin through the baptism of Christ” (you have in ecclesiastical preaching the positive canon of interpretation.) See Stapleton bk Xl. c. 3.

Corollary 1. Tradition insofar as it is the Catholic understanding of the doctrine of Scripture to be perpetually conserved in the apostolic succession, which some theologians call inherent and exegetical Tradition by distinction from (as they call it) constitutive Tradition, would be no less necessary even if the hypothesis of the Protestants were granted, that the whole of revelation is objectively contained in the divine books. But the Protestants by their principles are so far from admitting this Tradition, as some Catholic theologians deceived by the concessions of certain Protestants thought, that the controversy concerning it is by far the chief one, and with it legitimately settled all the rest have an easy solution, whereas before it is finished disputes with heretics seemed to the Fathers to involve much labor and little profit. Cf. Tertullian Prescription 17-19. and the rest cited in th. VIII. and th. X. n. II.

Corollary 2. The postulate of the Protestants, that the interpreter approach Scripture with a mind preoccupied by no dogma at all, follows indeed from their principles; but insofar as it excludes even the doctrine of faith preconceived under the authentic magisterium of the Church, it is evidently repugnant to the economy of handing down the faith which Christ instituted ⁶. Far other is the doctrine of the Fathers, who just as on the one hand they teach that the words of divine Scripture are rendered human words though retained materially the same, if one imports his own preconceived sense into Scripture and does not make the sense of Scripture his own; so on the other hand they require that one reading Scripture have the Catholic understanding in view, and be equipped with the rule of believing handed down to him by the Church, to which the sense of Scripture is to be conformed. See the Clementine Recognitions bk X. n. 42; Athanasius against the Arians or. III. n. 28; Hilary On the Trinity bk I. n. 18; to Constantius bk II. n. 9; Jerome on Gal. I. 11. (vol. VII. p. 386.); Augustine against Faustus bk XXXII. c. 19; to Consentius ep. 120. n. 13. with n. 17; Lérins cc. 36-38. (cf. above pp. 94-96.).

Corollary 3. What the Protestants against Catholics frequently keep repeating, that in the Catholic Church there can be no place for sacred hermeneutics and exegesis, or at least no progress, is a calumny altogether absurd and ridiculous. For from the fact that through ecclesiastical preaching and the handed-down word of God truths are known with which a repugnant sense cannot be true and therefore cannot underlie the written word of God, so that it is established concerning some sense that it is certainly not expressed in Scripture; and that moreover through the same it is certainly established what sense is expressed in some places “pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine”: from this presupposed certain knowledge and faith, I say, the science of interpretation is not only not impeded, but is also aided and promoted. For nothing can be more desirable for any scientific inquiry whatever than that it already be discerned from elsewhere what is not true, and therefore what errors are to be avoided; or even what is true, and whither therefore inquiries ought to be directed, and what is to be demonstrated by arguments. The whole cavil of the adversaries takes its origin from a twofold error.

The first error is dogmatic, that they hold ecclesiastical preaching and the judgment of the Church as an opinion to be examined and judged by individuals from Scripture itself. Certainly if a merely human opinion about the sense of Scripture is put forward, and it is said on the one hand to be examinable and judicable from Scripture itself whether it is true, and on the other hand is proposed as the norm according to which each one is bidden and bound by oath to interpret Scripture; this is an absurd contradiction and an intolerable tyranny, which for almost two centuries pleased Protestants alone and still pleases the so-called orthodox among them, while they swear to their symbolic books (above pp. 55. 56.); but by the Catholic Church it has always been exploded and condemned. But if with the same infallible certitude with which it is established that Scripture contains the word of God, it is at once established what sense does not underlie them or even what sense does underlie them; it is not only not tyranny and an intolerable yoke, but an obligation consequent from the nature of the matter and at once a most happy guidance toward embracing the true and spurning the false, toward demonstrating the former by arguments and refuting the latter. But this infallibility of the Church we demonstrate. For the rest, while they deny infallibility, the disputation has already devolved to another point; nor let them further repeat, on the hypothesis which for us is a most certain thesis, of the infallibility of the Church and, as they themselves say, in the Catholic system, that the progress and fruit of hermeneutical science is impeded.

The other error of the adversaries, on which the cavil rests, is scientific, that they do not advert that it is one thing to have certainly known from infallible authority what sense does not underlie or even what sense does underlie, and another to have understood the reasons and manner from text and context why and how such a sense is true and genuine. This second is the proper fruit of scientific interpretation, and thus in exegesis no less than in universal theology there is place for “faith seeking understanding.”

Corollary 4. It is evident per se that the Church is not called judge of the true sense whether of Scripture or of Traditions, as if she herself attributed to them the authority inherent in them. The word of God whether consigned in Scripture or standing in Traditions, which may also have been conserved through documents and monuments, has authority from itself, because it is the word of infinite truth; and is therefore the norm of believing for the universal Church. But the Church under the assistance of the Holy Spirit only discerns the word of God from what is not such, and authentically interprets its genuine sense. We do not therefore set the Church above the word of God, as the Protestants calumniously charge; but we say that the Church is directed by the word of God in believing, and is thus under the word of God; and that the same infallibly understands the genuine sense of the word and proposes it to individuals to be believed, and is thus above the private fallible understanding of individuals.