Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

On the conjoined office of the guardians and teachers of the faith, and on the mode of explication of the deposit.

From what has been said it is inferred, and is confirmed by its own arguments, that the infallible guardians of the faith are also infallible teachers of the faith, so that they explicate what is implicit, define what is ambiguous, in the objective revelation of Scripture and Tradition, propose by more urgent preaching what is less expressly stated, defend what is assailed by errors; in which function, although the human element of inquiry and science has its place, the infallibility of the explication and definition must nevertheless be traced to the promised assistance and direction of the Spirit of truth. False, therefore, is what a recent school has asserted, that in the explication of dogmas the one office of the teaching Church under the assistance of the Holy Spirit is, time and again to pass judgment as to which among several different ways of understanding a dogma is to be held preferable to the rest for any given stage of science. »

I. As has been declared above, the concept of divine Tradition is not exhausted in this, that some sum of formulas of faith be conserved; but the essential note of Tradition is posited in the perpetual infallible conservation of the true sense and true understanding of the deposit of faith and of revealed doctrine (cf. th. XI. n. II.). Now in the deposit of faith there can be and are contained truths which are implicit in others, which at some time are as yet more obscurely and less expressly proposed; whence concerning them controversies can arise even within the bounds of the Church, and the same truths can by some be called into doubt (th. XXIII.). Besides, even dogmas already clearly proposed can by the erring or by heretics be perversely understood and perverted to an alien sense under manifold forms of error. But when controversies of this kind have arisen and errors threaten, the true understanding of doctrine and the integrity of the deposit cannot be infallibly conserved and, for the end which God has set for revelation, duly proposed, unless the guardians of the faith are at the same time infallible teachers of the faith. For in this very thing is posited the true note and function of the authentic doctorate of which we treat: that what was implicit in the deposit they exhibit as now explicit; that what was ambiguous and less expressly stated and not yet sufficiently proposed, they define according to the true sense and propose more expressly; that what is twisted to an alien sense under diverse forms of errors, they defend against errors by defining the true concepts and establishing verbal formulas. The divinely instituted infallible guardians of the deposit cannot therefore be conceived, without by that very fact the same being conceived as divinely instituted infallible teachers, because the custody of the deposit is exercised and perfected by the very functions of the authentic doctorate, so that this twofold office of guardians and teachers of the faith can indeed be distinguished, but cannot in subject and function be separated. Cf. th. XXIII.

Hence Paul, Eph. IV. 11, conjoins the charism of pastors and teachers. Offices which differ in subject and function the Apostle there clearly distinguishes and disjoins, but these two offices he connects no less clearly with a conjunctive particle. « He (Christ) gave some indeed Apostles, some Prophets (τους μεν-τους δε, some-some), others Evangelists, others pastors and teachers » ¹ This sense of the Apostle was excellently declared by St. Jerome (commentar. in h. l.) and Augustine (ep. 149. n. 11. al. 59. ad Paulinum). « Pastors and teachers, whom you especially wished me to distinguish, I think to be the same, as it seemed also to you, so that we should not understand some as pastors, others as teachers; but that, having first named pastors, he subjoined teachers, so that pastors might understand teaching to pertain to their office. For he did not say some pastors, some teachers, whereas he had distinguished the former by the very manner of speech, saying some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists; but this, as one thing, he embraced with two names, some pastors and teachers » Aug. l. c. To the same conclusion comes St. Jerome. « Nor must it be thought that, as in the three former he said some to be Apostles, others Prophets, others Evangelists, so also in pastors and masters he posited diverse offices. For he did not say others pastors and others masters, but others pastors and teachers, so that he who is pastor ought also to be master » Hieron. l. c. From Christ's very institution, therefore, the office of teachers is included in the office of pastors; whence the same Apostle, 1. Cor. XII. 28, in the parallel enumeration seems to have comprehended both under the one name of teachers. « And God indeed hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondly Prophets, thirdly teachers. » If anyone should contend, however, that in this latter place the enumeration is only of extraordinary charisms, the parallel would not be adequate, but the name of teachers posited in both places would agree only in a generic, not in a specific, signification.

But whatever you may think of this latter testimony, the inseparable conjunction of the pastorate instituted by Christ and the authentic doctorate is manifest both from the very office of pastors and from the cited words of Eph. IV, and by the Apostle himself in other places the same unity of custody of the deposit and of the doctorate in the sense in which we now speak is sufficiently declared. Against « those who err and lead into error » he commends to Timothy in the first place the custody of the deposit. « But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned and which have been entrusted to thee, knowing of whom thou hast learned them » 2. Tim. III. 14. To this very office of custody of the deposit he subjoins in the continuous context the function of the doctorate, commending to him Scripture as the instrument of doctrine, which namely he should use in the very custody of what he had learned and what had been entrusted to him « for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished unto every good work » ibid. v. 15-17. The functions of the teacher therefore coincide with the custody of what has been handed down and entrusted. In the same sense he bids the same Timothy « rightly to handle the word of truth » ib. II. 15; he bids him attend « unto reading and unto doctrine, » that he may save both himself and those who hear him, unto which office grace was given him by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery 1. Tim. IV. 13-16. As in these places the doctorate, by which the handed-down word of truth is guarded, is commended in recto; so elsewhere the custody of the deposit is directly enjoined, in which the doctorate is included through the form of sound words. « O Timothy, keep the deposit, avoiding the profane novelties of words ² and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called » 1. Tim. VI. 20. « Hold the form of sound words ³... keep the good deposit through the Holy Spirit, who dwelleth in us » 2. Tim. I. 13. 14.

II. From this unity of the office of guarding the faith and of the doctorate according to the functions declared, or from this very fact, that the office of the guardians of the faith was instituted by Christ in such wise that it is exercised through the functions of the doctorate and cannot without them stand intact, it is evident that the same principle which confers infallibility in the custody of the deposit confers the same infallibility in the functions of the doctorate. Whatever things therefore demonstrate the promised tutelage of Christ and the direction and assistance of the Spirit of truth, that the apostolic succession guard the deposit of faith whole unto the consummation of the world ever infallibly (th. V-XI.), all those same things demonstrate also that this tutelage of Christ and the assistance and direction of the Spirit of truth is the efficient cause through which the guardians of the deposit, under the same conditions under which they are infallible in guarding the faith, are rendered infallible in explicating, in more clearly proposing, in more distinctly defining, and by this very fact in sincerely defending revealed truths.

1°. The words of Christ therefore: « teach ye all nations... and behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world, » « I will ask the Father and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth; » « but the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, He will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you » (th. V.), cannot pertain to the successors of the Apostles as perpetual guardians of the deposit without pertaining to them as teachers of revealed faith according to the functions we have recalled, because by these very functions the custody of the deposit is exercised. Hence the Fathers whom we cited th. VIII. n. I, when they speak of the assistance and operation of the Holy Spirit for the infallible custody of the deposit through the authentic magisterium, have for the most part these functions of the doctorate before their eyes. The reason why it is heretical to gainsay the Church declaring the sense of the Scriptures by common consent, and so the reason of infallibility in the exposition and explication of dogmas, Irenaeus IV. 26. n. 5. refers « to the charisms of the Lord, through which they expound the Scriptures to us without danger, with whom is the succession of the Church from the Apostles. » The efficient cause, that in the universal Church « most zealous speculation does not go into error » in explicating the true sense of dogmas, is in Augustine (in Ps. 9. n. 12.) « the Lord, who Himself inhabits the Church. » The cause of the infallibility of the definitions of dogmas made against heretics in Councils is in Cyril Alex. T. V. P. II. p. 4. 175. « Christ who presides, » and « the Holy Spirit who speaks through the Councils. » That « in the Apostolic See religion has ever been kept immaculate, » is thence, « because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed over, saying: thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church » (in the Profession subscribed by the Orientals under Hormisdas, and under Hadrian II. in Conc. VIII.). The reason of the irrefragable authority of the consenting Fathers, who dispersed through differences of times and places discharge the office of teachers, is in Theodoret T. IV. p. 23. and Leontius Galland. XII. p. 682. « the charism of the Holy Spirit, which they received for teaching in one Spirit, » and « the grace of the Holy Spirit, through whom they were taught and agree among themselves. »

2°. Although these things be so, yet this promised and ordinary charism of the Spirit of truth is not through new revelation, as we demonstrated th. XXII; but it is through the assistance and direction of the Holy Spirit in such wise that the human element of inquiry, industry, and acquired doctrine is not excluded, but rather presupposed. As regards this matter we can distinguish three things, the occasion, the preparation, the ultimate conclusion of the explication, of the clearer proposition, of the stricter definition of dogmas.

a) The external occasion is most frequently furnished by controversies arisen, errors, heresies, as the holy Fathers have often observed. For the very custody of the deposit renders necessary the defense of revealed doctrine against errors, from which defense follows the explication, the stricter definition, and the more urgent preaching of the dogma: « by whom the institutions of doctrine proceed, by the same (it befits) that the discordant oppositions of learning be resolved, » says Gratian Augustus (Opp. St. Ambrose T. II. p. 787.). Compare the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon in the allocution to Marcian Augustus (Hard. II. p. 646. sq.); Athanas. de decret. Nicaen. n. 32; Hilar. Trin. l. II. n. 1. sqq.; Augustine in Ps. 54. n. 22; de dono Persever. c. 20. n. 53; Civ. Dei l. XVI. c. 2. n. 1; Confess. l. VII. c. 19. n. 23. « From heretics the Catholic has been asserted, says Augustine in Ps. l. c., and from those who think ill, they who think well have been approved. For many things lay hidden in the Scriptures; and when the heretics had been cut off, they agitated the Church of God with questions: things which lay hidden were opened, and the will of God was understood. » « Many things indeed pertaining to the Catholic faith, while they are agitated by the cunning restlessness of heretics, that they may be defended against them, are both considered more diligently, and understood more clearly, and preached more urgently; and a question raised by the adversary becomes the occasion of learning » de Civ. Dei l. c.

b) The internal preparation of the explication is various and sufficiently evident. To the human element here belong without doubt, among other things, the acquired science of the sacred disciplines, the study of the Scriptures, of the works of the holy Fathers and generally of ecclesiastical monuments, of the liturgy, rites, ecclesiastical customs, of universal theology in fine, in all which the aid of even merely rational and human disciplines cannot be lacking. All this labor and industry in fine must be considered as subjected and subservient to the authority and vigilance of the authentic magisterium. But this element of preparation, which we call human, is not constituted by science alone; but there are very many other circumstances of things and events, and of the whole Christian life, pertaining to the Christian people and to the universal Church, by which the explication, illustration, and more distinct definition of dogmas can be prepared.

We do not oppose here, therefore, the human to the divine as nature is distinguished from grace; but by the human element we mean as well natural as supernatural disposition and cooperation on the part of men, which the Holy Spirit by His providence and assistance moderates and directs to the explication, definition and defense of the faith. Whence this element which we call human, insofar as it pertains to the preparation of the explication, must ever be considered under the special providence and direction of the Holy Spirit; and so in the very preparation the human can be distinguished from the divine, but cannot be separated. We can, however, consider this preparation in the universal Church, and therefore in the first place in the teaching Church herself and in the authentic magisterium, or we can consider it as it exists in private men and groups, e. g. in schools and theologians or in the Christian people. In the first way it must be called the direct preparation of the explication, under the providence of the Holy Spirit leading into all truth; in the other way it must be called indirect preparation, insofar as it is conjoined with and subserves the authority and action of the teaching Church.

c) By the conclusion of the explication we mean the authentic proposition itself, when now the dogma is proposed to be believed explicitly, clearly, expressly; whether this be done through solemn definition or through the universal consensus of ecclesiastical preaching otherwise prevailing. Now what we have thus far disputed demonstrates that even in this very conclusion of the explication the human element has its parts, since the Church is not ruled by new revelations, but through the assistance and governance of the Holy Spirit is infallibly conserved in the profession of the revelation handed down by the Apostles. This assistance and governance therefore directs the divinely instituted human organs and their labor to the consensus or definition of revealed truth, and assists them in their inquiry in such wise that consensus or definition is never arrived at except according to the genuine sense contained in objective revelation. Whence it pertains to the very direction and providence of the Holy Spirit to effect that sufficient human diligence never be lacking in definitions of faith, as Suarez (de Fide disp. V. sect. 8. n. 11.), Bellarmine (de Rom. Pontif. l. IV. c. 2.) and others rightly observe. The human element can indeed be various in diverse circumstances and diverse ages; but the infallibility of the proposition and definition rests wholly on the promised assistance of the Holy Spirit, and does not depend on the perfection of the human element, of diligence, inquiry, theological science considered in themselves.

Nevertheless what we have said of the human element in the explication of faith remains true. The Church, namely, whether to a universal consensus in preaching or to a formal definition of dogmas which had before been called into controversy, is not led by the Holy Spirit through new revelations and through prophetic inspiration, nor is she led (at least by infallible promise) through psychological miracles. But the human element, whether it be in itself more perfect or more imperfect for diverse times and circumstances, has first the indefectibly promised tutelage of Christ and of the Spirit of truth, lest it ever « go into error » (as Augustine speaks), namely that there never be arrival at a universal consensus of preaching in a dogma of faith which is not revealed truth, nor ever arrival at a definition which is not true. To such a true consensus or true definition secondly the human element itself is led through the supernatural governance of the Holy Spirit, which does not destroy nature but elevates and orders it.

Whence a) for the diversity of the human element the explication of faith can in some ages be more illustrious than in others. b) For the same diversity the formal definitions of faith themselves can in some times be fuller, more distinct, more profound than in others. γ) Nay, it can happen that from the imperfection of the human element (of science, inquiry, cooperation, sanctity) there be no arrival at a definition to which the Holy Spirit, under condition of greater perfection, would have led. δ) But it can never happen, whatever the human elements be, and whatever imperfection of them be supposed, that the very consensus of preaching of which we have spoken, or the very definition arrived at, should not positively contain truth. For to the indefectibility of this consensus and of these judgments of faith for all days even to the consummation of the world has been promised the assistance of Him to whom all power is given in heaven and on earth, and of the Spirit of truth, as incommutably as the indefectibility of the Church has been incommutably promised ⁴.

3°. If we gather into a sum what we have said, the explication of the doctrine of faith through the authentic teachers is understood to consist in about these heads. Either a) by solemn definition or by unanimous prevailing consensus the authentic magisterium proposes the dogma explicitly in itself, which before was proposed as implicit in another; or b) under determinate concepts and in respect directly opposed to certain errors the dogma is declared, and by this very fact determinate ecclesiastical forms of words are established by which such concepts are expressed; or c) what before was more obscure and ambiguous, or consisted more in use and custom than in express preaching, is defined more clearly and expressly. From these in fine, as is clear, follows d) a more distinct understanding both for individuals and for the universal Church; and in all these is contained a more urgent preaching of the now explicit and defined dogma and a stronger defense against heresies.

Here there is, as Albertus M. most briefly said (3. dist. 25. a. 1. ad 1.) « rather the progress of the believer in faith, than of faith in the believer, » i. e. the progress of explicit and distinct cognition of the object of faith, not increase of the object itself in itself. The same is more eloquently declared by Vincent of Lerins in those well-known passages. « Let it be needful, therefore, that both of individuals and of all, both of one man and of the whole Church, in the degrees of ages and centuries, understanding, science, wisdom grow and much and vehemently profit; but in its own kind only, namely in the same dogma, the same sense, the same sentence... whatever in this tillage of the Church of God the faith of the Fathers has sown, it befits the industry of the sons to cultivate and observe the same, the same to flourish and ripen, the same to profit and be perfected. For it is lawful that those ancient dogmas of the heavenly philosophy be in process of time sifted, filed, polished; but it is unlawful that they be changed; unlawful that they be curtailed, that they be mutilated. Let them receive evidence, light, distinction; but they must necessarily retain fullness, integrity, propriety » Commonitor. n. 27-32. cf. Basil. ep. 223. al. 79. num. 3; Augustin. ll. cc.

III. Günther distinguished the historical facts recorded in the Scriptures, and the understanding of these facts. This understanding he called « doctrinal tradition » and « the consciousness of the Church. » Furthermore, he held this same understanding to receive continuous increments by aid of philosophical science, so that it was more imperfect in the Apostles than in the holy Fathers, yet in them by no means perfect, nay quite maimed, for defect of true philosophy, until at length the true philosophy (the Güntherian), now discovered, paved the way by which to arrive at the supreme understanding of the whole revealed doctrine, and so at the conclusion of « doctrinal tradition, » or, as he himself speaks, at that beyond which no further advance can be made. In this progress of science and explication of truth through the course of ages, it belongs to the magisterium of the Church to define, among the various modes of understanding a dogma prevailing at any time, that which at that time is fittest. In this definition the Church under the assistance of the Holy Spirit is infallible; but the defined mode of understanding a dogma is not for that reason simply perfect and true. Nay, with the human intellect progressing in other sciences, in philosophy generally, in psychology, in natural philosophy, even that definition of a dogma long since given by the Church will appear imperfect, and another more perfect will be necessary. Definitions of this kind, therefore, issued by the Church in diverse ages, says Günther, must be acknowledged as containing some truth, but not truth and the true understanding of the dogma simply. Thus the Ephesine definition concerning the unity of the person of Christ contains some truth posited in this, that Christ as man was from the beginning of His existence conjoined to God the Word, but does not contain nor could contain the supreme understanding of the dogma ⁵, because in the fifth century the philosophy of the nineteenth century was lacking; but the Holy Spirit would not supply this defect according to that wise economy by which neither to Moses in the Old Testament was the truth of the Blessed Trinity revealed, and according to that saying of Christ: « you cannot bear it now. » For the same reason the Council of Trent is also called by Günther (in the philosophical Annals which he entitled Lydia 1852. p. 348–350.) « a certain interim, whether a definitive is to succeed it, no one knows. » Propaedeutica T. II. p. 259. sqq.; Aurorae australes et boreales p. 260–264; Lydia 1850. p. 94. sqq.

In this whole theory in the first place the concept of doctrinal Tradition is perverted; then consequently to this perversion of ideas the relation between the understanding of the Apostles and of succeeding teachers is wrongly established; the authority of even the consenting holy Fathers, and generally the authentic doctorate for the explication of dogmas, is either denied or twisted to an alien sense; hence the divinely instituted ministry in apostolic succession for conserving and explicating Tradition is as it were eliminated, and in its place in some manner the cultivators of rational science are substituted; philosophy and natural science, which cannot be but some aid of the human element in the preparation of the explication, is assumed as the chief cause of the whole explication; although the explication be conceded to be infallible through the Holy Spirit, this very thing is not rightly declared. Besides, increase of Tradition itself in itself and objectively considered (from the false notion of Tradition, to be sure) is admitted. Lastly the conclusion of the explication and the value of the definition is conceived altogether perversely. Of this last alone we treat here; for the rest is easily understood as confuted from the preceding theses.

1°. Definitions of faith under that form of words and under those concepts under which they are proposed must be believed with irreformable and immovable faith. For this very thing is effected through the assistance of the Holy Spirit, that in these definitions of the Church there be nothing underlying which is not objectively revealed and immutably true. Although therefore it can happen that a dogma, first directly explicated and defined under one concept in opposition against some certain error (e. g. the distinction of persons in God against the Sabellians, the unity of person in Christ against the Nestorians), afterwards be directly declared and defined under another concept against another error perhaps contrary to the former (e. g. the unity of essence in the three persons against the Arians, the distinction of natures in Christ against the Monophysites); yet it can never happen that the former concept not remain for all time infallibly true and to be believed as dogma revealed by God. So, for example, after it has been defined that the person of Christ is one and that divine, and that Christ as man is not another distinct person than Christ as God, it cannot at any following time be discovered as true and admitted that one person is God the Word and another distinct person Christ as man, in whatever way the two persons be understood as united among themselves. « For the word of faith abides for ever, » as Athanasius says of the Nicene definition (ep. ad Afros n. 2.). Indeed, unless this fundamental principle stand firm, the infallibility of the Church both in teaching and in believing, and the constant truth of all dogmas, will be subverted.

2°. From these very things it follows that the relation between definitions of faith and human science is wholly inverted and opposite to what the Güntherians had conceived. After definition it is unlawful for human science to conform the sense of the dogma to its preconceived rational ideas; but in inverted order the sense proposed in the definition must be the norm of science and understanding. The office of theological science therefore is, a) to strive to conceive the dogma according to the defined form as fittingly as possible; polishing too, if need be, the philosophical notions to the sense of the defined truth. In which way e. g. the notions of person and nature to the sense of the defined dogma concerning the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation, the notion of generation to the sense of the dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, were polished by the Catholic teachers not without fruit for rational philosophy itself (see Tract. de Trin. th. XXX. XXXI.). b) The other and chief office of theology then is to demonstrate the truth according to the defined sense from the monuments of revelation, and to guard it against errors and false ways of understanding. c) This very necessary defense, and this study of true understanding, demand that the nexus and harmony of the dogma in its defined sense with other truths whether theological or also rational and natural (as far as the nature of mysteries permits) be inquired into and exhibited manifestly. There holds therefore the axiom of the Fathers, as universally so also in each head, for theological science: faith precedes, that the science of things of faith may follow; science is founded in faith; faith seeks understanding. But understanding and science do not precede, so as to conform the object of faith defined under a certain form to their ideas and genius, nor can the principle indicated by Günther in inverted order be admitted: « I understand that I may believe, » if there be question of another science than the cognition of the motives of credibility (St. Th. 2. 2. q. 1. a. 4. ad 2.).

This very doctrine we have already defined by the ecumenical Vatican Council. « For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed is not proposed as a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but is handed down as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared. Hence the sense of the sacred dogmas also is to be retained perpetually which holy Mother Church has once declared, nor must there ever be recession from that sense, under the guise and name of higher understanding. » To this definition in ch. IV. of the Constit. Dei Filius answers canon 3: « If anyone shall say that it can happen that to dogmas proposed by the Church a sense must at some time, according to the progress of science, be attributed other than that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema. »

Corollary. As the history of the people of God in the Old Testament from Adam to Christ, and likewise the evangelical and apostolic history, is history of divine revelation; so also from the consummated objective revelation a history of the explication and proposition of dogmas can have place, and certainly has had. Since by a sufficiently common use of speech a dogma of faith is wont to be called not so much revealed truth in itself, as revealed truth insofar as it is sufficiently proposed in the Church, as it can be said e. g. that the revealed truth of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin was not a dogma of faith before the definition, and now is a dogma of faith; therefore the history of the explication and proposition of revealed truths can be called history of dogmas. Although therefore he would err who by this appellation affirmed history i. e. some mutation and progress of objective revelation after the Apostles, and so confounded the history of dogmas with the history of revelation; and although he would err still more gravely who used this name to assert the mutability either of revealed truth in itself or of a dogma already sufficiently proposed: yet there is no reason for anyone to take offense at the name, though of rather recent introduction, of history of dogmas; for the name has besides that preposterous signification another and that a most true one. For who would say that of the Tridentine definitions e. g., or of the proposition of the doctrine concerning the canon of the sacred books, or of the definition lately recalled concerning the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin, there is no history? Nevertheless the ambiguity and abuse of the name suffices that, where it can be wrongly understood, it not be used without declaration, and that history of explication rather be said than history of dogmas. Moreover the explication of dogmas, of which we have treated in the thesis, is not the same as dogmatic theology or the theological school; therefore also the history of the explication of dogmas and the history of dogmatic theology are distinguished.

In fine it will be evident to one considering, that the explication and proposition of dogmas and its history cohere with the history of revelation as with its presupposed foundation; are intrinsically connected with the history of theology as with its consequent, and in some measure as with some antecedent element of preparation; are extrinsically coupled with the history of heresies, on which, not as on a cause but as on an occasion, the explication and the mode of explication in some manner depend; it will be evident lastly that this same history of the explication of dogmas constitutes an intimate part of ecclesiastical history.