La evolución homogénea del dogma católico

THE DOCTRINE OF SAINT THOMAS ON THE EVOLUTION OF DOGMA

361. THOMISTIC SYNTHESIS.—We have already spoken of St. Thomas's doctrine on almost every page of this work, and later on we will still need to deal with it again (134, 238-243, 296, 302; 304, 466-468). Therefore, to avoid useless repetitions, we will limit ourselves here to giving a brief synthesis of the Holy Doctor's thought.

Saint Thomas and all the great geniuses of Scholasticism treat of the evolution of dogma in connection with two problems: first, the problem of the unity of the faith; second, the problem of the constitutive element of heresy. In reality, these two problems constitute but two aspects or opposite faces of the same problem, since heresy is nothing other than the denial or rupture of the unity of the faith, just as schism is the rupture of the unity of government.

The first of these problems or difficulties concerning the unity of the faith presented itself already to the minds of the Holy Fathers, especially Saint Augustine and Pope Saint Gregory the Great, on the occasion of the evident fact that the doctrine of the faith grew and developed throughout the entire Old Testament up to Jesus Christ and the Apostles; and in treating this problem, the great Scholastics of the Middle Ages extended it also to examining the other evident fact, namely, its growth or development after the Apostles. The problem consists in showing how a thing which, like the doctrine of the faith, grows and develops successively, and of which, therefore, earlier believers know and believe explicitly only a part, while later believers know and believe other parts or developments unknown to the earlier ones, can preserve unity. This problem Saint Thomas and all the other great Scholastics treat under the titles “Utrum eadem sit fides modernorum et antiquorum”, “Utrum fides per successionem temporum profecerit”, “Utrum articuli fidei creverint secundum successionem temporum” and other similar titles ¹. To this first problem, under whatever phase or form it presents itself, Saint Thomas always answers with the same formula, namely, that there was growth of explanation of what was implicit, but there was no growth of substance. The reason he always gives is the same: that all later developments were already implicitly contained in the earlier ones, and since the difference between implicit and explicit does not suffice to destroy the objective or substantial unity of the faith, it follows that the divine faith of the angels in heaven, of our first parents in paradise, of the patriarchs and prophets in the Old Testament, of the Apostles and ourselves in the New, is objectively and substantially one and the same, however great its doctrinal developments have been, for all are steps from the implicit to the explicit, and, therefore, the ancients believed implicitly the same thing that we believe explicitly. Let us listen to Saint Thomas: "The act of the believer does not terminate in the proposition, but in the reality: for we do not form propositions except in order that through them we may have knowledge of realities, as in science, so in faith" ².

"And therefore it must be said that the object of faith can be considered in two ways: either in itself, as it is outside the soul, and thus properly has the nature of an object, and from it the habit receives multitude or unity: or according as it is participated in the knower. It must be said, therefore, that if that which is the object of faith, namely the thing believed, is taken as it is outside the soul, so it is one which is referred to us and to the ancients: and therefore from the unity of the thing faith receives unity. But if it is considered according as it is in our apprehension, so it is multiplied through diverse statements: but from this diversity faith is not diversified. Hence it is clear that faith is in every way one" ³.

"So it must be said that as regards the substance of the articles of faith, they did not increase over the course of time: because whatever later generations believed was contained in the faith of the earlier fathers, albeit implicitly. But as regards their explanation, the number of articles grew, because some things were explicitly known by later generations that were not explicitly known by earlier ones" ⁴.

362. DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS.—However, the developments after the Apostles and the developments that had occurred before them, although both are an explanation of what is implicit, differ accidentally because there are two different kinds of implicitness. There is an objective and true implicitness, but so profound that for our intelligence it is as if it did not exist, for it cannot be explained or developed by our intelligence alone, but rather requires new revelation. Such is the implicitness with which some articles are contained in other articles, and all of them in the two most general articles of the faith. Such things are truly implicit in themselves, but not implicit for us. Therefore, the explanation or development of new articles existed throughout the whole time in which new revelations could be accommodated; but it ceased with Jesus Christ and the Apostles, in whom the deposit of revelation was closed. "This explanation was completed through Christ." That is the dogmatic evolution before the Apostles (313).

363. But there is another kind of objective and true implicitness which, to be explained and developed, does not require new revelations, but rather the reasoning of our intellect suffices. These truths are not only contained implicitly in themselves, but they are also contained implicitly for us. These are not dogmas-articles, but dogmas-consequences or derived dogmas. This is the dogmatic explanation or evolution that is possible and has existed and will exist after the Apostles. "And as regards this, the faith can be unfolded daily... and through the study of the holy doctors it has been more and more unfolded".

364. THE TRUE MIND OF ST. THOMAS.—That is the clear, evident, and express mind of the Holy Doctor. If many do not understand it, it is because they have fixed in their heads, through the reading of modern manuals, that St. Thomas in those articles did not treat of dogmatic evolution after the Apostles, but only of evolution in the Old Testament. To convince them of the contrary, we will cite a single text. After the Holy Doctor has demonstrated that the evolution of the Old Testament is homogeneous and that the faith is one and the same, since it is nothing but the evolution of what is implicit, he poses to himself the following objection: "Fifth objection. Furthermore, by this it seems that even now, in the same way, the articles could be multiplied through the succession of times: which seems to be false." Let the reader note that now, which means: now, after the Apostles. Here is the reply: "To the fifth it must be said that something contained in an article can be explained in two ways: in one way, insofar as one article is contained in another, or two in a common one, just as the resurrection of the dead is contained in a certain way in the Resurrection of Christ, and the Passion and the Incarnation in this common" which is the mystery of Redemption (here is the implicitness in itself and not for us); and thus the implicit faith is explained in determinate articles, and this explanation was completed by Christ; hence to His doctrine as regards the essentials of the faith (the articles), neither to add nor to subtract is permitted”.

Up to this point we have seen the explanation or dogmatic evolution of some articles into others through new revelations. Now comes the explanation or evolution after the Apostles through consequences.

“In another way, what is contained in the article is not the article itself, but something accompanying the article, and in this respect the faith can be explained daily, and through the study of the saints (the councils) it has been more and more explained” ⁵

What the Holy Doctor understands by concomitant with the article, the Holy Doctor had told us in the response to the fourth:

“To the fourth it must be said that an article is an indivisible truth, with respect to what is actually expressed in the article, but it is divisible (explicable or evolvable) with respect to those things that are potentially contained in the article; in accordance with which he who says one thing, says in a certain way many things; and these are the things that precede the article or follow from it: and with respect to this the article of faith can be explained and divided” (loc. cit., ad 4). “Because faith, as far as it is in itself, sufficiently inclines toward all things that accompany, precede, or follow from faith” ⁶

Our faith, then, is the same as that of the early Church, because everything we believe was either already explicitly believed by her, or is an implicit consequence of what she explicitly believed. That is St. Thomas's answer to the first problem concerning the unity of faith.

365. REGARDING THE SECOND PROBLEM concerning the constituent of heresy, the answer is the same. This problem is treated by Saint Thomas when he deals with the vices opposed to faith; but he had already treated it in a particular way in the treatise On the Trinity, when studying the divine notions ⁷. This problem was motivated by the incident that happened to Gilbert of Poitiers. This theologian, because of certain opinions of his on the divine notions, had been compelled by the Church to retract under penalty of heresy. Now, how can there be room for heresy and, therefore, for dogma in questions which, like that of the divine notions, are not expressly contained in divine Scripture or Tradition, and concerning which the Holy Fathers have held various opinions?

To this problem, St. Thomas and all the great Scholastics respond in this way: Heresy is nothing more than corruption of the faith. Everything, therefore, that corrupts the faith can become heresy, and its opposite can become dogma. And since faith can be corrupted not only by denying what is formally revealed, but also the absolutely necessary consequences of what is formal, for that reason the Church can condemn as heresy or define as dogma everything that is truly consequential. Here are some texts from St. Thomas:

"Respondeo dicendum that something pertains to faith in two ways. One way directly; as those things which are principally handed down to us by divine revelation... Indirectly, however, pertain to faith those things from which, if denied, something contrary to faith follows" ⁸

I answer that we are now speaking of heresy as meaning the corruption of the Christian faith. To this something may pertain in two ways: in one way, directly and principally, such as the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, such as those things from which follows the corruption of some article; and regarding both there can be heresy, in the same way that there can be faith ⁹.

"The judgment is the same regarding these* (the indirect revealed) and those (the direct revealed), because one follows from the other" ¹⁰

"Because certain things are contained in the faith of the Church, just as conclusions are contained in principles" ¹¹

"And on account of this many things are now considered heretical which were not considered so before, on account of the fact that it is now more manifest what follows from them" ¹²

"Thus, persistence in despising those things which pertain to the faith DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, so as to undergo the judgment of the Church, makes a man a heretic" ¹³

Hence it is that, for St. Thomas, these two things have the same dogmatic value: a) what is directly or formally revealed; b) what is indirectly or virtually revealed, if the Church defines it. As can be seen, that is exactly our doctrine on dogmatic development by way of implicit virtuality, defined by the Church (466-469).