La evolución homogénea del dogma católico

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY FATHERS ON THE EVOLUTION OF DOGMA

353. THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.—The first centuries of Christianity were centuries of struggle, in which the Church had to devote itself preferentially to defending its doctrine, both against external attackers, such as the pagans and Jews, and against internal corrupters, such as the heretics.

That is why the writings of the Holy Fathers are for the most part devoted to defending the divine origin of dogma against the former, and its immutability against the latter.

However, there has been no lack of Holy Fathers who, while tenaciously defending against heretics the substantial immutability of dogma—the first element of all homogeneous evolution—also indicated its progress by way of consequence, which is the second element that homogeneous evolution requires.

Among those Holy Fathers or ecclesiastical writers are St. Irenaeus, Origen, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Jerome, Vincent of Lérins, and St. Anselm. Let us briefly cite their texts.

354. ST. IRENAEUS.—"But the preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent and persists in equality, and has testimony from the prophets and from the Apostles and from all the disciples... and the operation proper to the salvation of man, which is in our faith: which, received from the Church, we guard, and which, always by the Spirit of God, as in a good vessel, is a certain excellent deposit that grows young and makes young the very vessel in which it is" ¹

As can be seen, according to Saint Irenaeus, the revealed deposit has two characteristics. First, it causes the vessel in which it is deposited to progress or rejuvenate, which is the mind of the faithful or of the whole Church: "the deposit making the very vessel in which it is young again." Second, it not only rejuvenates the mind of the faithful, but the deposit itself is rejuvenated: the deposit growing young. The subjective-objective character of dogmatic evolution could not be indicated with greater clarity and beauty in such brief words.

At the same time, it clearly indicates in that text the two factors that intervene in that evolution or rejuvenation: the instrumental factor, which is the Church, and the principal factor, which is the action of the Holy Spirit: from the Church... from the Spirit of God.

355. ORIGEN.—In tracing out in his brilliant treatise On First Principles what the rule of faith is for the Christian, he perfectly distinguishes two classes of doctrines or truths. First, those truths that are clear in the preaching of the Apostles or of the Church: "those things which are plainly handed down through the apostolic preaching," "things defined in the Church's preaching." Second, those that are not clear or manifest; that is, everything that "is not distinguished by sufficiently clear preaching," "which the Church's preaching has not explained with sufficient clarity." The Christian, says Origen, who seeks to know in a perfect and scientific way the doctrine of his faith, as the prophet Hosea commands him, must rely on the first kind of truths and draw from them the consequences that are contained within them, for principles and consequences form but one single body of doctrine. Let us hear the text of Origen: "Therefore, as if using such things as elements and foundations (the first kind of truths: what is manifest or defined in the apostolic or ecclesiastical preaching), according to the commandment that says: Kindle for yourselves the light of knowledge (Hosea, 10, 12), everyone who desires to complete a certain sequence and body from all these things must do so: that with clear and necessary assertions he may investigate what is true concerning each particular point, and, as we have said, form one body by means of examples and affirmations, whether those which he has found in the Holy Scriptures, or those which he has discovered through the investigation of consequence itself and the pursuit of what is right" ²

It is evident, then, that already from the first centuries the idea begins to take shape that the principles and their consequences form a single body in revealed or Christian doctrine. That is the core of dogmatic evolution.

**356. ST. BASIL.—**Passing over Tertullian, who, although he brings an interesting text ³ he wrote it when he was already in heresy, and applied it in a heretical sense, let us cite St. Basil: "Just as a seed while it grows becomes larger indeed from being small, but yet remains the same in itself, and is not changed according to kind but is perfected by increases: so too do I think that the same doctrine has been augmented by progressing, but that the one now in force has in no way succeeded in place of that which was from the beginning ⁴

Although here Saint Basil speaks of the homogeneous growth of dogma in his own spirit, from the time he learned it as a child until he developed it as a bishop, no more fitting description can be given of the growth of dogma in all the faithful or in the entire Church.

357. ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS.—After that of St. Basil comes the testimony of his illustrious fellow student, called by antonomasia the theologian, St. Gregory of Nazianzus. The Macedonian heretics denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, basing themselves on the fact that nowhere in Sacred Scripture is the Holy Spirit given the name of God. The Holy Doctor answers them that one must believe not only what is expressly stated in Sacred Scripture, but also what is inferred from it. Let us hear his words:

"Since, then, such a great distinction is found between names and things, what reason is there for you to serve letters so zealously, and to attach yourself to Jewish wisdom, and, having abandoned realities, to pursue syllables? But if, when you say twice five or twice seven, I were to gather ten or fourteen; or, because you said that an animal was endowed with reason and mortal, I were to conclude that it was a man, would I seem to you to be trifling? And how could that happen, since I speak yours? For words are no more the speaker's than they are the one who imposes the necessity of speaking. Just as, therefore, in this case I would look not so much to what is said as to what is understood: in the same way, neither, if I should find anything else of those things that are said in no way, or certainly not clearly enough, yet understood and gathered from the Scriptures, would I so much fear you, the sycophant of words, as to flee from the very enunciation?" ⁵

Granados, the great defender of Molina, seeing clearly that this text speaks of proper conclusions, evaded it by saying that St. Gregory understands by divine faith divine faith taken in a broad or improper sense (233). Other more recent theologians, seeing clearly that St. Gregory speaks of divine faith properly so called, since he refers to the divinity of the Holy Spirit, try to evade it by saying that the holy Doctor understands by conclusions only improper conclusions. Resources are never lacking to evade an isolated text, however clear it may be, when it goes against preconceived opinions.

358. ST. JEROME.—Jesus Christ Himself taught us the parable of the mustard seed, comparing the growth of the kingdom of heaven, which is the preaching of the Gospel, to its growth. Since in that preaching of the Gospel the fundamental element is the doctrine or dogma (going, teach), the Greatest Doctor of scriptural exegesis did not hesitate not only to admit doctrinal or dogmatic growth, but to compare it with the growth of the mustard seed of the Gospel. Here are his words:

"This preaching of the Gospel, which seemed small at the beginning, when it has been sown either in the soul of the believer or in the whole world, does not spring up into vegetables, but grows into a tree, so that the birds of the air (which we must believe to be either the souls of believers or the powers devoted to the service of God) come and dwell in its branches. I think the branches of the Gospel tree, which has grown from the mustard seed, are the diversities of doctrines, in each of which the aforementioned birds find rest" ⁶

It is clear that this comparison of dogmatic development with the development of the mustard seed is nothing more than an analogy, and it must be understood with the limitations that we indicated elsewhere. But it indicates quite well how the idea of the development of dogma was no less familiar to the Holy Fathers than the idea that dogma remains immutable in its substance.

359. VINCENT OF LÉRINS.—We shall not repeat again the texts already cited from this celebrated ecclesiastical writer, whose formulas on the evolution of dogma have become classic, and one of which has merited the singular privilege of being adopted literally by the Vatican Council.

In treating the images of the evolution of dogma, we already saw how Vincent of Lérins compares it to true, but homogeneous, vital development, both of the seed and of the human body (222-223). In treating the question of whether the Church perfects revelation, we also cited the words in which Vincent of Lérins admits that some dogmas were not in the primitive deposit but rather incipient and unformed (inchoata et informata), and therefore have need of being cultivated so that they may flourish, mature, grow, and be perfected: "let it be cultivated, let it flourish, let it mature, let it advance, let it be perfected" (187).

No one, like Vincent of Lérins, has given us the key to explain those texts in which some Holy Fathers sometimes express the immutability of dogma with such rigidity that they seem to leave no room for its evolution.

Indeed, no matter how many texts from the Holy Fathers are accumulated to prove that dogma is completely immutable, one will never be found that expresses the immutability of dogma in a manner that seems more absolute and rigid than that lapidary formula of the Lirinensian: “what has always, what has everywhere, what has by all.” And yet, the same hand and in the same book that wrote that formula wrote those others of unfinished and unformed, and of let it ripen, let it advance, and let it be perfected.

In reality, immutability and development are not two opposing things, but rather two harmonious aspects and two complementary facets of the same thing, that is, of homogeneous evolution. With immutability alone, but without development, there would be no evolution, but neither would there be life; with development, but without substantial immutability, there would likewise be no homogeneous evolution, but rather corruption or transformism. From both characteristics united results the true life of dogma, and for that reason both are found united in the Catholic Church and both are lacking in the heretical and even in the schismatic sects.

This explains how two such great Catholic apologists as Bossuet and Newman could employ, in defense of the Catholic Church, arguments that seem contradictory. Bossuet said to Protestantism: "You change, therefore you are not the truth." Newman said to Anglicanism: "You admit no evolution, therefore you have no life." In reality, these two aspects, far from contradicting each other, are the two characteristics that distinguish the truth, when that truth is deposited in human intellects and hearts, to be the life of the individual and of society.

That is the explanation of why all sects separated from the vital principle, which is the divine teaching authority of the Catholic Church, lack one or the other of the two essential characteristics of life. They either lack the character of substantial immutability because they have abandoned truly primitive dogmas, or they lack the character of vital progress because they have limited their creed to the dogmas defined up to such a century or such a council, rejecting all development that those dogmas may have had or may have in later centuries or councils.

Parallel to these two fundamental characteristics of every living being, there exist two characteristics or two states in everything dead or in every corpse: either the immobile and rigid state of the mummy or the dissolving state of corruption. The first state is that of immutability without progress: the second state is that of progress without immutability. The first is the state of the heretical or schismatic sects of the East; the second, the state of the Protestant sects of the West.

Therefore, the formula of true dogmatic life given to us by the Lirinense and adopted by the Vatican Council embraces neither immutability alone nor development alone, but substantial immutability together with vital or homogeneous development: “let it grow, therefore... but in the same sense” ⁷.

**360. ST. ANSELM.—**When dealing with St. Gregory of Nazianzus, we saw that, to prove the divinity of the Holy Spirit, he employed the way of conclusion or consequence, and that he likewise showed that this way led to the knowledge of a dogmatic truth or of divine faith, even if that truth were not expressly contained in Scripture.

St. Anselm follows the same procedure to prove that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, and he teaches the same doctrine concerning the value of the way of reasoning or conclusion. Here are his words:

“Behold, we have seen with how great truth and necessity it follows that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. If this is not true, then either something of those things from which we have said this follows as false, which is against the Christian faith, which we hold with the Greeks, or we have not concluded consistently, which cannot be shown. If this is not true, the Christian faith is destroyed... Since, however, the denial of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son introduces such great falsehood that it destroys those things from which we have shown it to follow, against the Christian faith..., let the rational heart consider by what reason it excludes that belief from the Christian faith. Finally, if it is an error to believe this procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, then divine authority itself leads us into error, since it teaches us both those things from which it follows and those things which follow from it: and nowhere does it deny it, nor does it declare anything that in any way contradicts it. If, therefore, it is objected that divine authority never states it explicitly, and for that reason it should not be affirmed, let it likewise be said that, since it never denies it, nor says anything that contradicts it, it should not be denied. We also say that it affirms it sufficiently, when it asserts those things from which it is proved, and in no way signifies anything from which it would be denied” ⁸.

Here is the reader’s answer to the objection commonly raised by those who deny dogmatic evolution by way of conclusion. They say that God, by affirming what is formal or the principles, does not thereby affirm what is virtual or the consequences, and since only what is affirmed by God can be of divine faith or dogmatic, no consequence properly so called can become dogmatic. Saint Anselm gives us the answer very clearly: “He sufficiently affirms it when he asserts that from which it is proved.” There is nothing more to it than that, since such an affirmation is implicit and needs explanation, it is necessary that that explanation, in order for it to become dogma, be made by divine authority or by the definition of the Church, and not merely by the human reasoning of the theologian.

With this we close the patristic period to move on to that of Scholastic theology. Although the texts cited are not numerous, we believe they will suffice for the reader to see that already in the patristic age the idea of the development of dogma by way of theological conclusion had germinated with considerable clarity; an idea that we will see refined and completed in the vast majority of the great theologians, from Saint Thomas to our own day.