A Manual Of Catholic Theology/Book 1: Part 1
A MANUAL OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY
PART I
THE OBJECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE
CHAPTER I
DIVINE REVELATION
SECT. 1.—Notion Of Revelation—Three Degrees Of Revelation
I. THE word Revelation originally means an unveiling—a manifestation of some object by drawing back the covering by which it was hidden. Hence we commonly use the word in the sense of a bringing to light some fact or truth hitherto not generally known. But it is especially applied to manifestations made by God, Who is Himself hidden from our eyes, yet makes Himself known to us. It is with this Divine Revelation that we are here concerned.
II. God discloses Himself to us in three ways. The study of the universe, and especially of man, the noblest object in the universe, clearly proves to us the existence of One Who is the Creator and Lord of all. This mode of manifestation is called Natural Revelation, because it is brought about by means of nature, and because our own nature has a claim to it, as will be hereafter explained. But God has also spoken to man by His own voice, both directly and through Prophets, Apostles, and Sacred Writers. This positive (as opposed to natural) Revelation proceeds from the gratuitous condescension of God, and tends to a gratuitous union with Him, both of which are far beyond the demands of our nature. Hence it is called Supernatural Revelation, and sometimes Revelation pure and simple, because it is more properly a disclosure of something hidden. The third and highest degree of Revelation is in the Beatific Vision in Heaven where God withdraws the veil entirely, and manifests Himself in all His glory. Here on earth, even in Supernatural Revelation, “we walk by faith and not by sight;” “we see now through a glass in a dark manner, but then [in the Beatific Vision] face to face;” “we shall see Him as He is” (2 Cor. 5:7; 1 Cor. 13:12; 1 John 3:2).
SECT. 2.—THE NATURE AND SUBJECT-MATTER OF NATURAL REVELATION
Natural Revelation is the principle of ordinary knowledge, and therefore belongs to the domain of philosophy. We touch upon it here because it is the basis of Supernatural Revelation, and also because at the present day all forms of Revelation have been confused and have lost their proper significance.
I. All natural knowledge of intellectual, religious, and ethical truths must be connected with a Divine Revelation of some kind, and this for two reasons: to maintain the dependence of these truths upon God, and the better to inculcate the duty of obeying them. This Revelation, however, is nothing else but the action of God as Creator, giving and preserving to nature its existence, form, and life. Created things embody Divine Ideas, and are thus imitations of their antitypes, the Divine Perfections. The human intellect, in particular, is an image of the Divine Intellect: the Creator endows it with the power to infer, from visible nature, the existence and perfections of its Author; and, from its own spiritual nature, the spiritual nature of the Author of all things. The revealing action of the Creator, then, consists in exhibiting, in matter and mind, the image of Himself, and in keeping alive in man the power of knowing the image and, through the image, Him who is represented. Theories which confound this Natural Revelation with Positive Revelation, like Traditionalism, or with the Revelation of Glory, like Ontologism completely misapprehend the bearing and energy of God’s creative operations and of created nature itself.
II. The following propositions, met with in the Fathers, and even in Holy Scripture, must be understood to refer to a Natural Revelation. When rightly explained they serve to confirm the doctrine stated above.
1. “God is the Teacher of all truth, even of natural truth,” i.e. not by formal speech nor by an inner supernatural enlightenment, but by sustaining the mind and faculties with which He has endowed our nature (cf. St. August. De Magistro, and St. Thomas, De Veritate, q. XI.).
2. “God is the light in which we know all truth,” that is, not the light which we see, but the Light which creates and preserves in us the faculty of knowing things as they are.
3. “God is the truth in which we read all truth,”—not as in a book or as in a mirror, but in the sense that, by means of the light received from God, we read in creatures the truths impressed upon them. The same idea is sometimes expressed by saying that God impresses His truth upon our mind and writes it in our souls.
4. It is particularly said that God has written His law upon our hearts (Rom. 2:14, 15) and that He speaks to us in our conscience. This, however, does not mean a supernatural intervention; through the light of reason God makes known to us His Will in a more vivid manner than even human language could do.
III. Natural Revelation embraces all the truths which we can apprehend by the light of our reason. Nevertheless only those which concern God and our relations with Him are said to belong to Natural Revelation, because they are the only truths in which He reveals Himself to us and which He commands us to acknowledge. Thus St. Paul (Rom. 1:18–20 and 2:14–15) points out as naturally revealed “the invisible things of God,” especially “His eternal power and Divinity,” and also the Moral Law.
It must not, however, be thought that all that can be or ought to be known about God, His designs, and His works, is within the sphere of Natural Revelation. The unaided light of reason can attain only a mediate knowledge of God by means of the study of His creatures, and must consequently be imperfect. Both the subjective medium (the human mind) and the objective medium (creation), are finite, whereas God is infinite. Moreover, the human intellect, by reason of its dependence on the senses, is so imperfect that it knows the essences of things only from their phenomena, and therefore only obscurely and imperfectly. And lastly, the study of nature can result only in the knowledge of such truths as are necessarily connected with it, and can tell us nothing about any free acts which God may have performed above and beyond nature, the knowledge of which He may nevertheless require of us.
Thus, even if the knowledge of God through the medium of nature without any special help were sufficient for our natural vocation, there would still be room for another and a supernatural revelation. But Natural Revelation is, in a certain sense, insufficient even for our natural vocation, as we shall now proceed to prove.
SECT. 3.—THE OBJECT AND NECESSITY OF A POSITIVE REVELATION—ITS SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER
I. The direct object or purpose of Positive Revelation is to impart to us the knowledge of the truths which it contains or to develop and perfect such knowledge of them as we already possess. The remote, but at the same time the chief, object is to enable us to attain our last end. The measure of the knowledge required depends upon the end ordained to man by his Creator; its necessity is determined by the capability or incapability of man to acquire this knowledge. Thus the necessity of a Positive Revelation varies according to the end to be attained and man’s capacity to attain it.
II. Man, as we shall see, is destined to a supernatural end, and consequently the principal object of a Positive Revelation is to enable him to reach it. But this supernatural vocation does not relieve him from his natural duties, and even for the fulfilment of these a Positive Revelation is in a certain sense necessary. The Catholic doctrine on this point has been defined by the Vatican Council. “To this Divine revelation it belongeth that those Divine things which are not impervious to human reason may, in the present state of the human race, be known by all with expedition and firm certainty, and without any mixture of error. Nevertheless not on this account must Revelation be deemed absolutely necessary, but because God of His infinite goodness hath ordained man to a supernatural end, that is to say, to be a sharer in the good things of God which altogether surpass the understanding of the human mind; for eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man what things God hath prepared for them that love Him” (sess. iii., chap. 2). We must therefore distinguish two different kinds of necessity.
1. Positive Revelation is not absolutely, categorically, and physically necessary for the knowledge of truths of the natural order bearing upon religion and morals, but it is relatively, hypothetically, and morally necessary. If Positive Revelation were absolutely necessary for the acquisition of natural, moral, and religious truths, then none of these truths could be known by any man in any other way. But this is plainly opposed to the doctrine that God and the moral law may be known by man’s unaided reason. Many difficulties, however, impede the acquisition of this knowledge. Very few men have the talent and opportunity to study such a subject, and even under the most favourable circumstances there will be doubt and error, owing to man’s moral degradation and the influences to which he is exposed. Positive Revelation is needed to remedy these defects, but the necessity is only relative, because it exists merely in relation to a portion of mankind, a part of the moral law, and in different degrees under different circumstances; the necessity is moral, because there is no physical impossibility but only great difficulty; and hypothetical, because it exists only in the hypothesis that God has provided no other means of surmounting the difficulties.
2. On the other hand Positive Revelation is absolutely, categorically, and physically necessary for the attainment of our supernatural end. To reach this end we must tend towards it supernaturally while we are here on earth (in statu viæ), and this supposes the knowledge of the end and of the means thereto. As both are supernatural, both must be made known by means of a direct communication from the Author of the supernatural order. And the necessity is absolute, because it extends to every truth of this order and arises from the very nature of man; physical, because of man’s physical incapacity of knowing God as He is in Himself; and categorical, because God cannot substitute any other means for it.
III. Positive Revelation is always a supernatural act as far as its form is concerned, because, in making it, God is acting beyond and above His ordinary activity as Creator, Conservator, and Prime Mover of nature, and out of purely gratuitous benevolence. This supernatural character belongs to it even when it merely supplements Natural Revelation. But it is purely and simply supernatural in all respects only when it manifests supernatural truths and is the means to a supernatural end.
SECT. 4.—THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF SUPERNATURAL REVELATION—MYSTERIES
I. We learn from the preceding section that Supernatural Revelation gives us knowledge of truths unrevealed by Natural Revelation. These truths constitute the specific and proper contents of Supernatural Revelation. As, however, this Revelation is by word of mouth, and not, as in the Revelation of Glory, by the vision of its object; as it does not entirely lift the veil from revealed things: it leaves them in obscurity, entirely withholding their reality from the mind’s eye, and only reproducing their essence in analogical concepts taken from the sphere of our natural knowledge. This peculiar character of the contents of Supernatural Revelation is called Mystery, or mystery of God; that is, a truth hidden in God, but made known to man by a free communication.
II. Mystery in common parlance means something hidden or veiled, especially by one mind from another. It implies the notion that some advantage attaches to the knowledge of it which gives the initiated a position superior to outsiders. The heathens gave the name of “mysteries” to the symbolical or sacred words and acts which they kept secret from the multitude, or to the hidden meaning of their liturgy, understood only by the initiated. The Fathers applied the term to the sacred words and acts of the true religion, kept secret from the heathen and catechumens, and understood only by the perfect, especially the mysteries knowable only by Faith which are veiled under the sacramental appearances (cf. Card. Newman, Development, p. 27).
1. The notion of theological mystery properly so called implies that the mysterious truth is incapable of being discovered by human reason, and that, even after it is revealed, reason cannot prove its existence. These conditions, however, are fulfilled by many truths which are not usually styled mysteries. Hence we must add the further condition that the truth should be naturally unknowable on account of its absolute and objective superiority to our sphere of knowledge, and that we should consequently be unable to obtain a direct and proper, but only an analogical, representation of its contents. A mystery is therefore subjectively above reason and objectively above nature.
2. That there are such mysteries has been defined by the Vatican Council. “Besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief the mysteries hidden in God, which, unless they were divinely revealed, could not be known.” Although by means of analogy we may obtain some knowledge of these mysteries, nevertheless human reason is never able to perceive them in the same way as it perceives the truths which are its proper object. “The Divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created intellect that, even when they have been imparted by Revelation and received by Faith, they nevertheless remain hidden and enveloped, as it were, in a sort of mist, as long as in this mortal life we are absent from the Lord, for we walk by faith and not by sight” (sess. iii., chap. 4). And the Council speaks of the two elements, subjective and objective, in the corresponding canon 1: “If any one shall say that in Divine Revelation no mysteries properly so called are contained, but that all the dogmas of the Faith may be understood and demonstrated from natural principles by reason duly cultured, let him be anathema” (cf. the Brief of Pius IX., Gravissimas inter).
3. The doctrine of the Council is based on many passages of Holy Scripture, some of which are quoted or alluded to in the decrees. The fullest text is 1 Cor. 2: “Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect, yet not the wisdom of this world, neither of the princes of this world that come to nought; but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery [a wisdom] which is hidden, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: which none of the princes of this world knew.… But, as it is written; that eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him. But to us God hath revealed them by His Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God: that we may know the things that are given us from God” (6–12). Compare also Eph. 3:4–9; Col. 1:26, 27; Matt. 11:25–27, and John 1:18. The writings of the Fathers are very rich in commentaries on these texts, many of which are quoted in the Brief Gravissimas inter. See especially St. Chrysostom and St. Jerome on Eph. 3; also St. Peter Chrysologus, horn. 67, sqq., on the Lord’s Prayer.
4. The presence of mysteries in Christian Revelation is essential to its sublime character. The principle of Revelation is God Himself in His character of Father, sending His Son and, through Him, the Holy Ghost into this world to announce “what the Son received from the Father, and the Holy Ghost from both.” Again, the motive of Revelation is the immense love of the Son of God for us: He speaks to us a friend to friends, telling us the secret things of His Father (John 15:14). And the end of Revelation is to lead us on to a truly supernatural state, the direct vision of God face to face. Moreover, without mysteries, Faith would not be “the evidence of things that appear not” (Heb. 11:1), nor would it be meritorious (Rom. 4, Heb. 10). In fact, the very essence of Revelation is to be supernatural and therefore mysterious, so that all who deny the existence of mysteries deny also the supernatural character of Christianity. We may add that the study of the revealed truths themselves will plainly show their mysterious nature.
5. The mysteries which are the subject-matter of Revelation are not merely a few isolated truths, but form a supernatural world whose parts are as organically connected as those of the natural world—a mystical cosmos, the outcome of the “manifold wisdom of God” (Eph. 3:10). In their origin they represent under various forms the communication of the Divine Nature by the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Grace; in their final object they represent an order in which the Triunity appears as the ideal and end of a communion between God and His creatures, rendered possible through the God-Man, and accomplished by means of grace and glory.
6. It is folly to maintain that the revelation of mysteries degrades our reason; on the contrary, it is at once an honour and a benefit. To say that there are truths beyond the reach of our reason is surely not to degrade it, but to acknowledge the true extent of its powers. And what an honour it is to man to be made in some way a confidant of God! Moreover, the more a truth is above reason the more precious it is to us. Finally, the knowledge of things supernatural is a pledge and foretaste of the perfect knowledge which is to come.
SECT. 5.—THE PROVINCE OF REVELATION
I. Revelation embraces all those truths which have been revealed in any way whatever.
1. Some revealed truths can be known only by means of Revelation; as, for instance, the Blessed Trinity, the Incarnation, and Grace. Others can be known by natural reason also; for instance, the Unity of God, Creation, and the Spirituality of the Soul. The former, which are purely and simply matters of Faith, are revealed in order to be made known; whereas the latter are mentioned in Revelation to serve as a basis.
2. Another important distinction is that between matters of Faith and matters of morals. Matters of Faith refer to God and His works, and are primarily of a speculative character. Matters of morals refer to man and his conduct, for which they prescribe practical rules.
3. A third distinction is between truths revealed for their own sake and truths revealed for the sake of those. This distinction is of great importance with regard to the contents of Holy Writ.
4. Lastly, some truths stand out clearly in Revelation, and are revealed in their completeness, while others can only be inferred by means of reflection and study. The latter are called corollaries of the Faith, or theological truths. It may come to pass that these may be proposed as matter of Faith by the Church, because they are necessary for the support of the Faith and also for the attainment of its object.
These four groups of revealed truths may not inaptly be compared to the different parts of a tree. Matters of Faith, pure and simple, are like the trunk; the natural truths which serve as a basis are the roots; truths incidentally revealed are the bark which envelops and protects the trunk; truths inferred by ratiocination are the branches which spring from the trunk; while the practical truths are the buds and flowers, from which proceeds the fruit of Christian life.
II. Although, strictly speaking, things revealed are alone the subject-matter of Faith, nevertheless many truths belonging to the domain of natural reason, but at the same time so connected and interwoven with Revelation that they cannot be separated from it, may also be reckoned as matter of Faith. These truths are, as it were, the atmosphere in which the tree of Revelation lives and thrives. The determination of the meaning of words used for the expression of dogmas (e.g. ὁμοούσιος), and of passages in Holy Scripture and other documents, are instances. In like manner many truths are inseparably connected with matters of morals, e.g. discipline, ceremonies, Religious Orders, the temporal power of the Pope, etc.
SECT. 6.—PROGRESS OF REVELATION
I. Supernatural Revelation was not given at once in all its completeness. From the day of Creation to the day of Judgment God has spoken, and will speak, to mankind at sundry times and in divers manners (Heb. 1:1). Natural and Supernatural Revelation run in parallel lines. Yet, whilst the former is addressed to all men at all times in the same form, the latter is made immediately only to individuals, and is not necessarily meant for all mankind. We are not, however, concerned here with private revelations, but only with those which are public, i.e. destined for all men.
II. Public Revelation may be divided into two portions: the Revelation made to man in his original state of integrity in Paradise, and the Revelation made to fallen man—that is, the Revelation of Redemption.
1. The Revelation in Paradise was public because it was to be handed down to all men as an inseparable complement of Natural Revelation. Holy Scripture mentions as its subject-matter only the law of probation given to Adam, but it connects this law with the supernatural order because the possession of immortality was to be the reward of obedience. It may be inferred, however, that all other necessary elements of the order of grace were clearly revealed, e.g. the Divine adoption of man, and the corresponding moral law, although the Old Testament mentions only the gift of integrity.
2. The Revelation of Redemption, or of the Gospel, was preparatory in the Old Testament and complete in the New. The preparatory stage was begun with the Patriarchs and continued with Moses and the Prophets. The Patriarchal Revelation contained the promise of the coming of the Redeemer, and pointed out the family from which He was to spring; it also enacted some few positive commandments. But as it did not form a complete system of religious truths and morals, and added little to what might be known by the unaided light of reason, it may be called the Law of Nature. The next stage, the Mosaic Revelation, was a closer preparation for the Revelation of the Gospel, and laid the foundation of an organized kingdom of God upon earth. Its object was to secure the worship of the one God and to keep alive the expectation of the Redeemer. Man is considered as a guilty servant of God, not as His child (Gal. 4:1). Nevertheless even this Revelation contains little more than Natural Revelation, except the positive ordinances for safeguarding the Law of Nature, for the institution of public worship, and for the atonement for sin. In the days of the Prophets the Revelation of the Gospel already began to dawn: the supernatural and the Divine began to appear in purer and clearer outline. Finally, the Revelation completed through Christ and the Holy Ghost surpasses all the others in dignity because its Mediator was the Only Begotten Son of God (Heb. 1:1), Who told what He Himself had heard (John 1:18), nay, Who is Himself the Word of God, and in Whom God speaks (John 8:25). The descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles supplemented and completed what Christ had revealed. “When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth,” (John 16:13).
III. The dignity and perfection of Christian Revelation require that no further public Revelation is to be made. The Old Testament dispensation pointed to one that was to follow, but the Christian dispensation is that “which remaineth” (2 Cor. 3:11; cf. Rom. 10:3, sqq.; Gal. 3:23, sqq.); an “immovable kingdom” (Heb. 12:28); perfect and absolutely sufficient (Heb. 7:11, sqq.); not the shadow, but the very image of the things to come (Heb. 10:1). And Christ distinctly says that His doctrine shall be preached until the consummation of the world, and declares “All things whatsoever I have heard from My Father I have made known unto you” (John 15:15), and “when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth,” πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν (John 16:13). The Apostles also exhort their disciples to stand by the doctrine which they received, and to listen only to the Church (2 Tim. 2:2, and 3:14). And the epistle ascribed to St. Barnabas contains the well-known formula: “The rule of light is, to keep what thou hast received without adding or taking away.” Moreover, the Church has always rejected the pretension of those who claimed to have received new revelations of a higher order from the Holy Ghost, e.g. the Montanists, Manichæans, Fraticelli, the Anabaptists, Quakers, and Irvingites.
The finality of the present Revelation does not, however, exclude the possibility of minor and subsidiary revelations made in order to throw light upon doctrine or discipline. The Church is the judge of the value of these revelations. We may mention as instances of those which have been approved, the Feast of Corpus Christi and the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
From the above we deduce the existence of a gradual progress, both extensive and intensive, in Revelation. The extensive progress does not start from Adam or Noah, but from Abraham, the patriarch selected among fallen mankind. Patriarchal Revelation was made to a family, Mosaic Revelation to a people, Prophetical Revelation to several peoples, Christian Revelation to the whole world. The intensive progress consists in a higher degree of illumination and a wider range of the revealed truths. The intensive progress likewise begins with Abraham and ascends through Moses and the Prophets to Christ, Who leads us to the bright day of eternity (infra, pp. 71, 105).
CHAPTER II
THE TRANSMISSION OF REVELATION
SECT. 7.—THE PROTESTANT THEORY AND THE CATHOLIC THEORY CONCERNING THE MODE OF TRANSMITTING AND ENFORCING REVELATION
DIVINE Revelation, although destined for all men in all times and places, has not been communicated to each individual directly and immediately. Certain means have been appointed by God for this purpose. Catholics and Protestants, however, hold diametrically opposite views as to what these means are. We shall first state both theories, and then develop and prove the Catholic theory.
I. The Protestant theory takes two different forms, both alike opposed to the Catholic theory. According to the older Protestants, Holy Scripture, the divinely written document of Revelation, together with an interior illumination of the Holy Ghost, is the sole means whereby Revelation asserts itself to the individual. All other institutions or external means of communicating Revelation are the work of man, coming violently between Revelation and Faith, and destroying the supernatural character of the latter. Modern Protestants, however, admit the existence of other means of transmission besides Holy Writ itself, but they deny that such means are ordained by God and participate in the Divine character of Revelation; while some even go so far as to deny the supernatural character of Holy Scripture. Revealed truth is handed down by purely human witnesses, whose authority depends, not on the assistance of the Holy Ghost, but on their natural abilities and industry. Both forms protest—the one in the name of Christian, the other in the name of natural, freedom—against the notion of a Revelation imposing itself authoritatively on mankind; and they also protest against any living and visible authority claiming to be established by God and to have the right to impose the obedience of Faith.
II. The Catholic theory is a logical consequence of the nature of Revelation. Revelation is not simply intended for the comfort and edification of isolated individuals, but as a fruitful source of supernatural knowledge and life, and a sovereign rule of Faith, thought, and conduct for all mankind as a whole, and for each man in particular. God wills that by its means all men should be gathered into His kingdom of holiness and truth, and should obtain, by conformity to His Will, the happiness which He destines for them, at the same time rendering to Him the tribute of glory which is His due. Revelation is especially intended to be a principle of Faith, leading to an infallible knowledge of revealed truth, and also to be a law of Faith, by submitting to which all men may offer to God the most perfect homage of their intellect. Hence it follows that God should provide efficient means to enable mankind to acquire a complete, certain, and uniform knowledge of revealed truth, and to secure to Himself a uniform and universal worship founded on Faith. This exercise of God’s Jus Majestatis over the mind of man is rightly insisted upon by the Vatican Council against the rationalistic tendencies of the day. Moreover, God could not cast upon the world the written document of His revealed Word, and leave it to an uncertain fate. Had He done so, the purposes of Revelation would have been completely frustrated. The only efficient mode of transmitting Revelation with authority is that the Word of God, after having once been spoken, should be continually proposed to mankind by His authorized envoys, and promulgated in His name and power as the principle and rule of Faith. These envoys are called the Teaching Body; their functions are called the Apostolate.
Thus, according to the Catholic theory, there is a means of transmitting Revelation distinct from Revelation itself and its written document; and this means, having been instituted by God, detracts in no way from the dignity of Revelation, but rather safeguards it. Other means of transmission, such as Scripture and history, are by no means excluded; they are, however, subordinate to the one essential and fundamental means.
SECT. 8.—FURTHER EXPLANATION OF THE CATHOLIC THEORY
I. The promulgation of revealed truth, being an act of God as Sovereign Lord of all creatures, must be made in the name of His sovereign authority and by ambassadors invested with a share of that authority. Their commission must consist of an appointment emanating from God, and they must be armed with the necessary credentials and the power of exacting Faith from those to whom they are sent. Thus qualified, the promulgation may be technically described as official, authentic, and authoritative: official, because made by persons whose proper office it is to publish—like heralds in human affairs; authentic, because with the commission to promulgate there is connected a public dignity and authority, in virtue of which the holder guarantees the truth of his utterances, and makes them legally credible—as in the case of public witnesses, such as registrars; authoritative, because the holder of the commission is the representative of God, invested with authority to exact Faith from his subordinates, and to keep efficient watch over its maintenance.
II. A threefold Divine co-operation is required for the attainment of the end of Revelation: the promulgation must be made under Divine guarantee, Divine legitimation, and Divine sanction. The object of the Apostolate is to generate an absolute, supernatural, and Divine certainty of the Word of God. Moreover, the promulgating body claims a full and unconditional submission of the mind to the truths which it teaches. But this certainty could not be produced, and this submission could not be demanded, except by an infallible body. The intrinsic and invisible quality of infallibility is not enough to convey the authenticity and authority of the Apostolate to the knowledge of mankind—some external mark is required. Christ proved the authority of His mission by miracles, and then instituted the Apostolate. His words and works were sufficient evidence for those who actually witnessed them. For us some other proof is necessary; and this may be either some special miracle accompanying the preaching of the Gospel, or the general moral miracle of the continuity and efficiency of the Apostolate. This subject will be treated at greater length in the treatise on Faith. The sanction of the Apostolate consists in the rewards and punishments reserved hereafter for those who accept or reject its teaching, and is the complement of its authority. Submission to Revelation is the fundamental condition of salvation, and consequently submission to the Apostolate, which is the means of transmitting Revelation, must be enforced by the same sanctions as submission to Revelation itself.
III. The act of promulgation must be a teaching (magisterium), and not a mere statement; this teaching must witness to its identity with the original Revelation, i.e. it must always show that what is taught is identical with what was revealed; it must be a “teaching with authority”—that is, it must command the submission of the mind, because otherwise the unity and universality of the Faith could not be attained.
IV. The subject-matter of the Apostolate is co-extensive with the subject-matter of Revelation. It embraces, besides the truths directly revealed, those also which are intimately connected and inseparably interwoven therewith (cf. § 5). Divine Faith cannot indeed be commanded in the case of truths not directly revealed by God; nevertheless the Teaching Body, the living witness and ambassador plenipotentiary of the Word of God, must, when occasion requires, be empowered to impress the seal of authenticity on subordinate truths also, for without this power the object of the Apostolate would in many cases be thwarted. The Church exercises this power when authoritatively passing judgment on dogmatic facts (facta dogmatica), or applying minor censures to unsound propositions.
SECT. 9.—DEMONSTRATION OF THE CATHOLIC THEORY
The Catholic theory that Revelation is transmitted and communicated by means of envoys and teachers accredited by God, is evident à priori, i.e. the consideration of the nature of Revelation and its object shows that no other theory is practically possible. There are, however, other proofs also, which are set forth under the following headings:—
I. Proof from our Lord’s words
1. The documentary proof of the institution of a teaching Apostolate is found in Holy Scripture exactly where we should expect to find it, viz. at the end of the Gospels and at the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles.
(a) The first Evangelist, St. Matthew (28:18, 19), gives the narrative around which all the others group themselves. He shows, first, that the Apostles’ mission is based upon the sovereign power of Christ, and he then characterizes this mission as the visible continuation of the mission of Christ—the working of the Apostolate is described as an authorized teaching of the whole doctrine of Christ to all men of all times; lastly, baptism is stated to be the act by which all mankind are bound to become the disciples of the Apostolate. “All power is given to Me in Heaven and on earth. Going therefore [in virtue of, and endowed with this My sovereign power, “As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you” John 20:21] teach ye [μαθητευσάτε—make to yourselves disciples, teach as having power; cf. Mark 1:22] all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them (διδασκόντες) to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you (ἐνετειλάμην): and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” It is evident from the text that the promised presence of Christ is intended to secure the object of the Apostolate, and, consequently, that the Apostolate must be infallible. (See Bossuet, Instructions sur les Promesses faites à l’Eglise; and Wiseman, The Principal Doctrines and Practices of the Church, lect. iv.)
(b) The second Evangelist, St. Mark, describes the “teaching” of St. Matthew as a “preaching,” and mentions, instead of the intrinsic guarantee of infallibility, the extrinsic signs of authority and sanction. “Go ye into the whole world and preach (κηρύξατε) the Gospel to every creature [as an authorized message from the Creator and Sovereign Lord to all mankind as His creatures]. He that believeth [your preaching] and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned. And these signs shall follow them that believe: in My name they shall cast out devils.… But they [the eleven] going forth, preached everywhere: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed” (16:15–20).
(c) The third Evangelist, St. Luke, draws attention to the mission to “preach,” but afterwards lays special stress on its principal act—the authentic witnessing—and points to the Holy Ghost, of Whom the human witnesses are the mouthpiece, as the guarantee of the infallibility of the testimony. “Thus it is written, and it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead on the third day; and that penance and the remission of sins should be preached in His name unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things, and I send the promise of My Father upon you” (24:46–49). “You shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).
(d) Whilst the synoptic Gospels chiefly describe the universal propagation and first diffusion of the doctrine of Christ, St. John, the fourth Evangelist, points out especially the unity, conservation, and application of the doctrine. He narrates, as the last act of our Lord, the appointment of a permanent visible Head of the Church. St. Peter is chosen to take the place of Christ, with power to feed mankind with the bread of doctrine (21:15–17), and to lead them in the light of truth. The apostolic organism thus receives a firm centre and a permanent consistency. The abiding and invisible assistance of Christ announced in St. Matthew to the members of the Apostolate is here visibly embodied in His supreme representative to whom it was especially promised (Matt. 16:17–19; Luke 22:31, 32). Moreover, the very figure of a shepherd feeding his lambs and sheep contains an allusion to the authority and sanction of the promulgation of the Word (cf. John 10:11 sqq.; Ps. 22.; Ezech. 34:23).
Thus the last Evangelist comes back to the point from which St. Matthew started: “All power is given to Me in Heaven and on earth.” The mission of the Apostolate is an emanation from and a continuation of the mission of Christ, and consequently the functions of both are described in similar terms. Our Lord Himself is spoken of as a Doctor and Master, teaching as one having power (Mark 1:22); a Preacher of the Gospel sent by God to man (Luke 4:16–21); a Witness, giving testimony to what He saw with the Father (John 8:14–18); and, lastly as the Shepherd of the sheep (John 10:11).
2. The beautiful picture of the institution of the Apostolate given at the end of the Gospel narratives is brought out more clearly when viewed side by side with the previous teaching of our Lord.
The mission described in Matt. 28 is represented in John 17:17, 18, as a continuation of the mission of Christ Himself: “Sanctify them in truth: Thy word is truth. As Thou hast sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.” Moreover the coercive authority spoken of by St. Matthew and St. Mark is mentioned by St. Luke 10:16 (cf. John 13:20; Matt. 10:40) on the occasion of the first preparatory mission of the seventy-two disciples. “He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me.” And the promise of the Holy Ghost, Who, according to St. Luke’s narrative, was to support and strengthen the testimony of the Apostles, is made at great length in St. John’s account of our Lord’s discourse at the Last Supper, in which the duration, importance, and efficacy of the Holy Ghost’s assistance are declared. “And I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth, Whom the world cannot receive: … but you shall know Him; because He shall abide with you, and shall be in you” (14:16, 17). “These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you. But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, Whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring all things into your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you” (ibid., 25, 26). “But when the Paraclete cometh, Whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, Who proceedeth from the Father, He shall give testimony of Me: and you shall give testimony, because you are with Me from the beginning” (15:26, 27). “When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach [ὁδογήσει] you all truth” (16:13). It is plain that these promises were made to the Apostles as future propagators of the Faith, and the stress laid upon the functions of the Holy Ghost as the Spirit of truth, as Teacher and Witness, as Keeper of and Guide to the truth, is intended to show that the transmission of Revelation was to be endowed with all the qualifications required for its object, and especially with infallibility. Lastly, the Pastor appointed by Christ (John 21:15–17) had been previously designated as being strengthened in Faith in order to confirm his brethren, and as the rock which was to be the indestructible foundation of the Church (Luke 22:31, 32; Matt. 16:18).
These passages taken together may be summarized as follows. After accomplishing His own mission, Jesus Christ, in virtue of His absolute power and authority, sent into the world a body of teachers and preachers, presided over by one Head. They were His representatives, and had for their mission to publish to the world all revealed truth until the end of time. Their mission was not exclusively personal—it was to extend to their successors. Mankind were bound to receive them as Christ Himself. That their word might be His word, and might be recognized as such, He promised them His presence and the aid of the Holy Ghost to guarantee the infallibility of their doctrine; He promised external and supernatural signs as vouchers for its authenticity; finally, He gave their doctrine an effective sanction by holding out an eternal reward to those who should faithfully adhere to it, and by threatening with eternal punishment those who should reject it.
This summary is a complete answer to certain difficulties drawn from detached texts of Holy Scripture, and likewise fills up the gaps in isolated passages. The picture we have drawn corresponds exactly, even in minute details, with the theory of the Catholic Church on the Apostolate. Certain points, as, for instance, the infallibility of the Apostolate in matters indirectly connected with Revelation, are at least implicitly and virtually contained in the texts quoted. There is even reason to maintain that the words, “He shall lead you into all truth” (John 16:13), imply the promise of the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost in all truths necessary to the Church. It should also be noted that, although these passages, as a whole, apply to the future of the Christian dispensation, some of them apply chiefly to its commencement, e.g. the signs and wonders, and the ocular evidence of the Apostles. The transitory elements can, however, be easily distinguished, and are therefore no argument against the perpetuity of the essential elements required for the permanent object of Revelation—the salvation of all mankind.
II. Proof from the writings of the Apostles
The writings of the Apostles represent the Apostolate as an accomplished fact, destined to endure in all its essential elements until the end of time
1. The theory is set forth especially in Rom. 10:8–19 and Eph. 4:7–14. In the former passage, St. Paul insists on the necessity and importance of the apostolic preaching as the ordinary means of transmitting the doctrine of Christ. “The word is nigh thee [i.e. all men, Jews and Gentiles], even in thy mouth, and in thy heart. This is the word of faith which we preach. For, if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised Him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved.… For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on Him in Whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe Him of Whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent?… Faith then cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ [as preached by those who have been sent].… But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound hath gone forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the whole world.” “But all do not obey the Gospel [preached by the Apostles], for Isaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?” In writing to the Ephesians the Apostle describes how the organic body of living teachers is by its manifold functions the means designed by God to produce the unity, firmness, and security of the universal Faith. He speaks more particularly about the organization of the Apostolate, as it existed in his own day, when the Apostles were still living, and the extraordinary graces (charismata) were still in full operation. His description is not that of the ordinary organization, which was to endure for all ages, but, in spite of this, it is plain that what he says of the importance of the earlier form, may also be applied to that which was to come. “And He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists [both graces peculiar to the first epoch], and other some pastors and doctors [this alludes to the ordinary teachers, the bishops appointed by the Apostles] for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, until we all meet together into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ: that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. 4:11–15). The Apostles were the foundation of the whole organization; after their death their place was taken by the successor of St. Peter, to whom the other pastors stand in the same relation as the first bishops stood to the Apostles.
2. In practice, the Apostles announced the Gospel, and carried on the work of their ministry; they represented themselves as the ambassadors of Christ (Rom. 1:5; 15:18; 1 Cor. 2:16; 3:9, etc.), and, above all, as witnesses sent to the people by God; they proved the Divinity of their mission by signs and wonders, as Christ promised them (1 Cor. 2:4; 2 Cor. 12:12; 1 Thess. 1:5, etc.); they demanded for the word of God, to which they bore authentic and authoritative witness, the obedience of Faith (ὑπακὸη πίστεως, Rom. 1:5), and claimed the power and the right to enforce respect for it: “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels (λογισμοὺς), and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ, and having in readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience shall be fulfilled” (2 Cor. 10:4–6). They apply the sanction established by Christ, “He that believeth not shall be condemned,” and themselves pronounce the sentence. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).
The mode of promulgation, in its essentials, was to be permanent, and not to cease with the Apostles, as may be gathered from the principles laid down by St. Paul (Rom. 10) and from the fact that the Apostles appointed successors to themselves to watch over and keep the doctrine entrusted to them. “Hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me … Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost Who dwelleth in us” (2 Tim. 1:13, 14). They add the commandment to appoint further successors with the same charge. “The things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). The practical application of this system is thus described by St. Clement of Rome, the disciple of the Apostles: “Christ was sent by God, and the Apostles by Christ. Therefore they went forth with the full persuading power of the Holy Ghost, announcing the coming of the kingdom of God. Through provinces and in towns they preached the word, and appointed the first fruits thereof, duly tried by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of them that should believe.… They appointed the above-named, and then gave them command that when they came to die other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Ep. i. ad Cor., nn. 42, 44).
This proof from Scripture by no means presupposes the inspiration of the books of the New Testament; it is enough for our present purpose to assume that they are authentic narratives. We thus do not fall into the vicious circle of proving the Apostolate from the inspired books, and the Inspiration of the books from the Apostolate. Nor do we make use of the authority of the Church in interpreting the texts. Their meaning is sufficiently manifest without any such help.
III. Historical proofs
But we have historical proofs of unimpeachable character that already, in the first centuries, the Catholic Rule was held by the Fathers. St. Irenæus, Origen, and Tertullian taught that, in consequence of the mission given to the Apostles, their successors preached the word with authenticity and authority; that the preaching of these successors infallibly reproduced the preaching of the Apostles; that, consequently, Ecclesiastical Tradition was to be followed, notwithstanding any private appeal to Holy Scripture or to any other historical documents.
1. St. Irenæus insists upon these points against the Gnostics, who appealed to Scripture or to private historical documents.
(a) He insists upon the existence and importance of the mission of the Apostles, and also upon the succession in the Apostolate: “Therefore in every church there is, for all those who would fain see the truth, at hand to look unto, the tradition of the Apostles made manifest throughout the whole world; and we have it in our power to enumerate those who were by the Apostles instituted Bishops in the churches, and the successors of those Bishops down to ourselves, none of whom either taught or knew anything like unto the wild opinions of these men. For if the Apostles had known any hidden mysteries, which they apart and privately taught the perfect only, they would have delivered them before all others to those to whom they entrusted even the very churches. For they sought that they whom they left as successors, delivering unto them their own post of government, should be especially perfect and blameless in all things.” He then demonstrates the continuity of succession in the church of Rome: “But as it would be a very long task to enumerate, in such a volume as this, the successions of all the churches; pointing out that tradition which the greatest and most ancient and universally known church of Rome—founded and constituted by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul—derives from the Apostles, and that faith announced to all men, which through the succession of (her) Bishops has come down to us, we confound all those who in any way, whether through self-complacency or vain-glory, or blindness and perverse opinion, assemble otherwise than as behoveth them. For to this church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every church, that is, those who are on every side faithful, resort, in which (church) ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the Apostles.… By this order and by this succession both that tradition which is in the Church from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is a most complete demonstration that the vivifying faith is one and the same, which from the Apostles even until now, has been preserved in the Church and transmitted in truthfulness.” After mentioning other disciples and successors of the Apostles, he continues: “Wherefore, since there are such proofs to show, we ought not still to seek amongst others for truth which it is easy to receive from the Church, seeing that the Apostles have brought together most fully into it, as into a rich repository, all whatever is of truth, that every one that willeth may draw out of it the drink of life.… But what if the Apostles had not left us writings: would it not have been needful to follow the order of that tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the churches—an ordinance to which many of the barbarian nations who believe in Christ assent, having salvation written, without paper and ink, by the Spirit, in their hearts, and sedulously guarding the old tradition?” (Adv. Hæres., l. iii., 3, 4).
(b) Irenæus then shows that the preaching of the Apostles, continued by their successors, contains a supernatural guarantee of infallibility through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. “The public teaching of the Church is everywhere uniform and equally enduring, and testified unto by Prophets and by Apostles, and by all the disciples, as we have demonstrated, through the first and intermediate and final period, and through the whole economy of God and that accustomed operation relative to the salvation of man, which is in our faith, which, having received from the Church, we guard (quam pcrceptam ab ecclesia custodimus); and which by the Spirit of God is ever in youthful freshness, like something excellent deposited in a beautiful vase, making even the very vase, wherein it is, seem newly formed (fresh with youth). For this office of God has been entrusted to the Church, as though for the breathing of life into His handiwork, unto the end that all the members that partake may be vivified; in this [office], too, is disposed the communication of Christ, that is, the Holy Spirit, the pledge of incorruption, the ladder whereby to ascend unto God. For in the Church, saith he, God hath placed Apostles, prophets, doctors, and every other work of the Spirit, of which all they are not partakers who do not hasten to the Church, but by their evil sentiment and most flagrant conduct defraud themselves of life. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and every grace: but the Spirit is truth. Wherefore they who do not partake of that [Spirit] are neither nourished unto life from a mother’s breasts, nor see the most clear spring which proceeds from Christ’s body; but dig unto themselves broken cisterns out of earthy trenches, and out of the filth drink foul water, fleeing from the faith of the Church lest they be brought back; but rejecting the Spirit that they may not be instructed” (lib. iii., c. 24).
(c) Lastly, Irenæus links together the Apostolic Succession and the supernatural guarantee of the Holy Ghost. “Wherefore we ought to obey those presbyters who are in the Church, those who have a succession from the Apostles, as we have shown; who, with the succession of the episcopate, have received according to the good will of the Father the sure gift of truth; but the rest who depart from the principal succession, and assemble in any place whatever, we ought to hold suspected either as heretics and of an evil opinion, or as schismatics and proud, and as men pleasing themselves; or, again, as hypocrites doing this for gain’s sake and vain-glory.… Where, therefore, the gifts of God are placed, there we ought to learn the truth, [from those] with whom is that succession of the Church which is from the Apostles; and that which is sound and irreprovable in conversation and unadulterated and incorruptible in discourse, abides. For they both guard that faith of ours in one God, Who made all things, and increase our love towards the Son of God, Who made such dispositions on our account, and they expound to us the Scriptures without danger, neither uttering blasphemy against God, nor dishonouring the patriarchs nor contemning the prophets” (lib. iv. 26).
2. Origen, in the preface to his work De Principiis, states the principle of the Apostolate in the Church in the following pregnant terms: “There being many who fancy that they think the things of Christ, and some of them think differently from those who have gone before, let there be preserved the ecclesiastical teaching which, transmitted by the order of succession from the Apostles, remains even to the present day in the churches: that alone is to be believed to be truth which in nothing differs from the ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition.” And commenting on Matt. xxiv. 23, he says, “As often as they [heretics] bring forward canonical Scriptures in which every Christian agrees and believes, they seem to say, ‘Behold in the houses is the word of truth.’ But we are not to credit them; nor to go out from the first and the ecclesiastical tradition; nor to believe otherwise than according as the churches of God have by succession transmitted to us.… The truth is like the lightning which goeth out from the east and appeareth even into the west; such is the truth of the Church of God; for from it alone the sound hath gone forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.”
3. Tertullian treats of this subject in his well-known work De Prcæcriptionibus. “[Heretics] put forward the Scriptures and by this their boldness they forthwith move some persons; but in the actual encounter they weary the strong, catch the weak, send away the wavering anxious. We therefore interpose this first and foremost position: that they are not to be admitted to any discussion whatever touching the Scriptures. If these be those weapons of strength of theirs, in order that they may possess them, it ought to be seen to whom the possession of the Scriptures belongs, lest he may be admitted to it to whom it in no wise belongs.… Therefore there must be no appeal to the Scriptures, nor must the contest be constituted in these, in which the victory is either none or doubtful, or too little doubtful. For even though the debate on the Scriptures should not so turn out as to confirm each party, the order of things required that this question should be first proposed, which is now the only one to be discussed, ‘To whom belongs the faith itself; whose are the Scriptures; by whom, and through whom, and when and to whom was that rule delivered whereby men became Christians?’ for wherever both the true Christian rule and faith shall be shown to be, there will be the true Scriptures and the true expositions and ail the true Christian traditions” (nn. 15, 19).
IV. The Divine legitimation of the Apostolate
A strong argument in favour of the Divine origin of the Apostolate, stronger even than the proof from the Holy Scriptures and early Fathers, may be drawn from its actual existence and working in the Catholic Church.
If the power over the human mind and the infallible possession of Divine truth claimed by the Catholic hierarchy did not really come from God, the claim would be a horrible blasphemy, and the hierarchy would be the work of the devil. But if this were the case, it would be impossible for the Church to do all the good which she does, to contribute so wonderfully to the sanctification of mankind, and to be so constantly and so energetically attacked by the enemies of Christ. God would be bound to oppose and extirpate this monster of deception, which pretends to be the work of His hands and to be guided by His Spirit. He could not allow it to prevail so long, so universally, with such renown and success among the very best of mankind. But, far from doing this, God marvellously supports the Apostolate and confirms its authority from time to time by supernatural manifestations. These, of course, demonstrate the Divine origin of the Church as a whole, but they also demonstrate the Divine origin of the Apostolate which is the means of communicating the Faith which the Church professes.
SECT. 10.—Organization of the Teaching Apostolate—Its Relations With the Two Powers and the Two Hierarchical Orders Instituted by Christ
The usual place to treat of the Organization of the Teaching Apostolate is in the treatise on the Constitution of the Church. For our present purpose, however, which is to show to whom and in what manner belongs the right to expound and propose Revelation, it will be sufficient to give a clear notion of the two hierarchical powers.
I. The power to teach is vested by right, as well as by the institution of Christ, in those same dignitaries who are appointed to be the instruments of the Holy Ghost for the communication of His grace to mankind (potestas ordinis) and who are the representatives of Christ for the government of His kingdom upon earth (potestas jurisdictionis) in a word, the Apostolate belongs to the Hierarchy. But the Apostolate is not only intimately connected with the two above-named functions of the Hierarchy: it is also itself an hierarchical function. As such, its value and importance depend on the rank held by the members of the Hierarchy by right either of ordination or of jurisdiction. The Apostolate is not, however, an independent hierarchical function. It springs from and forms an essential part of the other two. To enlighten the mind with heavenly truth and to generate Faith are acts belonging to the very nature of the Power of Orders, inasmuch as in this way the gifts of the vivifying Spirit are dispensed. And the same may be said of the Power of Jurisdiction, for the noblest part of this power is to feed the flock of Christ on Faith, and so to guide it to salvation.
II. We have already distinguished two functions of the Apostolate: (1) the authentic witnessing to the doctrine of Christ, and (2) the authoritative enforcement of it. The first element belongs to the Power of Orders, the second to the Power of Jurisdiction.
1. The act of witnessing to the doctrine of Christ is not in itself an act of jurisdiction, but rather, as being a communication of grace and of supernatural life, belongs to the Power of Orders. The function of this power is to transmit the Grace of Christ, especially the grace of Faith, while the Apostolate transmits the truth of Christ and provides the subject-matter of the act of Faith. The members of the Hierarchy invested with the power of communicating the gifts of Grace in general and the gift of Faith in particular, are therefore also the instruments of the Holy Ghost in communicating the doctrine of Faith. The grace which they receive in their ordination consecrates them for and entitles them to both functions, so that they are, in a twofold sense, “the dispensers of the mysteries of God.” Hence the witnesses of the Apostolate, which was instituted to produce supernatural Faith, are invested with a supernatural character, a public dignity, and a power based upon an intimate union with the Holy Ghost. They represent the testimony of the Holy Ghost promised by Christ, because they are the instruments of the Holy Ghost. They cannot, however, individually claim infallibility, as will presently be shown.
The Power of Orders has different degrees which constitute the Hierarchy of Orders. To each of these degrees belongs a corresponding share in the right and power to expound revealed doctrine. The High Priests (the Pontiffs or Priests of the first order, i.e. the Bishops) alone possess the fulness of the Power of Orders, and are by themselves independent of any other order in the performance of their functions. Hence, in virtue of their Orders, the Bishops alone are, in a perfect sense, “Fathers of the Faithful,” independent teachers and authentic witnesses in their own right. The subordinate members of the Hierarchy of Orders receive their orders from the Bishops, and are mere auxiliaries. Thus the Deacons are exclusively called to assist in the functions of the higher orders, and the Priests of the second order, i.e. simple Priests, in the ordinary sense of the word, act as the Bishop’s assistants, and often with his positive co-operation. Their participation in the Apostolate is limited, like their participation in the Power of Orders, and may be expressed in the same terms.
2. The act of imposing the doctrine of Christ, that is, of commanding adhesion to it, clearly appertains to the Power of Jurisdiction, especially to that branch of it which is called the Power of Teaching. Bishops, in virtue of their consecration, are called to the government of the Church; but this does not of itself constitute them rulers of any particular portion of the Christian flock, and therefore does not give them the right to command submission to their doctrinal utterances. This right is the result of, and is co-extensive with their jurisdiction, i.e. with their actual participation in the government of the Church. On the other hand, the right to act as authentic witnesses and as simple doctors, not imposing submission to their doctrine, is independent of their governing any flock, and may extend beyond the particular flock actually committed to their charge.
In general, the power of authoritative teaching implies complete jurisdiction over the domain of doctrine, and therefore includes (1) the right of administration, which entitles the holder of it to use the external means necessary for the propagation of the doctrine, especially to send out authorized missionaries; (2) the right of superintendence, together with the right of punishing, entitling the holder to forbid, prevent, or punish all external acts opposed to the propagation of the true doctrine; (3) judicial and legislative powers, including the right of prescribing external acts relating to the Faith, but having for their principal function the juridical and legal definition and prescription of the Faith. This last is the highest exercise of authoritative teaching, because it affects the innermost convictions of the mind; it is eminently Divine and supernatural, like the exercise of jurisdiction in the Sacrament of Penance, and like this, too, it implies that the holder represents Christ in a very special manner.
The right of authoritative teaching has various degrees. Simple Bishops, placed over only a portion of the Christian flock, possess only a partial and subordinate, and hence an imperfect and dependent, Power of Teaching. The Chief of the Episcopate, as Pastor of the entire flock, alone possesses the universal and sovereign, and hence complete and independent, Power of Teaching, to which the Bishops themselves must submit. The difference between his power and theirs appears most strikingly in the legal force of their respective doctrinal decisions. The Pope’s decisions, as Christ’s chief judge upon earth, alone have the force of laws, binding generally; whereas those given by the Bishops have only the force of a judicial sentence, binding the parties in the suit. In matters of Faith Bishops cannot make any laws for their respective dioceses, because a law requiring assent to a truth cannot be more restricted than truth itself, and, moreover, a law of this kind must proceed from an infallible lawgiver. Universality and infallibility are not the attributes of individual Bishops, but of the Pope alone; and therefore Bishops can make merely provisional laws for their own dioceses, subject to the approbation of the Sovereign Pontiff. It is not their business to give final decisions in controversies concerning the Faith, or to solve the doubts still tolerated in the Church—their ministry is not even indispensable for these purposes. They are, indeed, judges empowered to decide whether a doctrine is in conformity with generally received dogma, but as individuals they cannot make a dogma or law of Faith. They wield the executive, not the legislative power. In short, although the Bishops are pre-eminently witnesses and doctors and, within certain limits, also judges of the Faith, yet their Head, the Pope, has the distinctive attributes of supreme promulgator of doctrine, universal judge in matters of Faith, arbiter in controversies of Faith, and “Father and Teacher of all Christians” (Council of Florence).
SECT. 11.—ORGANIZATION OF THE APOSTOLATE (CONTINUED).—ORGANIZATION OF THE TEACHING BODY
On the basis of what has been laid down in the foregoing section, we now proceed to treat of the organization of the members of the Apostolate, the allotment among them of apostolic powers and privileges, and more especially of the gift of infallibility.
It is manifest that there exists for the purposes of the Apostolate a number of different organs adjusted together so as to form one well-ordered whole, the several members of which share, according to their rank, in the various powers and privileges of the Apostolate. Taken in a wide sense, this body embraces all the members of the Church Teaching who in any way co-operate in the attainment of the ends of the Apostolate. In a narrower sense, however, the Teaching Body is understood to consist only of the highest members of the Hierarchy of Orders, who are at the same time by Divine institution the ordinary members of the Hierarchy of Jurisdiction, viz. the Pope and the Bishops. In them the fulness of the Apostolate resides, whereas the lower members are only their auxiliaries. We shall treat first of the organization of the Teaching Body itself; then of its auxiliaries; and lastly of its connection with the body of the Faithful.
I. The principles which determine the composition of the Teaching Body are the following:—
1. The first object to be attained by means of the Apostolate is the universal diffusion of Revelation, paving the way for supernatural Faith. For this purpose a number of consecrated organs of the Holy Ghost are required, to be authentic witnesses and teachers. As representatives of Christ, they must be endowed with a doctrinal authority corresponding to their rank, and must have power to appoint auxiliaries and to superintend and direct the Faith of their subjects.
2. The second object of the Apostolate is to produce unity of Faith and doctrine. To accomplish this, one supreme representative of Christ is required, to preside over the whole organization, and to possess a universal and sovereign doctrinal power.
3. The unity resulting from this sovereign power is threefold: material unity of the Teaching Body, consisting in the juridical union of the members with their Head, in virtue of which they have and hold their functions—a unity resulting from the administrative power of their Head; harmonic and external unity in the activity of the members, arising from the power of superintendence; and formal and intrinsic unity of doctrine and Faith, produced by authoritative definition.
4. The unity of the Teaching Body is not that of a lifeless machine but of a living organism. Each member is formed to the likeness of the Head by God Himself, Who gives life to Head and members alike through the action of the Holy Ghost.
II. The original members of the Apostolate chosen by Christ Himself for the fundamental promulgation and propagation of the Gospel possessed the attributes of the Apostolate in an eminent degree. This was necessary in view of the objects they had to attain. Their superiority over their successors appears in the authenticity of the testimony of each of them taken individually, in the authoritative power to teach conferred upon all of them and not restricted to the chief Apostle, and lastly in the personal infallibility of every one of them. As they were the first witnesses of the doctrine of Christ they were not only the channels but also the sources of the Faith of every age, and therefore it was necessary that their testimony should be endowed with a special internal and external perfection. The internal perfection arose from the fact of their being eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses of the whole Revelation, and of their being so filled with the Holy Ghost that each of them possessed a complete and infallible knowledge of revealed doctrine; while the external perfection was the gift of miracles, by which they were enabled to confirm the authenticity of their testimony. Again, the Apostles were to give an efficient support to their Chief—who was to be the permanent foundation of the Church—in the original establishment of the kingdom of God upon earth, and particularly in the original promulgation of Christian truth. Each of them therefore received the same authority to teach as their Chief, although it was not purely and simply a sovereign authority. And, lastly, their infallibility was a necessary consequence of the authenticity of their testimony and the assistance of the Holy Ghost.
This view of the eminent character of the Apostolate as possessed by its original members is proved more by their conduct than by positive texts of Scripture. Besides, it is and always has been the view held by the whole Church.
III. As soon as the original and fundamental promulgation of the Gospel was complete there was no longer any necessity for the extraordinary Apostolate. Another object had now to be obtained: the conservation and consolidation of the apostolic doctrine in the Church. The place of the extraordinary Apostolate was taken by the Episcopate, i.e. the body of the ordinary members of the hierarchy established for the transmission of the grace and truth of Christ and the government of the Church. This Episcopal Apostolate is a continuation of the primitive Apostolate, and must therefore be derived from the Apostles; it must also in its nature and organization be homogeneous with the original, and yet at the same time must in some respects be different. The doctrinal and other personal and extraordinary powers of the Apostles ceased at their death. Their Head, in whom these powers were ordinary, alone transmitted them to his successors. In these, then, is invested the power of completing and perpetuating the Teaching Body by admitting into it new and duly authorized members. The Sovereign Pontiffs are the bond that unites the Bishops among themselves and connects them uninterruptedly with the primitive Apostolate. The Popes thus represent the original apostolic power in an eminent degree, wherefore their see is called emphatically the Apostolic See.
IV. The Apostolate has still, on the whole, the same objects as it originally had, and consequently must still be so constituted that it can give authentic and authoritative testimony; in other words, it must possess infallibility in doctrinal matters. Although this infallibility is no longer found in the individual members, nevertheless it can and ought to result from the unanimous testimony of the whole body. It ought, because otherwise universal Faith would be impossible; nay, universal heresy might take its place. It can, and as a matter of fact does, result, because the assistance of the Holy Ghost cannot be wanting to the Teaching Body as a whole, and the unanimous consent of all its members is a sure token that they reproduce the testimony of the Spirit of truth. Personal infallibility as a witness cannot be claimed even by the Chief of the Episcopate any more than by the subordinate members. Nevertheless when he pronounces a sovereign judgment in matters of Revelation, binding upon all, teachers as well as taught, he can and ought to be infallible. He ought, because otherwise the unity of Faith might turn into a unity of heresy. He can be, and in fact is infallible, because the Holy Ghost, the Guide of all Christ’s representatives, cannot abandon the highest representative precisely in that very act which is the most essential expression of His assistance, and which in case of error would lead the whole Church astray. And, à fortiori, when the Head and the members of the Teaching Body are unanimous, their testimony is infallible. However, taken apart from the testimony of their Head, the testimony of even all the Bishops would not constitute an obligatory doctrinal definition, but simply a strong presumption. The Sovereign Pontiff alone can pronounce such a definition by reason of his universal jurisdiction, and then only in that exercise of it which enforces the unity of Faith in the whole Church.
V. The two Apostolates, or rather the two forms of the Apostolate, must however have certain points of difference, as indeed may be gathered from what has just been said. The Bishops are not, as the Apostles were, immediately chosen by Christ, but are selected by members of the Church. In the case of the Chief Bishop the person is designated by the members and then receives, not indeed from them but directly and immediately from Christ, the powers inherent in his office; the other Bishops are appointed to a particular see by the Chief Bishop, and receive their jurisdiction from him. Besides, he alone inherits the fulness of the Apostolate. Moreover, if we consider the authenticity of the testimony of the Bishops we must hold that the office of witness is conferred upon them directly by Christ in the sacrament of Orders; their admission to the office by the Sovereign Pontiff is merely a condition required for its lawful exercise. Nevertheless they are not eye and ear witnesses of what they teach. They gather their knowledge from intermediate witnesses or from the written documents, and do not possess individually the gift of infallibility.
The infallibility of the Church assumes a twofold form, corresponding with the twofold action of the Holy Ghost as Lord and Life-giver. As Lord, He gives infallibility to the governing Chief: as Life-giver, He bestows it on the entire Body, Head and members. The infallibility of the Head is required to produce universal unity of Faith; the infallibility of the Body is required to prevent a disastrous conflict between the Body and its Head, and also to deliver the mass of the Faithful from the danger of being led astray by their ordinary teachers in cases where no decision has been given by the Holy See. The two forms, moreover, support and strengthen each other mutually, and prove the Apostolate to be a masterpiece of that Divine Wisdom “which reacheth from end to end mightily and disposeth all things sweetly” (Wisd. 8:1).
SECT. 12.—ORGANIZATION OF THE APOSTOLATE (CONTINUED)—THE AUXILIARY MEMBERS OF THE TEACHING BODY
The Teaching Body is a living organism, and consequently has the power of producing auxiliary members to assist in its work, and of conferring upon them the credentials required for their different functions. These auxiliary members may be divided into two classes: (1) auxiliaries of the Bishops, and (2) auxiliaries of the Chief Bishop.
I. The ordinary auxiliaries of the Episcopate are the priests and deacons. They receive their orders and their jurisdiction from the Bishops, and hold an inferior rank in the Hierarchy. Their position as regards the office of teaching, though far below that of the Bishops, is nevertheless important. They are the official executive organs of the Bishops, their missionaries and heralds for the promulgation of doctrine. They have a special knowledge of doctrine, and they receive, by means of the sacrament of Holy Orders, a share in the teaching office of the Bishops, and in the doctrinal influence of the Holy Ghost. Hence their teaching possesses a peculiar value and dignity, which may, however, vary with their personal qualifications. Moreover the Bishops should, under certain circumstances, consult them in matters of doctrine, not, indeed, to receive direction from them, but in order to obtain information. When we remember the immense influence exercised by the uniform teaching of the clergy over the unity of Faith, we may fairly say that they participate in the infallibility of the Episcopate both extrinsically and intrinsically: extrinsically, because the universal consent of all the heralds is an external sign that they reproduce the exact message of the Holy Ghost; and intrinsically, inasmuch as by their ordination they obtain a share in the assistance of the Spirit of Truth promised to the Church.
When and where necessary, the Bishops have the power of erecting Schools or Seminaries for the religious or higher theological education of a portion of their flocks. The professors in these institutions are auxiliaries of the Bishops, and are, if possible, in still closer union with the Teaching Apostolate than the clergy engaged in the ministry.
II. The Chief of the Episcopate, in virtue of his universal teaching authority, has the power of sending Missionaries into regions beyond the bounds of the existing dioceses, and can also establish, even within the dioceses, Religious Orders as his own auxiliaries, subject immediately to himself. He can also found Universities for the more profound and scientific study of Revelation. He can make all these persons and corporations comparatively independent of the Bishops, and invest them with a teaching authority analogous to that of the Episcopate. The Universities of the Middle Ages, for example, were not private, or state, or even episcopal institutions. They derived their mission from the Popes, together with the power of perpetuating themselves by the creation of doctors and professors, and the power of passing judgment on matters of doctrine. These decisions, however, did not carry with them any binding force, because their authors had no jurisdiction; but they possessed a value superior to that of many episcopal decisions. It is evident that the importance of the Universities as representatives of the teaching of the Church depends upon their submission to the Apostolate, whose auxiliaries they are, and also upon the number, the personal qualifications, and influence of their members.
Further, the Pope, in the exercise of his administrative power, can invest individual members of the inferior clergy, either for a time or permanently, with authoritative teaching power. But, even in this case, they are only auxiliaries of the Episcopate, existing side by side with it; as, for instance, Abbots exempt from episcopal jurisdiction (Abbates nullius) and the generals of Religious Orders, or acting as delegates of the sovereign teaching power of the Popes, e.g. the Cardinals and the Roman Congregations. All these auxiliaries, like those above mentioned, are assisted by the Holy Ghost, but their decisions acquire force of law only when confirmed by the Head of the Apostolate.
III. From time to time the Holy Ghost raises certain persons to an extraordinary degree of supernatural knowledge. Their peculiar position gives them a special authority as guides for all the members of the Church. They are not, however, exempt from the universal law that within the Church no teaching is of value unless approved by lawful authority. In so far, then, as it is evident that the Pope and the Bishops approve of the doctrine of these burning and shining lights, such doctrine is to be considered as an infallible testimony coming from the Holy Ghost. Thus, in Apostolic times, “Prophets and Evangelists” (Eph. 4:11) were given to the Apostles as extraordinary auxiliaries, not indeed for the purpose of enlightening the Apostles themselves, but to facilitate the diffusion and acceptance of their doctrine. In succeeding ages the Fathers and great Doctors have been of much use to the ordinary members of the Apostolate by helping them to a better knowledge of revealed truth. The function of these auxiliaries must, however, be carefully distinguished from those of the Prophets of the Old Testament. The former are not the organs of new revelations, nor do they possess independent authority—they are merely the extraordinary supports of the ordinary Teaching Body. “It is indeed a great matter and ever to be borne in mind … that all Catholics should know that they should receive the doctors with the Church, not that they should quit the faith of the Church with the doctors (‘se cum Ecclesia doctores recipere, non cum doctoribus Ecclesiæ fidem deserere debere’).”—Vine, of Lerins, Common. n. 17.
SECT. 13.—ORGANIZATION OF THE APOSTOLATE (CONTINUED)—ORGANIC UNION BETWEEN THE TEACHING BODY AND THE BODY OF THE FAITHFUL
I. The Teaching Apostolate, with its auxiliaries on the one hand and the body of believers on the other, together constitute the Church. The union between them is not mechanical, but is like the mutual union of the members of a living organism. To obtain a correct idea of the relations between the two parts, we must bear in mind that infallibility and the other attributes granted to the Teaching Apostolate are intended only as means to secure an unerring Faith in the entire community, and that the supernatural Faith of all the members, both teachers and taught, is the result of the influence of the Holy Ghost. From this we infer that the teachers and their hearers compose one indivisible, complete organism, in which the teachers figure as the principal members, the head and the heart; that they constitute a homogeneous organism, because the teachers are at the same time believers, and because the belief of the Faithful is a testimony to and confirmation of the doctrines taught. They are an organism living supernaturally, because the Holy Ghost infuses into all the members the life of Faith by external teaching and internal grace. This union between teachers and taught likewise leads us to further consequences. The doctrine of Christ is manifested in two ways: in authoritative proposition and in private belief. The latter form, being only an echo of the former, and, moreover, being the result of the action of the Holy Ghost, becomes in its turn a kind of testimony of doctrine. The private form reacts upon the public proposition and confirms it. The Faith of the whole Church cannot be wrong, and, therefore, what all believe must infallibly be true, and must represent the doctrine of Christ as well as do the teachings of the Apostolate. Nay, the external manifestations of the Holy Ghost may be seen especially in the Body of the Faithful, in its Martyrs and Confessors, and these manifestations constitute, in connection with the universal belief, a powerful motive of credibility.
II. This notion of the organic character of the Church will enable us to understand many expressions met with in Theology, e.g. the “Church Teaching” and the “Church Hearing” or “Learning;” the “Mission and Authority of the Church,” i.e. of the members of the Hierarchy; the “Teaching Apostolate, or its Chief, represents the Church,” i.e. not in the same way as a member of parliament represents his constituents, but in the sense that the Faith of the Apostolate or of its Chief is a true expression of the Faith of the whole Church. It has lately been said, “Infallibility belongs only to the Church, but the Hierarchy is not the Church, and therefore the Hierarchy is not infallible.” We might just as well say, “Life belongs only to the body, but the head and heart are not the body, therefore the head and heart are not alive.” This false notion originated either from a comparison between the Hierarchy and the parliaments of constitutional States, or from the materialistic conception of authority according to the formula: “Authority is the result and sum-total of the power of the members taken individually, just as the total force of a material body is the result and sum-total of the energies of its parts.” But, in truth, authority is a principle implanted in society by God in order to give it unity, life, and guidance. In order to give to the infallibility of the Church as broad a basis as possible, some well-meaning persons have adopted the materialistic view, and have made the universality and uniformity of the belief of the Faithful the chief motive of credibility. This theory, however, is naturalistic, and is opposed to the teaching of Scripture. Moreover, it is intrinsically weak, for without the independent authority of the Teaching Apostolate and the assistance of the Holy Ghost, uniformity and universality could never be brought about, or at least could not last for any length of time.
The attribute of infallibility belonging to the entire community of the Faithful manifests itself differently in its different parts. In the Teaching Body it is Active Infallibility, that is, inability to lead astray; in the Body Taught it is Passive Infallibility—that is, incapability of being led astray.
SECT. 14.—ORGANIZATION OF THE APOSTOLATE (CONCLUDED)—EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL INDEFECTIBILITY OF DOCTRINE AND FAITH IN THE CHURCH—RECAPITULATION
I. Intimately connected with the infallibility of the Church is her Indefectibility. There is, however, a difference between the two. Infallibility means merely that what the Church teaches cannot be false, whereas the notion of Indefectibility implies that the essentials of Revelation are at all times actually preached in the Church; that non-essentials are proposed, at least implicitly, and are held habitually; and that the inner, living Faith never fails. The Indefectibility of truth in the Church is less limited than the Infallibility. The perfection of the latter requires merely that no doctrine proposed for belief should be false, whereas the perfection of the former requires that all the parts of revealed doctrine should be actually, and at all times, expressed in the doctrine of the Church. Indefectibility admits of degrees, whereas a single failure, for a single day, on a single point of doctrine, on the part of the public teaching authority, would utterly destroy Infallibility.
II. The Indefectibility of the Teaching Body is at the same time a condition and a consequence of the Indefectibility of the Church. A distinction must, however, be drawn between the Indefectibility of the Head and the Indefectibility of the subordinate members. The individual who is the Head may die, but the authority of the Head does not die with him—it is transmitted to his successor. On the other hand, the Teaching Body as a whole could not die or fail without irreparably destroying the continuity of authentic testimony. Again, the Pope’s authority would not be injured if, when not exercising it (extra judicium), he professed a false doctrine, whereas the authenticity of the episcopal testimony would be destroyed if under any circumstances the whole body fell into heresy.
III. The Indefectibility of the Faith in individual members is closely connected with the external and social Indefectibility of the Church. The two stand to each as cause and effect, and act and react on each other. The interior Faith of individual members, even of the Pope and the Bishops, may fail; but it is impossible for the Faith to fail in the whole mass. The Infallibility and Indefectibility of the Church and of the Faith require on the part of the Head, that by means of his legislative and judicial power the law of Faith should be always infallibly proposed; but this does not require the infallibility and indefectibility of his own interior Faith and of his extrajudicial utterances. On the part of the Teaching Body as a whole, there is directly required merely that it should not fail collectively, which, of course, supposes that it does not err universally in its internal Faith. Lastly, on the part of the Body of the Faithful, it is directly and absolutely required that their inner Faith (sensus et virtus fidei) should never fail entirely, and also that the external profession should never be universally wrong.
The whole doctrine of the Organization of the Teaching Apostolate may be summarized as follows. The teaching function bound up with the two fundamental powers of the Hierarchy, Orders and Jurisdiction, fulfils all the requirements and attains all the purposes for which it was instituted. It transmits and enforces Revelation, and brings about unity and universality of Faith. It is a highly developed organism, with the members acting in perfect harmony, wherein the Holy Ghost operates, and whereby He gives manifold testimony to revealed truth, at the same time upholding and strengthening the action of individuals by means of the reciprocal action and reaction of the different organs. Just as God spoke to our fathers through the Prophets before the coming of Christ,” at sundry times and in divers manners” (Heb. 1:1), so now does Jesus Christ speak to us at sundry times and in divers manners in the Church “which is His body, and the fulness of Him Who is filled all in all” (Eph. 1:23).
SECT. 15.—GRADUAL PROGRESS IN THE TRANSMISSION OF REVELATION—APOSTOLIC DEPOSIT: ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION: RULE OF FAITH
I. The office-holders in the Teaching Apostolate form one unbroken chain, derived from God, and consequently the doctrine announced by them at any given time is a continuation and a development of the doctrine originally revealed, and is invested with the same Divine character Jesus Christ, the immediate Envoy of His Father, announced what He had heard from the Father; the Apostles, the immediate envoys of Christ, preached what they had heard from Christ and the Holy Ghost; the successors of the Apostles, the inheritors of the apostolic mission, in their turn taught and still teach the doctrine received from the Apostles, and thus Revelation has been handed down from generation to generation without a single break.
The transmission and the teaching of Revelation are really one and the same act under two different aspects. Whenever the Word of God is announced, it is also transmitted, and it cannot be transmitted without being announced in some form or other. Thus transmission and publication are not two acts of a distinct nature, as they would be if Revelation was handed down only by means of a written document, or on merely historical evidence. The Council of Trent tells us that Traditions, “dictated by the Holy Ghost, have reached us from the Apostles, handed down as it were by hand,” and it speaks of “Traditions preserved by continual succession in the Catholic Church” (sess. iv). The transmission is the work of living, authorized officials, who hand down Revelation to the lawful heirs of their office. We must, however, distinguish between the authenticity and the authority of the act of transmission. When, for instance, a council makes the belief in some dogma obligatory, this act contains a twofold element: it bears authentic witness to the existence of the dogma in the Apostolic Deposit, and it authoritatively imposes Faith in that dogma. The authentic testimony belongs to the whole Church, which, either in teaching or in professing belief, witnesses to the existence of certain truths, whereas the power of imposing the obligation of belief resides only in the governing body and its Head. But the word “Tradition” does not express any notion of “Faith made obligatory,” but only of “Faith handed down by authentic witnesses.” We shall therefore use the term in the latter sense, although, as a matter of fact, transmission and imposition usually go together.
II. Three phases, more or less divided by time, but still alike in their nature, may be observed in the development and gradual progress of the transmission of revealed doctrine: (1) The Apostles confiding the Deposit of Revelation to the Church with the obligation to continue its promulgation; (2) The transmission of Revelation in and by means of the Church; and (3) The enforcement of belief by the Rule of Faith imposed by the Chiefs of the Apostolate.
1. The Apostles were the original depositaries of Christian Revelation, as well as its first heralds. They handed over to their successors the truths which they possessed, together with the powers corresponding to their mission, This first stage is called Apostolic Tradition, or Apostolic Deposit, the latter expression being derived from 1 Tim. 6:20, “Keep that which is committed to thy trust” (depositum, παραθήκην). All subsequent knowledge of Revelation is drawn from the Apostolic Deposit, which is consequently said to be the Source or Fount of Faith.
The Apostolic Deposit was transmitted in a twofold form: by word of mouth and by writing. The New Testament, although composed by the Apostles or their disciples, is not a mere reproduction of the Apostolic teaching. It was written at God’s command by men under His inspiration, and therefore it is, like the Old Testament, an original and authentic document of Revelation. Both Testaments were, as we shall see, transmitted to the Church by an authoritative act of the Apostolate. The Apostolic Deposit comprises, therefore, the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the oral teaching of the Apostles. By a process of desynonymization, the term “Deposit” has become restricted to the written Deposit, and the term “Tradition” to the oral teaching.
2. It is the Church’s office to hold and to transmit the entire Deposit, written and oral, in its integrity, and to deal with it as the Apostles themselves would if they were still living. This action of the Church is called Active Tradition; the doctrines themselves are called Objective Tradition. The term “Ecclesiastical Tradition” is sometimes used in a narrow sense for the unwritten truths of Revelation, and stands in the same relation to the Holy Scriptures as the oral teaching of the Apostles stood. In the course of time this Tradition has also been committed to writing, and as a written Tradition its position with regard to the living Active Tradition is now analogous to that occupied by the Holy Scriptures.
3. But the Church has a further office. The heirs of the Apostles have the right and duty to prescribe, promulgate, and maintain at all times and in behalf of the whole Church the teaching of the Apostles and of the Church in former ages; to impose and to enforce it as a doctrinal law binding upon all; and to give authoritative decisions on points obscure, controverted, or denied. In this capacity the Church acts as regulator of the Faith, and these doctrinal laws, together with the act of imposing them, are called the Rule of Faith. All the members of the Church are bound to submit their judgment in matters of Faith to this rule, and thus by practising the “obedience of Faith” to prove themselves living members of the one kingdom of Divine truth.
Thus we see that the Divine economy for preserving and enforcing Christian truth in the Church possesses in an eminent degree all the aids and guarantees which are made use of in civil society for the safe custody and interpretation of legal documents. In both there are documents of various kinds, witnesses, public and private, and judges of different rank. But in the Church the judges are at the same time witnesses, administrators, and legislators. In the Protestant theory there are written documents and nothing more.
CHAPTER III
THE APOSTOLIC DEPOSIT OF REVELATION
THE doctrine concerning the Sources of Revelation was formally defined by the Council of Trent (sess. iv.) and the Vatican Council (sess. iii., chap. 2). At Trent the principal object was to assert, in opposition to the early Protestants, the equal value of Oral and Written Tradition. As regards the Holy Scriptures, the controversial importance of which was rather overrated than otherwise by the Protestants, the Council had only to define their extent and to fix upon an authentic text. But the Vatican Council had to assert the Divine character of Scripture, which was not contested at the time of the earlier Council. Both Councils, however, declared that the Written Deposit was only one of the sources of theological knowledge, and that it must be understood and explained according to the mind and tradition of the Church.
SECT. 16.—HOLY SCRIPTURE THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD
I. The “Sacred and Canonical Books,” i.e. the definitive collection of the authentic documents of Revelation preserved and promulgated by the Church, have been considered in recent times by writers tinged with rationalistic Protestantism, as being documents of Revelation merely because the Church has acknowledged them to be historically trustworthy records of revealed truth. This, however, is by no means the Catholic doctrine. The books of Holy Scripture are sacred and canonical because they are the Written Word of God, and have God for their Author, the human writers to whom they are ascribed being merely the instruments of the Holy Ghost, Who enlightened their minds and moved their wills, and to a certain extent directed them as an author directs his secretary.
1. The Council of Trent had declared that the whole of the books of the Old and New Testaments with all their parts were to be held as sacred and canonical. To this the Vatican Council adds: “The Church doth hold these [books] for sacred and canonical, not because, after being composed by merely human industry, they were then approved by her authority; nor simply because they contain Revelation without any error: but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church.” And even before the Council of Trent the Council of Florence had said, “[The Holy Roman Church] professeth that one and the same God is the author of the Old and the New Testaments, because the holy men of both Testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Holy Ghost” (Decret. pro Jacobitis). Again, the Council of Trent takes the Divine origin of Scriptures for granted when it says, “The Holy Synod receiveth and venerateth with like devotion and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testament, since the one God is the author of both.”
2. The doctrine defined by the councils is likewise taught in Holy Scripture itself. Christ and His Apostles when quoting the Old Testament clearly imply that God is the author. “The Scripture must needs be fulfilled which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth (διὰ στόματος) of David” (Acts 1:16). “David himself saith in the Holy Ghost” (Mark 12:36; Matt. 22:43). Sometimes instead of “the Scripture saith” we find “God saith,” where it is the sacred writer who is speaking (Heb., passim). St. Paul distinctly declares that all Scripture is “breathed by God,” πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος (2 Tim. 3:16). St. Peter also speaks of the Prophets as instruments in the hands of the Holy Ghost: “No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation; for prophecy came not by the will of man at any time, but the holy men of God spoke inspired by the Holy Ghost, ὑπὸ Πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι (2 Pet. 1:20, 21). This last text, it is true, applies primarily to prophecies strictly so called (foretelling events to come), but it refers also to the whole of the teaching of a Prophet, because he speaks in the name and under the influence of God (cf. 1 Kings 10:6; Mich. 3:8).
3. The Fathers from the very earliest days taught the Divine authorship of Scripture.
(a) “The Divine Scriptures,” “the Divine Oracles,” “the Scriptures of God,” “the Scriptures of the Lord” are the usual phrases by which they expressed their belief in Inspiration. “The Apostle moved by that Spirit by Whom the whole of Scripture was composed” (Tertull., De Or., 22). Gelasius (or, according to Thiel, Damasus) says that the Scriptures were composed “by the action of God.” And St. Augustine: “God having first spoken by the Prophets, then by Himself and afterwards by the Apostles, composed also the Scripture which is styled canonical” (De Civit. Dei, xi. 3). Origen, too, says that “the Scriptures were written by the Holy Ghost” (Præf. De Princ., nn. 4, 8). Theodoret (Præf. in Ps.) says that it does not matter who was the human writer of the Psalms, seeing that we know that they were written under the active influence of the Holy Ghost (ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος ἁγίου ἐνεργείας). Hence the Fifth General Council (the second of Constantinople) calls the Holy Ghost purely and simply the author of Holy Writ, and says of Theodore of Mopsuestia that he rejects the book of Job, “in his rage against its author, the Holy Ghost.” The Fathers frequently call the Bible “an epistle from God.” “What is Scripture but a sort of letter from Almighty God to His creature?” … “The Lord of Heaven hath sent thee His letters for thy life’s sake.… Study therefore, I pray thee, and meditate daily upon the words of thy Creator” (Greg. M., lib. iv., ep. 31). Further, the Scriptures are words spoken by God: “Study the Scriptures, the true words of the Holy Ghost” τὰς ἀληθεῖς ῥήσεις Πνεύματος το͂υ ἁγίου (Clem. Rom. ad Cor. i., n. 45). “The Scriptures were spoken by the Word and His Spirit” (Iren., Adv. Hæres, lib. ii., cap. 28, n. 2). Hence the manner of quoting them: “The Holy Ghost saith in the Psalms” (Cypr., De Zelo, n. 8). “Not without reason have so many and such great peoples believed that when [the sacred writers] were writing these books, God spoke to them or through them” (Aug., De Civit. Dei, xviii. 41).
(b) The Fathers also determine the relation between the Divine author of Scripture and the human writer. The latter is, as it were, the secretary, or the hand, or the pen employed by God—analogies which are set forth in the following well-known passages. “[Christ] by the human nature which He took upon Himself is the Head of all His disciples, who are, as it were, the members of His body. Hence when they wrote what He manifested and spoke, we must by no means say that it was not He Who wrote, for His members have done what they learnt from the orders of their Head. Whatever He wished us to read concerning His words and works He ordered them, His hands, to write down. Any one who rightly understands this union and this ministry of members performing in harmony their various functions under one head, will receive the Gospel narrative as though he saw the hand of the Lord writing, the very hand which belonged to His own body” (Aug., De Cons. Evang., l. i., c. 35). “It is quite useless to inquire who wrote this, since the Holy Ghost is rightly believed to be the author of the book. He therefore Who dictated it is the writer: He is the writer Who was the Inspirer of the work and Who made use of the voice of the [human] writer to transmit to us His deeds for our imitation. When we receive a letter from some great man, and know from whom it comes and what it means, it is folly for us to ask what pen he wrote it with. When therefore we learn something, and know that the Holy Ghost is its author, any inquiry about the writer is like asking about the pen” (Greg. M., In Job, præf.). And St. Justin compares the human writer to a lyre played upon by God through the action of the Holy Ghost (Cohort. ad Græcos, n. 8).
(c) From this dependence of the human writer on the Holy Ghost, the Fathers infer the absolute truth and wisdom of every, even the minutest, detail of Scripture. “We who extend the perfect truthfulness of the Holy Ghost to the smallest lines and letters (ἡμεῖς δὲ οἵ καί μέχρι τῆς τυχούσης κεραίας καὶ γραμμῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος τὴν ἀκρίβειαν ἕλκοντες) do not and dare not grant that even the smallest things are asserted by the writers without a meaning” (Greg. Naz., Orat., ii., n. 105). And the following passage of St. Augustine is especially worthy of notice: “I acknowledge to your charity that I have learnt to pay only to those books of Scripture which are already called canonical, this reverence and honour, viz. to believe most firmly that no author of them made any mistake, and if I should meet with anything in them which seems to be opposed to the truth, not to doubt but that either the codex is incorrect, or that the translator has not caught what was said, or that my understanding is at fault” (Ep. ad Hieron., lxxxii. [al. 19.] n. 3).
II. The Catholic Church expressly teaches that God is the author of the Holy Scriptures in a physical sense. That God may be the author of Scripture in a physical sense, and that Scripture may be the Word of God as issuing from Him, it is not enough that the Sacred Books should have been written under the merely negative influence and the merely external assistance of God, preventing error from creeping in; the Divine authorship implies a positive and interior influence upon the writer, which is expressed by the dogmatic term Inspiration. Although a negative assistance, preserving from error, such as is granted to the Teaching Apostolate, is not enough for the physical authorship of Holy Scripture, yet, on the other hand, a positive dictation by word of mouth is not required. The sacred writers themselves make no mention of it; nay, they expressly state that they have made use of their own industry; and the diversity of style of the different writers is distinctly opposed to it. Of course, when something previously unknown to the writer has to be written down by him, God must in some way speak to him; nevertheless, Inspiration in itself is “the action of God upon a human writer, whereby God moves and enables the writer to serve as an instrument for communicating, in writing, the Divine thoughts.” Inspiration arises in the first instance from God’s intention to express in writing certain truths through the instrumentality of human agents. To carry out this intention God moves the writer’s will to write down these truths, and at the same time suggests them to his mind and assists him to the right understanding and faithful expression of them. The assistance has been reduced by some theologians to a mere surveillance or watching over the writer; but the stress laid by the Fathers on the instrumental character of the writers in relation to God, and the Scriptural expression, ὑπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι, are plainly opposed to it (cf. St. Thom. 2 2, q. 174, a. 2). The diversity of style in the different books is accounted for by the general law, that when God employs natural instruments for a supernatural purpose, He does not destroy their natural powers, but adapts them to His own purpose.
III. 1. Though the Bible is not mere history or mere literature, it nevertheless has to do with history, and it is literature in the highest sense of the word. It has a human element as well as a Divine element; and how far the books are human and how far Divine is the great Scripture problem. The two elements are united somewhat after the fashion of the soul and the body. Just as the soul is present in every part of the body, so too the action of the Holy Ghost is present in every part of Scripture. But the Schoolmen went on to say that though the soul is whole and entire in every part of the body, it does not exercise all its powers in each and every part, but some powers in some parts and other powers in other parts. Hence we must not restrict Inspiration to certain portions of Scripture. On the other hand, the action of the Holy Ghost is not necessarily the same throughout.
2. When it is said that God is the Author of the Sacred Books, we must not take this in the same sense as when it is said that Milton is the author of Paradise Lost. This would exclude any human authorship. The formula was originally directed against the Manichæans, who held that the Evil Spirit was the author of the Old Testament.
3. The Church has never decided the question of the human authorship of any of the Books. There may be a strong opinion, e.g., that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or that the whole of the Book of Isaias was written by the Prophet of that name; but no definition has ever been given.
4. We cannot admit that the Sacred Author Himself has been guilty of error. He may, however, make use of a story, not necessarily history, for the purpose of teaching some dogmatic principle or pointing some moral lesson. Again, He must adapt Himself to the circumstances of those whom He addresses. If He acted otherwise, He would fail to be understood. As St. Jerome says (In Jerem. Proph. xxviii.): “Multa in Scripturis Sanctis dicuntur secundum opinionem illius temporis quo gesta referuntur, et non juxta quod rei veritas continebat.” And St. Thomas (I, q. 70, a. 1): “Moyses autem rudi populo condescendens, sequutus est quae sensibiliter apparent.”
5. On the Catholic canon of Scripture, see Franzelin, De Script, sect. ii.; Loisy, Hist. du Canon de l’A.T.; Hist. du Canon du N. T.
SECT. 17.—HOLY SCRIPTURE AS A SOURCE OF THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE
I. Holy Scripture, being the work of God Himself, far surpasses in value and excellence any human account of Revelation. The Old Testament is inspired by the Holy Ghost, “Who spake by the Prophets,” as well as the New. Both are of equal excellence, and form together one general source of theological knowledge. The Old Testament is not a mere history of Revelation. It contains a fuller exposition of many points of Faith and morals than the New; it is as it were the body of which the New Testament is the soul: the two pervade and complete each other.
II. There are two fundamentally distinct senses in Holy Scripture: the Literal, conveyed by the words, and the Spiritual, conveyed by the things expressed by the words, whence it is also called Typical. The former is that intended by the human writer, and conveyed by the letter of the text. The Spiritual Sense has its foundation in the all-embracing knowledge of the Holy Ghost, Who inspired the writer. Sentences and even single words written under Divine direction have, in some circumstances, a significance beyond that which they would convey if they were of merely human origin. An historical fact, an institution, a precept, may stand isolated in the mind of the writer, whereas in the mind of God it may be related to other facts and truths, as a type, a confirmation, or an illustration. These relations are the basis of the Spiritual Sense of Scripture. We derive our knowledge of them from the things expressed by the words, and from the words themselves. Thus, to us the spiritual sense is mediate, but to the Holy Ghost it is immediate.
From these different senses of Holy Scripture it follows that a text is capable of many interpretations. All of them, however, must be based upon the Literal Sense. A text may have several spiritual or mediate meanings, but usually only one Literal Sense. Many applications of the Sacred Text commonly adopted by the Church may be regarded as belonging to the Mediate Sense, i.e. as being foreseen by the Holy Ghost, although in purely human writings such interpretations would appear to be distortions. Familiar instances are the passages Prov. 8 and Ecclus. 24 as applied to the Blessed Virgin.
A demonstrative argument that a certain doctrine is revealed can be obtained from any sense demonstrably intended by the Holy Ghost, whether literal, or logically inferred from the literal, or purely spiritual. The Literal Sense affords the most obvious proof. Where, however the language is figurative, the meaning of the figure must be ascertained before an argument can be drawn from it. The Inferential Sense is equal in demonstrative force to the Literal Sense, but in dignity it is inferior because only intended, and not directly expressed by the Holy Ghost The Spiritual Sense likewise offers a cogent argument, provided that the relation between the type and the thing typified be either directly stated in the Literal Sense or contained in it as an evident consequence. Indirectly, the Spiritual Sense acquires demonstrative force from explanations given in Scripture itself or handed down by Apostolical Tradition. Such explanations are often insufficient to determine the Spiritual Sense with complete certainty, and give us only probabilities. Sometimes a number of them, taken together, form a strong argument. See Wiseman’s Essays: Miracles of the New Testament, where arguments in favour of many Catholic doctrines are drawn from the typical signification of various miracles.
The principal object of Holy Scripture is to give us certain knowledge of Revelation. But the constant practice of the Church has made it serve another purpose, which, however, is quite in keeping with the former. In the book of nature we have a faithful though imperfect image of God’s Wisdom, but in the Inspired Books the defects are remedied, and a more perfect representation is set before us, destined to kindle in our minds a manifold knowledge of the supernatural world. This purpose is attained by that sense and interpretation of Holy Writ, whereby we gather from the Sacred Text pious considerations and suggestions, not necessarily intended by the Holy Ghost in the precise form which they take in the reader’s mind, and yet not wholly arbitrary.
III. The careful study and comparison of different passages of Holy Scripture throws great light on the dogmatic teaching of the Church; and, on the other hand, a sound knowledge of this teaching gives us a deeper insight into the Written Word. Theological Exegesis far surpasses mere philological criticism, and attains results beyond the reach of the latter. Scripture, for instance, tells us that God has a Son, and that this Son is the Word, the Image (Figure), the Mirror, the Wisdom of His Father. The combination and comparison of these expressions are of great help towards understanding the Eternal Generation of the Son; and, on the other hand, the theological knowledge of generation is the only basis of an accurate interpretation of these expressions.
SECT. 18.—THE FALSE AND SELF-CONTRADICTORY POSITION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE IN THE PROTESTANT SYSTEM
We have seen that Holy Scripture holds a very high position as a source of Faith. This, however, does not mean that it is the only source, or even a source accessible and necessary to each and all of the Faithful. Indeed, without the intervention of some living authority, distinct from Holy Scripture, we should never be able to prove that Scripture is a source of Faith at all. Nevertheless, Protestants reject the Teaching Apostolate, and maintain that the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the sole Source and Rule of Faith. We shall prove in § 21 that Oral Tradition is a substantial part of the Apostolic Deposit, and consequently that Holy Scripture is not the only source of Faith. That it is not the only rule may be seen from the following considerations.
I. The Rule of Faith should be materially complete, that is, it should embrace the entire sphere of revealed truth: formally perfect, that is, it should not need to be supplemented by any other: and universal, that is, applicable to all men, always and everywhere. None of these characteristics can be affirmed of Holy Scripture. There are, as we shall see, a number of revealed truths handed down by Oral Tradition only. Moreover, the Bible, notwithstanding the excellence of its contents, is but a dead letter, wanting in systematic arrangement, often obscure and hard to be understood, and exposed to many false interpretations. Some means must be provided by God to remove these difficulties, otherwise the object of Revelation would be frustrated. And, lastly, some of the very circumstances which constitute the excellence of the Bible—its being a written document of considerable dimensions, full of deep and difficult matter expressed in the metaphorical language of the East—make it unfit for the general use of the people.
Protestants cannot help feeling the force of these arguments. They usually admit more or less explicitly some other rule of Faith; for instance, the mind of the reader guided by a private supernatural revelation, or by its own natural light and inclination. The result has been that the Bible has become the sport of innumerable sectaries and the source of endless divisions. Practically, however, the mischief has been to a great extent prevented by the submission of the people to the guidance of others, or even to “Confessions of Faith and Formularies,” though the latter have no recognized authority.
After what has been said it is clear that the reading of the Bible is not necessary for salvation, or even advisable for every one under all circumstances. Hence the Church has with great wisdom imposed certain regulations on the subject. See The Pope and the Bible, by Rev. R. F. Clarke, S.J.
II. But the Protestant theory is not only false, but also contradictory. Inspiration is the result of such a mysterious influence of God that its very existence can be known only by means of Revelation. We cannot infer it from the character of the writers or the nature of their writings. There have been Prophets and Apostles who were not inspired (in the technical sense), and some of the inspired writers were neither Apostles nor Prophets. Some of the Sacred Books, indeed, state that their writers were animated by the Holy Ghost, but this does not necessarily mean that particular Divine influence which goes by the name of Inspiration. Even if we admit this, there still remains the question whether these statements themselves were inspired. The only way to avoid a vicious circle is to appeal to some testimony external to the Inspired Books. The consoling effect upon the reader, the “gustus spiritualis” of the early Protestants, cannot seriously be put forward at the present day as a test of Inspiration. There must be some public and authentic witness to the fact of Inspiration, and this we have seen to be the Teaching Body in the Catholic Church (cf. Card. Newman’s Idea of a University, p. 270).
Moreover, there is another difficulty in the Protestant theory. Even if we were to grant that the inspired character of all the books of the Bible was made known at the time of their original publication, we should still require official testimony of this fact. Besides, how could we be sure that the copies which we now possess agree with the originals? Apart from the authority of the Church, the common belief in the canon of Holy Scripture and the identity of later copies, rests on evidence which is by no means historically conclusive. And this common belief has, as a matter of fact, been produced by the action of the Church. We may still assert what St. Augustine said long ago: “I, for my part, should not believe the Gospel except on the authority of the Catholic Church.”
SECT. 19.—THE POSITION AND FUNCTIONS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE IN THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM
The position and functions of Holy Scripture in the Catholic System may be briefly expressed in this proposition: Scripture is an Apostolic Deposit entrusted to the Church; in other words, the Apostles published Holy Scripture as a document of Divine Revelation, and handed it over as such to their successors. It is on this ground that the Teaching Body claims the right of preserving and expounding the sacred writings. Protestants, on the other hand, have no right to call the Bible the, or even an, Apostolic Deposit. They reject the authoritative promulgation by the Apostles, and the necessity of entrusting the Deposit of Revelation to a living Apostolate; and consequently the word “deposit” is in their mouth devoid of meaning. To them the Bible is a windfall, coming they know not whence.
I. Catholics maintain, and they can prove their doctrine by evidence drawn from the earliest centuries, that the Apostles promulgated by God’s order both the Old and New Testaments, as a document received from God, and thus gave it the dignity and efficacy of a legitimate source and rule of Faith. This promulgation might have been expected from the nature of Holy Scripture and the functions of the Apostles. God would not have cast His Word upon the world to be the sport of conflicting opinions. Rather He would have committed the publication of it to the care of those whom He was sending to preach the Gospel to all nations, and with whom He had promised to be for all days, even to the consummation of the world. This fact of promulgation by the Apostles is generally treated of by the Fathers in connection with the transmission of Holy Scripture. The mere writing and publishing, even by an Apostle, were not deemed a sufficient promulgation of inspiration. It was necessary that the document should be put on a footing with the Old Testament, and approved for public reading in the Church. As St. Jerome says of the Gospel of St. Mark: “When Peter had heard it, he both approved of it and ordered it to be read in the churches” (De Script. Eccl.).
II. Besides promulgating Holy Scripture as a Divine document, the Apostles transmitted it to their successors with the right, the duty, and the power to continue its promulgation, to preserve its integrity and identity, to expound its meaning, to make use of it in demonstrating and illustrating Catholic doctrine, and finally to resist and condemn any attacks upon its teaching, or any abuse of its meaning. All this again is implied in the nature of the Apostolate, and the character of the Sacred Writings. See the passages quoted from St. Irenæus and Tertullian in § 9, III.
III. The function of Holy Scripture in the Catholic Church is determined by the two facts, that it is an Apostolic Deposit, and that its lawful administration belongs to the Church. Hence:—
1. Holy Scripture, in virtue of its permanent and official promulgation, is a public document, the Divine authority of which is evident to all the members of the Church.
2. The Church necessarily possesses an authentic text of the Scriptures, identical with the original. If either by constant use or by express declaration a certain text has been approved of by the Church, that text thereby receives the character of public authenticity; that is to say, its conformity with the original must be not only presumed juridically, but admitted as certain on the ground of the infallibility of the Church.
3. The authentic text, duly promulgated, becomes a Source and Rule of Faith; but it is still only a means or instrument of instruction and proof in the hands of the members of the Teaching Apostolate, who alone have the right of authoritatively interpreting it.
4. Private interpretation must submit to authoritative interpretation.
5. The custody and administration of the Holy Scriptures is not entrusted directly to the body of the Church at large, but to the Teaching Apostolate; nevertheless, the Scriptures are the common property of all the members of the Church. The duty of the administrators is to communicate its teaching to all who are in the obedience of the Faith. The body of the Faithful thereby secure a better knowledge than if each one were to interpret according to his own light. Besides, such private handling of Scripture is really opposed to the notion of its being the common property of all.
6. The Bible belongs to the Church and to the Church alone. If, however, those who are outside her pale use it as a means of discovering and entering the Church, such use is perfectly legitimate. But they have no right to apply it to their own purposes, or to turn it against the Church. This is the fundamental principle of Tertullian’s work, De Præscriptionibus Hæreticorum. He shows how Catholics, before arguing with heretics on single points of scriptural doctrine, should contest the right of the latter to appeal to the Scriptures at all, and should thus defeat their action at the outset (præscribere actionem, a mode of defence corresponding to some extent with demurrer).
7. Lastly, the rights of the Teaching Apostolate include that of taking and enforcing disciplinary measures for promoting the right use, or preventing the abuse of Scripture.
SECT. 20.—DECISIONS OF THE CHURCH ON THE TEXT AND INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE
The principles laid down in the preceding section were applied by the Councils of Trent (sess. iv.) and the Vatican (sess. iii.).
I. The Council of Trent issued two decrees on the Sacred Text, one of which is dogmatic, and the other disciplinary. These decrees, however, did not so much confer upon the Vulgate its public ecclesiastical authenticity, but rather declared and confirmed the authenticity already possessed by it in consequence of its long-continued public use. “If any one,” says the Council, “receiveth not, as Sacred and Canonical, the said books, entire with all their parts (libros integros cum omnibus suis partibus) as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition; let him be anathema.… Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod—considering that no small profit may accrue to the Church of God if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the Sacred Books is to be held as authentic—ordaineth and declareth that the said old and Vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many ages, hath been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare to reject it under any pretext whatsoever.”
1. These decrees are not exclusive. They affirm the authenticity of the Vulgate, but say nothing about the original text or about other versions. Hence the latter retain their public and private value. No Hebrew text has ever been used in the Church since the time of the Apostles; but the Greek text in public use during the first eight centuries must be considered as fully authentic for that time; since the schism, however, its authenticity is only guaranteed by the use of the Greek Catholics.
2. The conformity of the Vulgate with the original is not to be taken as absolute. Differences in distinctness and force of expression, even in dogmatic texts, may be admitted, and also additions, omissions, and diversities in texts not dogmatic. But in matters of Faith and morals the Vulgate does not put forth anything as the Word of God which either openly contradicts the Word of God or is not the Word of God at all. Again, the entire contents of the Vulgate are substantially correct, and are upon the whole identical with the original. Cf. Kaulen, History of the Vulgate (in German), p. 58 sqq.; Franzelin, De Script., sect. iii.
3. In demonstrating and expounding doctrines of Faith and morals the Vulgate may confidently be used, and its authority may not be rejected. It should be used in all public transactions relating to Faith and morals, as possessing complete demonstrative force within the Church. Hence the saying, “The Vulgate is the theologian’s Bible.” At the same time, the decree does not forbid the use of other texts, especially the originals, even in public transactions, in order to support and illustrate the Vulgate, or against non-Catholics as an argumentum ad hominem, or in purely scientific disquisitions.
Clement VIII., in execution of the Tridentine decrees, published an official edition of the Vulgate which came into general use, and must now be considered as an authentic reproduction of the text approved by the Council.
II. The Council of Trent also issued a decree concerning the Interpretation of Scripture. This decree, although further explained in the Creed of the council drawn up by Pius IV., was in later days very much misunderstood. Hence the Vatican Council has explained its true extent and meaning. The Tridentine decree quoted above continues, “Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, [the council] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill shall, in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the Sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which Holy Mother Church—to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never intended to be at any time published.” The passage in the Creed runs thus: “I also admit the Holy Scriptures according to that sense which Holy Mother Church hath held and doth hold, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” The conclusion of the Vatican decree is as follows: “Forasmuch as the wholesome decree of the holy and sacred council of Trent concerning the interpretation of the Divine Scripture … hath been perversely explained by divers persons, We, while renewing the said decree, declare this to be its meaning: in matters of Faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church hath held and doth hold, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; and therefore it is lawful to no man to interpret the said Sacred Scripture against this sense or even against the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” Hence, according to the explanation given by the Vatican Council, the meaning of the Tridentine decree is that the Church has the right to give a judicial decision on the sense of Holy Scripture in matters of Faith and morals; that is, to give an interpretation authentic, infallible, universally binding, not only indirectly and negatively, but also directly and positively. To oppose such a decision is unlawful, because to do so would be a denial of the true sense of Scripture and not merely an act of disobedience. Moreover, the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers, whose writings reproduce the authentic teaching of the Church, has a similar value.
A very little thought will convince any one that the Catholic rule of Scriptural interpretation does not clash with a reasonable liberty and the development of scientific exegesis. On the contrary, the period subsequent to the Council of Trent produced the most famous Biblical commentators (see supra, Introd., p. xxxi.), while the principle of private judgment has produced nothing but errors and destructive criticism.
Stapleton, Princ. Fid. Demonstr., 11. x. et xi.; Franzelin, De Script., sect. iii.; Vacant, Etudes Theol. sur le Concile du Vatican, t. i. p. 405, sqq.
SECT. 21.—THE ORAL APOSTOLIC DEPOSIT—TRADITION, IN THE NARROWER SENSE OF THE WORD
The Protestant rejection of a permanent Teaching Apostolate while, as we have seen, injurious to the Written Word, destroys the very existence of Oral Tradition. The Catholic doctrine, on the other hand, maintains that the preaching of the Apostles, unwritten as well as written, is an independent and trustworthy Source of Faith, and is, like the Holy Scriptures, an essential part of the Apostolic Deposit. The Council of Trent “seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand, following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receiveth and venerateth, with an equal affection of piety, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testaments … and also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to Faith as to morals, as having been dictated either by Christ’s own word of mouth or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession” (sess. iv.).
I. The Catholic doctrine is an evident consequence of the perpetuity of the Apostolate. It is plain from Holy Scripture and the testimony of the early Fathers that the Apostles handed over to their successors, together with the written documents of Revelation, the contents of their oral teaching as an independent and permanent Source of Faith. This Oral Deposit can, by reason of the natural and supernatural qualifications of the depositary, be transmitted as securely and perfectly as the Written Deposit.
1. Scripture nowhere says plainly, or even implies, that it is to be the only Source of Faith. The whole composition of the books supposes the existence of a Teaching Body, and the fact of the perpetuity of the Apostolate implies also the perpetuity of the authority of their teaching. St. Paul expressly enjoins the holding of the things which he preached as well as of those which he wrote. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:14; cf. St. John Chrysostom in h. 1.). And again, “Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. Keep the good thing committed to thy trust (τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην) by the Holy Ghost” (2 Tim. 1:13–14); “The things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also” (ib., 2:2). In the earliest ages of the Church, too, it was universally held that the contents of the apostolic preaching were transmitted to the Church as a permanent Source and Rule of Faith. See above, § 9, iii. The same doctrine is proved by the fact that in patristic times the true interpretation of Scripture was ruled by the Teaching Apostolate. Many truths not contained in Scripture were held on the authority of the Apostolate. Cf. Stapleton, l. c., l. xi., c. 3.
2. Protestant objections on the ground that an Oral Deposit cannot be perfectly transmitted, by reason of the imperfection of the Apostolate, do not touch the Apostolate as we conceive it, viz., as infallible through the assistance of the Holy Ghost. Any force that these objections may have can be turned against the transmission of Scripture itself. Even from a merely human point of view, the constitution and organization of the Apostolate afford an almost perfect guarantee for the purity of the doctrine transmitted. The cohesion of the different members, their fidelity to and respect for apostolical traditions, the constant mutual watchfulness, the daily application of most of the truths in question in private practice and public worship—all of these are admirably adapted for the preservation of truth and the prevention of error (cf. Franzelin, De Trad., th. ix.; Kuhn, Dogmatik, introd., § 5). The very fact that a doctrine is universally held in the Church is a sufficient proof of its apostolic origin and faithful transmission. “Granted that all (the churches) have erred, … that the Holy Ghost hath looked down upon none of them to lead them into the truth, although it was for this that He was sent by Christ and asked of the Father that He might be a Teacher of truth; granted that God’s steward, the Vicar of Christ, hath neglected his duty, … is it likely that so many and such great churches should have gone astray into one faith? Never is there one result among many chances. The error of the churches would have taken different directions. Whatever is found to be one and the same among many persons is not an error but a tradition” (Tertull., De Præscr., c. 28).
II. Oral Tradition could, absolutely speaking, be the sole Source of Faith, because it could hold its own even if no Written Deposit existed, whereas, as we have shown, the inspiration and interpretation of Scripture cannot be known without the aid of Tradition. Nevertheless, the Holy Scriptures have a value of their own, and are in a certain sense even necessary. They contain not only the Word, but also the language of God, and they give details, developments, and illustrations to an extent unattainable by Tradition. They are a sort of text-book of Tradition, enabling the Faithful to acquire a vivid knowledge of revealed truths. There is no revealed doctrine which has not at least some foundation in the Bible. The most important truths are explicitly stated there. On the whole, we may say that Oral Tradition is the living and authentic commentary upon the written document, yet, at the same time, not a mere commentary, but something self-subsistent, confirming, illustrating, completing and vivifying the text.
III. The Fathers and the Schoolmen often insist upon the completeness and sufficiency of Holy Scripture, but they do so in the sense of the present section. The Bible clearly teaches the doctrine of the Teaching Apostolate, and this implicitly contains the whole of Revelation. Hence we may say that the Bible itself is complete and sufficient. Sometimes, however, the Fathers speak of the completeness of Scripture merely with regard to certain points of doctrine. Thus in the well-known passage of St. Vincent of Lerins (Common., c. 2) where it is said that “the canon of the Scriptures is perfect, and of itself enough and more than enough for everything” the Saint is really putting an objection, which he proceeds to answer in favour of the necessity of tradition. And Tertullian’s saying, “I worship the fulness of Scripture,” refers to the doctrine of creation (cf. Franz., De Trad., th. xix.). On the other hand, certain texts of the Fathers which at first sight might be quoted in support of our thesis refer to discipline rather than to dogma.
There are many regulations which have been handed down with apostolic authority, but not as revealed by God. These are called Merely-Apostolic Traditions, in contradistinction to the Divino-Apostolic Traditions. This distinction, though clear enough in itself, is not easy of application, except in matters strictly dogmatical or strictly moral. In other matters, such as ecclesiastical institutions and discipline, there are various criteria to guide us; e.g. (1) the distinct testimony of the Teaching Apostolate or of ecclesiastical documents that some institution is of Divine origin—for instance, the validity of baptism conferred by heretics; (2) the nature of the institution itself—for instance, the essential parts of the sacraments as opposed to the merely ceremonial parts. Where these criteria cannot be applied and the practice of the Church does not decide the point, it remains an open question whether a given institution is of Divine right and belongs to the Deposit of Faith. In any case we are bound to respect such traditions, and also those which are merely ecclesiastical. Thus in the Creed of Pius IV. we say: “I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and all other observances and institutions of the said Church.… I also receive and admit the received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of all the Sacraments.”
CHAPTER IV
ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION
SECT. 22.—ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION
I. ECCLESIASTICAL tradition differs essentially from human tradition, whether popular or scientific. Human tradition can produce only human certitude; it increases or decreases with the course of time, and may ultimately fail altogether. Ecclesiastical Tradition is indeed human, inasmuch as it is in the hands of men, and it may be popular or scientific, historical or exegetical. But it is also something far higher. Its organs are the members of Christ’s Church; they form one body fashioned by God Himself, and animated and directed by His Holy Spirit. Hence their testimony is not the testimony of men, but the testimony of the Holy Ghost. Its value does not depend upon the number of witnesses or their learning, but on their rank in the Church and the assistance of the Holy Ghost; and the authenticity of their testimony remains the same at every point of the stream of Tradition.
II. Nevertheless it must be admitted that the human element modifies the perfection of Tradition. There may be a break in its continuity and universality. A temporary and partial eclipse of truth is possible, as are also further developments. It is possible that for a time a portion of the Deposit may not be known and acknowledged by the whole Church or expressly and distinctly attested by the leading organs of the Apostolate. We may therefore assert that the essential integrity, continuity, and universality of Oral Tradition, as required by the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church and as modified by the imperfections of the human element, are subject to the following laws:—
1. Nothing can be proposed as Apostolic Tradition which is not Apostolic Tradition, or is opposed to it; and no truth handed down by the Apostles can be altogether lost.
2. The most essential and necessary truths must always be expressly taught, admitted, and handed down in the Church, if not by every individual teacher or hearer, at least by the Body as a whole. Truths belonging to the Apostolic Deposit which have been so obscured as not to be known and professed by all the members of the Church, and even to be rejected by some or not distinctly enforced by others, must be attested and transmitted at least implicitly; that is to say, truths clearly expressed and distinctly professed must contain the obscured truths in such a way that by careful reflection and the assistance of the Holy Ghost these obscured truths may be evolved and proposed for universal acceptance. There are, we may observe, several ways in which one truth may be implied in another. General truths contain particular truths; principles imply consequences; complex statements involve simpler statements whether as constituent parts or as conditions; practical truths presuppose theoretical principles and vice versâ. The dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and of Papal Infallibility are implied in other dogmas in all of these four ways (infra, p. 105).
Only the actual and express Tradition of a truth can be appealed to in proof that it is a matter of Faith. If we can show that at a given time the Tradition was universal this alone is sufficient—continuity is not absolutely necessary. However, except in cases of an authoritative definition, Tradition, to become universal, requires a long time. Even when an authoritative definition is given, it is always based upon the fact that the Tradition in question was universal for a long time. Hence the duration for a more or less long period should be proved.
SECT. 23.—The Various Modes in which Traditional Testimony is given in the Church
The modes or forms in which the infallible testimony of the Holy Ghost is given are as manifold as the forms of the living organism of the Church. For our present purpose we may distinguish them according to the rank of the witnesses.
I. The most adequate testimony exists when the entire Body of the Church, Head and members alike, profess, teach, and act upon a certain doctrine. This unanimity is expressed and maintained by professions of Faith universally admitted, by catechisms in general use, and by the general practice of the Church either in her liturgy, discipline, or morals, in so far as such practice supposes and includes Faith in particular doctrines. Hence the old rule quoted against the Pelagians, “Legem credendi statuat lex supplicandi.”
II. Next in extent, though far lower in rank, is what is called the “Sensus fidelium,” that is, the distinct, universal, and constant profession of a doctrine by the whole body of the simple Faithful. As we have shown in § 13, this sensus fidelium involves a relatively independent and immediate testimony of the Holy Ghost. Although but an echo of the authentic testimony of the Teaching Apostolate, the universal belief of the Faithful is of great weight in times when its unity and distinctness are more apparent than the teaching of the Apostolate itself, or when a part of the Teaching Body is unfaithful to its duty, or when the Teaching Body, about to define a doctrine which had for a time been obscured in the Church, appeals to all the manifestations of the Holy Ghost in its favour. Thus, during the Arian troubles, St. Hilary could say, “The faithful ears of the people are holier than the lips of the priests.” And before the definition of the Immaculate Conception the profession and practice of the Faithful were appealed to in favour of the definition. Cf. Franzelin, De Trad., th. xii., p. 112, where he rejects the interpretation given in the Rambler for July, 1859, p. 218 sqq. See also Card. Newman’s Arians, pp. 464, 467; Ward, Essays on the Church’s Doctrinal Authority, p. 70. “As the blood flows from the heart to the body through the arteries; as the vital sap insinuates itself into the whole tree, into each bough, and leaf, and fibre; as water descends through a thousand channels from the mountaintop to the plain; so is Christ’s pure and life-giving doctrine diffused, flowing into the whole body through a thousand organs from the Ecclesia Docens.” Murray, De Ecclesia, disp. x., n. 15, quoted by Ward.
III. The universal teaching of the Bishops and Priests is another mode of ecclesiastical testimony to revealed truth. The testimony of all the Bishops is in itself infallible, independently of the teaching of the inferior clergy and the belief of the Faithful, because the Episcopate is the chief organ of infallibility in the Church. It is, moreover, an infallible testimony at every moment of its duration (“I am with you all days”). This mode of testimony is sometimes called the testimony of the Particular Churches, because the teaching of each Bishop is reflected and repeated by the clergy and the Faithful of his diocese. Hence the testimony of the Priests and of Theological Schools in subordination to the Bishop holds a sort of intermediate position and value between the “Sensus fidelium” and the testimony of the Episcopate.
IV. The central, perfect and juridical representative of Tradition is the Apostolic See. From the earliest times it has been the custom to consider the formula, “The Roman Church or Apostolic See hath held and doth hold,” as equivalent to “The Catholic Church hath held and doth hold;” because the universal Church must hold, at least implicitly, the doctrines taught by the Holy See. When the Pope pronounces a judicial sentence he can bind the whole Church, teachers as well as taught, and the authority of his decisions is not impaired, even by opposition within the Teaching Body. Moreover, as a consequence of the connection between the Head of the Church and the Roman See, there exists in the local Roman Church, apart from the authoritative decisions of the Pope, a certain actual and normal testimony which must be considered as an expression of the habitual teaching of the Holy See. This arises from the fact that the Faith professed in the Roman Church is the result of the constant teaching of the Popes, accepted by the laity and taught by the clergy, especially by the College of Cardinals who take part in the general government of the Church.
V. Besides the Apostolic See and the ordinary Apostolate, God has provided auxiliary channels of Ecclesiastical Tradition in the person of the extraordinary auxiliary members described above, § 12. Their position and importance have been defined by St. Augustine (Contra Julianum, 11. i. et ii., especially ii. c. 37), and by St. Vincent of Lerins who comments on the text of St. Augustine (Commonitor., c. xxviii. sqq., and c. i. of the second Commonitorium). In the early days of the Church, when the teaching functions were almost exclusively exercised by the Bishops, the extraordinary representatives of Apostolical Tradition were usually eminent members of the episcopate. They received the name of “Fathers” because this was the title commonly given to Bishops by their subjects and by their successors. They are also called “Fathers of the Church,” because, living as they did in the infancy of the Church, when extraordinary means were needed for its preservation, they received a more abundant outpouring of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and thus their doctrine represents His teaching in an eminent degree. Besides, their special function was to fix the substance of the Apostolic Deposit so that, naturally, their writings became the basis of the further development of doctrine, and were placed side by side with Scripture as channels of Apostolic doctrine. Thus they were the Fathers, not only of the Church in their own day, but also in subsequent ages. Compared with them, the later writers are regarded as the “Sons of the Fathers,” and sometimes as “Pædagogi,” with reference to what St. Paul says (1 Cor. 4:15), “If you have ten thousand instructors (pædogogi) in Christ, yet not many fathers.” The Sons of the Fathers were not all bishops. Many of them were priests or members of Religious Orders, or masters of theological schools. They represent the mind (sensus) of the Catholic Schools and of the Faithful, and are distinguished for human learning and industry, which they apply to the development and fuller comprehension of doctrine rather than to the fixing of its substance. Hence their name of “Doctors” or “Theologians.”
SECT. 24.—DOCUMENTARY TRADITION, THE EXPRESSION OF THE LIVING TRADITION
I. Ecclesiastical Tradition by its very nature is oral. Writings and documents are not needed for its transmission; nevertheless they are useful for the purpose of fixing Tradition, and of remedying the imperfections of the human element. Hence it follows that the Holy Ghost, Who watches over the living Tradition, must also assist in the production and preservation of such documents so as to cause them to present, if not an adequate, at least a more or less perfect exposition of previous Tradition.
II. When the writings of the Fathers reproduce the authentic teaching of the Church, they constitute a Written Tradition, equal in authority to the subsequent Oral Tradition, and are, like Holy Scripture, an objective and remote Rule of Faith running side by side with Oral Tradition. Still they are not by themselves a complete and independent Source and Rule of Faith. Like the Holy Scriptures, they too are in the Church’s custody and are subject to the Church’s interpretation. There can be no contradiction between the teaching of the Fathers and the doctrine of the Church; apparent contradictions are due either to spuriousness or lack of authenticity on the part of the documents, or to a mistaken interpretation of them.
III. The various writings and documents which constitute Written Tradition may be divided into two classes.
1. The first class comprises those which emanate from the official organs of Ecclesiastical Tradition in the exercise of their functions, and which, therefore, belong by their very nature to the Written Tradition, e.g. Decisions of the Popes and of Councils; Liturgical documents and monuments, such as Liturgies, Sacramentaries, Ordines Romani, pictures, symbols, inscriptions, vases, etc., connected with public worship; the writings of the Fathers and approved Theologians in so far as they contain distinct statements on the truths of Tradition. These documents and monuments have more than a mere historical value. They all participate more or less in the supernatural character of the living Tradition of which they are the emanation and exponents, and, even when they are not the work of the authors to whom they are ascribed, they may still be of great weight.
2. The second class of documents is composed of those which, independently of the ecclesiastical rank of their author, or of the authority of the Church generally, contribute to the history or better scientific knowledge of Tradition. To this class may belong the writings of doubtful Catholics, and even of heretics and pagans. The two classes do not exclude each other. Many documents belong to both, under different aspects.
The Roman Catacombs have lately acquired great importance as monuments of the earliest Tradition. See Roma Sotteranea, by Dr. Northcote and Canon Brownlow.
SECT. 25.—RULES FOR DEMONSTRATING REVEALED TRUTH FROM ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION
The rules for the application of the laws mentioned in the above section may be gathered from the laws themselves. Catholics, believing as they do in the Divine authority of Tradition, will of course obtain different results from Protestants who acknowledge only its historical value. Catholics, too, will apply the rules differently, according as their object is to ascertain with infallible certitude the apostolicity of a truth, or to expound and defend it scientifically.
I. For the Catholic it is not necessary to demonstrate positively from coeval documents that the Church has always borne actual witness to a given doctrine. The scantiness of the documents, especially of those belonging to the sub-apostolic age, makes it even impossible. The Tradition of the present time, above all if it is attested by an authoritative definition, is quite sufficient to prove the former existence of the same Tradition, although perhaps only in a latent state. Any further knowledge of its former existence is merely of scientific interest. When, however, the Ecclesiastical Tradition of the present is not publicly manifest, and the judges of the Faith have to decide some controverted question, they must investigate the Tradition of the past, or, as St. Vincent of Lerins expresses it, they must appeal to antiquity. It is not necessary to go back to an absolute antiquity: it is sufficient to find some time when the Tradition was undoubted. Thus, at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431), the decisions were based upon the testimony of the Fathers of the fourth century. When the Tradition is not manifest either in the present or in the past, we can sometimes have recourse to the consent of the Fathers and Theologians of note. The temporary uncertainty and even partial negation of a doctrine within the Church is not, in in itself, a conclusive argument against the traditional character of the doctrine. The opposition can generally be shown to be purely human, and can often be turned to good account. We can sometimes ascertain its origin and show that the Church resisted it. Sometimes the difficulty arises from an appeal to merely local traditions; or the opposition is inconsistent, varying, indefinite, mixed with opinions distinctly heretical or destructive of Catholic life and thought. It would be easy to prove that all these marks are applicable to the Gallican opposition to the Infallibility of the Pope. Even when the investigation of antiquity does not result in absolute certitude, it may at least produce a moral conviction, so that denial would be rash.
II. The Tradition of a truth being once established, a Catholic has no further interest in the investigation of its continuity, except for the purposes of science and apologetics. Heretics, moreover, have no right to demand direct proof of the antiquity of a doctrine. We may indeed reply to their arguments from Tradition, and set before them the traces of the doctrine in the different ages, but it is better to prove to them the Catholic principle of Tradition, for which there is abundant historical evidence.
SECT. 26.—THE WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS
I. The “Fathers” are those representatives of Tradition who have been recognized by the Church as excelling in sanctity and in natural and supernatural gifts, and who belong to the early Church. This latter mark distinguishes them from the doctors who have lived in more recent times, but it has only a secondary influence upon their authority. No great significance was attached by the Council of Ephesus or the older theologians to the antiquity of the Fathers. The Church herself has bestowed the title of “Doctor Ecclesiæ,” by which it honours the most illustrious Fathers in the Liturgy, upon many saints of later date, and has thereby put them on the same level. We may even say that the canonization of a theological writer raises him to some extent to the dignity of a “Father.” Still, the mark of antiquity is not without importance, as we have already explained.
II. The domain of doctrine covered by the authority and infallibility of the Fathers is co-extensive with that of the Church, whose mouthpiece they are. Hence it does not embrace truths of a purely natural and philosophical character, or truths revealed only per accidens, because these are not part of the public teaching of the Church. On the other hand, their authority is not limited to their testimony to truths expressly and formally revealed, but extends to the dogmatico-theological interpretation of the whole Deposit of Revelation. The material and formal authority of the Fathers—that is, the subject-matter with which they deal, and the ecclesiastical use of their writings—are beautifully expressed by St. Vincent of Lerins, when speaking of the Fathers quoted at the Council of Ephesus: “Only these ten, the sacred number of the commandments, were brought forward at Ephesus as teachers, counsellors, witnesses, and judges; [and the Council] holding their doctrine, following their advice, believing their testimony, and obeying their decision … passed judgment concerning the rules of Faith” (n. 30). The modern view which reduces the authority of the Fathers to that of mere historical witnesses could not better be refuted.
III. We must be careful to distinguish between the authority of one or a certain number of the Fathers, and the consentient testimony of all of them. It is evident that the former is not infallible, because the Church’s approbation of their writings is not intended to be a guarantee of the truth of all that they teach. Some particular works, as, for instance, St. Cyril’s Anathemas, have, however, received this guarantee. The Church’s approbation implies: (1) that the writings approved were not opposed to any doctrine publicly held by the Church in the time of the author, and consequently were not subject to any censure; (2) that the doctrines for which the Father was renowned, and on which he insisted most, are positively probable; (3) that there is a strong presumption that the doubtful expressions of the Fathers should be interpreted in accordance with the commonly received doctrine, and that no discrepancy should be admitted among them except on the strongest grounds; (4) under extraordinary circumstances it may give us a moral certainty of a doctrine when, for instance, some illustrious Father has, without being contradicted by the Church, openly enforced that doctrine as being Catholic, and has treated those who deny it as heretics. When, however, all the Fathers agree, their authority attains its perfection. The consent of the Fathers has always been looked upon as of equal authority with the teaching of the whole Church, or the definitions of the Popes and Councils. But inasmuch as it is hardly possible to ascertain the opinions of every Father on every point of doctrine, and as the Holy Ghost prevents the Church from ascribing to the whole body of the Fathers any doctrine which they did not hold, it follows that the consent of the Fathers must be regarded as fully ascertained whenever those of them whose writings deal with a given doctrine agree absolutely or morally, provided that they are numerous and belong to different countries and times. The number required varies with the nature of the doctrine, which may be public, a matter of daily practice and of great importance, or, on the other hand, may be of an abstract, speculative character, and comparatively unimportant: and with the personal authority of the Fathers, with their position in the Church, with the amount of opposition to the doctrine, and with many other circumstances.
The Consent of the Fathers does not always prove the Catholic character of a doctrine in the same way. If they distinctly state that a doctrine is a public dogma of the Church, the doctrine must be at once accepted. If they merely state that the doctrine is true and taught by the Church, without formally attributing to it the character of a dogma, this testimony has by no means the same weight. The doctrine thus attested cannot, on that account, be treated as a dogma. Nevertheless it is at least a Catholic truth and morally certain, and the denial of it would deserve the censure of temerity or error.
IV. The authority of the Fathers is held in high esteem by the Church in the interpretation of Scripture. They made the Bible their especial study, whereas later writers have not been so directly concerned with it, and when they have treated of it they have followed the lead of the Fathers. The consent of the Fathers is a positive and not an exclusive rule, i.e. the interpretation must be in accordance with it where it exists, but where it does not exist we may lawfully interpret even in opposition to the opinions of some of the Fathers. This consent must be gathered from all their writings and not merely from their commentaries, because in the latter they often have in view particular points of doctrine of a practical or ascetic nature, whereas in their other writings they are rather engaged in expounding Catholic dogma. But even in both kinds of writings a complete scientific exposition of the text can seldom be found, because, as a rule, the Fathers have in hand some particular doctrine which they endeavour to draw from and base upon the text. Hence the many apparent differences in their exegesis, which may, however, be easily explained by a collation of the various passages. (See supra, p. 65.)
SECT. 27.—THE WRITINGS OF THEOLOGIANS
I. By Theologians we mean men learned in Theology, who as members or masters of the theological schools which came into existence after the patristic era, taught and handed down Catholic doctrine on strictly scientific lines, in obedience to and under the supervision of the bishops. The title belongs primarily to the Schoolmen of the Middle Ages—the Scholastic Theologians strictly so-called; then to all who followed the methods of the School during the last three centuries; and, generally, to all distinguished and approved writers on Theology whether they have adhered to the Scholastic methods or not. It is only in exceptional cases that the Church gives a public approbation to an individual Theologian, and this is done by canonization or by the still further honour of conferring on him the title of Doctor of the Church. When we speak of an Approved Author, we mean one who is held in general esteem on account of his learning and the Catholic spirit of his teaching. Some approved authors are of acknowledged weight, while others are of only minor importance. What we are about to state concerning the authority of Theologians must not be applied indiscriminately to every Catholic writer, but only to such as are weighty and approved (auctores probati et graves).
II. The authority of Theologians, like that of the Fathers, may be considered either individually and partially, or of the whole body collectively. As a rule, the authority of a single Theologian (with the exception of canonized Saints, and perhaps some authors of the greatest weight) does not create the presumption that no point of his doctrine was opposed to the common teaching of the Church in his day; much less that, independently of his reasons, the whole of his doctrine is positively probable merely on account of his authority. When, however, the majority of approved and weighty Theologians agree, it must be presumed that their teaching is not opposed to that of the Church. Moreover, if their doctrines are based upon sound arguments propounded without any prejudice and not contradicted very decidedly, the positive probability of the doctrines must be presumed. No more than this probability can be produced by the consent of many or even of all Theologians when they state a doctrine as a common opinion (opinio communis) and not as a common conviction (sententia communis). These questions have been discussed at great length by Moral Theologians in the controversy on Probabilism. See Lacroix, Theol. Mor., lib. I., tr. i., c. 2.
The consent of Theologians produces certainty that a doctrine is Catholic truth only when on the one hand the doctrine is proposed as absolutely certain, and on the other hand the consent is universal and constant (Consensus universalis et constans non solum opinionis sed firmæ et ratæ sententiæ). If all agree that a particular doctrine is a Catholic dogma and that to deny it is heresy, then that doctrine is certainly a dogma. If they agree that a doctrine cannot be denied without injuring Catholic truth, and that such denial is deserving of censure, this again is a sure proof that the doctrine is in some way a Catholic doctrine. If, again, they agree in declaring that a doctrine is sufficiently certain and demonstrated, their consent is not indeed a formal proof of the Catholic character of the doctrine, nevertheless the existence of the consent shows that the doctrine belongs to the mind of the Church (catholicus intellectus), and that consequently its denial would incur the censure of rashness.
These principles on the authority of Theologians were strongly insisted on by Pius IX. in the brief, Gravissimas inter (cf. infra, § 29), and they are evident consequences of the Catholic doctrine of Tradition. Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to Theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be led astray. The consent of Theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine’s dictum: “Not to resist an error is to approve of it—not to defend a truth is to reject it.” And even natural reason assures us that this consent is a guarantee of truth. “Whatever is found to be one and the same among many persons is not an error but a tradition” (Tertullian). (Supra, p. 68.)
The Church holds the mediaeval Doctors in almost the same esteem as the Fathers. The substance of the teaching of the Schoolmen and their method of treatment have both been strongly approved of by the Church (cf. Syllab., prop. xiii., and Leo XIII., encyclical Æterni Patris on the study of St. Thomas).
CHAPTER V
THE RULE OF FAITH
SECT. 28.—THE RULE OF FAITH CONSIDERED GENERALLY; AND ALSO SPECIALLY IN ITS ACTIVE SENSE
I. THE nature and dignity of the Word of God require that submission to it should not be left to the choice of man, but should be made obligatory. The Church should put it forth in such a way as to bind all her members to adhere to it in common, and with one voice and in all its fulness, as a public and social law.
II. The Rule of Faith was given to the Church in the very act of Revelation and its promulgation by the Apostles. But for this Rule to have an actual and permanently efficient character, it must be continually promulgated and enforced by the living Apostolate, which must exact from all members of the Church a docile Faith in the truths of Revelation authoritatively proposed, and thus unite the whole body of the Church, teachers and taught, in perfect unity of Faith. Hence the original promulgation is the remote Rule of Faith, and the continuous promulgation by the Teaching Body is the proximate Rule.
III. The fact that all the members of the Church actually agree in one Faith is the best proof of the efficiency of the Catholic Rule of Faith. This universality is not the Rule of Faith itself, but rather its effect. Individual members are indeed bound to conform their belief to that of the whole community, but this universal belief is produced by the action of the Teaching Apostolate, the members of which are in their turn subject to their Chief. Hence the Catholic Rule of Faith may be ultimately reduced to the sovereign teaching authority of the Holy See. This was asserted long ago in the Creed drawn up by Pope Hormisdas: “Wherefore following in all things the Apostolic See and upholding all its decrees, I hope that it may be mine to be with you in the one communion taught by the Apostolic See, in which is the true and complete solidity of the Christian Religion; and I promise also not to mention in the Holy Mysteries the names of those who have been excommunicated from the Catholic Church—that is, those who agree not with the Apostolic See.”
IV. The act or collection of acts whereby the Word of God is enforced as the Rule of Catholic Faith is called in technical language “Proposition by the Church” (Propositio Ecclesiæ, Vat. Council, sess. iii. chap. 3). It is called “Proposition” because it is an authoritative promulgation of a law, already contained in Revelation, enjoining belief in what is proposed; and “Proposition by or of the Church,” because it emanates from the Teaching Body and is addressed to the Body of the Faithful; and not in the sense that it emanates from the entire community.
V. The manner in which the Proposition is made and the form which it assumes are determined by the nature of the Teaching Apostolate and of the truths proposed. The ordinary Proposition of the law of Faith is identical with the ordinary exercise of the Teaching Apostolate; for the Word of God by its very nature exacts the obedience of Faith, and is communicated to the Faithful with the express intention of enforcing belief. Hence the ordinary teaching is necessarily a promulgation of the law of Faith and an injunction of the duty to believe, and consequently the law of Faith is naturally an unwritten law. But the Proposition of or by the Church takes the form of a Statute or written law when promulgated in a solemn decision. Such decisions, however, are not laws strictly speaking, but are merely authoritative declarations of laws already enacted by God, and in most instances they only enforce what is already the common practice. Both forms, written and unwritten, are of equal authority, but the written form is the more precise. Both also rest ultimately on the authority of the Head of the Apostolate. No judicial sentence in matters of Faith is valid unless pronounced or approved by him; and the binding force of the unwritten form arises from his tacit sanction.
VI. The authority of the Church’s Proposition enforcing obedience to its decrees and guaranteeing their infallibility, is not restricted to matters of Divine Faith and Divine Revelation, although these are its principal subject-matter. The Teaching Apostolate, in order to realize the objects of Revelation, i.e. to preserve the Faith not only in its substance but also in its entirety, must extend its activity beyond the sphere of Divine Faith and Divine Revelation. But in such matters the Apostolate requires only an undoubting and submissive acceptance and not Divine Faith, and consequently is, so far, a rule of theological knowledge and conviction rather than a Rule of Divine Faith. Hence there exists in the Church, side by side with and completing the Rule of Faith, a Rule of Theological Thought or Religious Conviction, to which every Catholic must submit internally as well as externally. Any refusal to submit to this law implies a spiritual revolt against the authority of the Church and a rejection of her supernatural veracity; and is, if not a direct denial of Catholic Faith, at least a direct denial of Catholic Profession.
VII. The judicial, legislative, and other similar acts of the members of the Teaching Apostolate are not all absosolutely binding rules of Faith and theological thought, but rather resemble police regulations. These disciplinary measures may under certain circumstances command at least a respectful and confident assent, the refusal of which involves disrespect and temerity. For instance, when the Church forbids the teaching of certain points of doctrine, or commands the teaching of one opinion in preference to another, external submission is required, but there is also an obligation to accept the favoured view as morally certain. When a judicial decision has been given on some point of doctrine, but has not been given or approved by the highest authority, such decision per se imposes only the obligation of external obedience. Points of doctrine expressed, recommended, and insisted upon in papal allocutions or encyclical letters but not distinctly defined, may create the obligation of strict obedience and undoubting assent, or may exact merely external submission and approval. Thus in the Rule of Faith we distinguish three degrees: (1) the Rule of Faith in matters directly revealed, exacting the obedience of Faith; (2) the Rule of Faith in matters theologically connected with Revelation, exacting respect and external submission, and, indirectly, internal assent of a certain grade; (3) the Rule of Faith in matters of discipline, exacting submission and reverence.
The difference between the rules of theological knowledge and the disciplinary measures is important. The former demand universal and unconditional obedience, the latter only respect and reverence. Moderate Liberalism, represented in the seventeenth century by Holden (Analysis Fidei), in the eighteenth century by Muratori (De Ingeniorum Moderatione) and Chrismann (Regula Fidei), is an attempt to conciliate Extreme Liberalism by giving up these various distinctions, and reducing all decisions either to formal definitions of Faith or to mere police regulations.
SECT. 29.—DOGMAS AND MATTERS OF OPINION
I. Everything revealed by God, or Christ, or the Holy Ghost is by that very fact a Divine or Christian Dogma; when authoritatively proposed by the Apostles it became an Apostolic Dogma; when fully promulgated by the Church, Ecclesiastical Dogma. In the Church’s language a dogma pure and simple is at the same time ecclesiastical, apostolic, and Divine. But a merely Divine Dogma—that is, revealed by God but not yet explicitly proposed by the Church—is called a Material (as opposed to Formal) Dogma.
1. Dogmas may be classified according to (a) their various subject-matters, (b) their promulgation, and (c) the different kinds of moral obligation to know them.
(a) Dogmas may be divided in the same way as the contents of Revelation (§ 5) except that matters revealed per accidens are not properly dogmas. It is, however, a dogma that Holy Scripture, in the genuine text, contains undoubted truth throughout. And consequently the denial of matters revealed per accidens is a sin against Faith, because it implies the assertion that Holy Scripture contains error. This principle accounts for the opposition to Galileo. The motions of the sun and the earth are not indeed matters of dogma, but the great astronomer’s teaching was accompanied by or at any rate involved the assertion that Scripture was false in certain texts.
(b) With regard to their promulgation by the Church, dogmas are divided into Material and Formal. Formal Dogmas are subdivided into Defined and Undefined.
(c) With regard to the obligation of knowing them, dogmas are to be believed either Implicitly or Explicitly. Again, the necessity of knowing them is of two kinds:—Necessity of Means (necessitas medii) and Necessity of Precept (necessitas præcepti); that is, the belief in some dogmas is a necessary condition of salvation, apart from any positive command of the Church, while the obligation to believe in others arises from her positive command The former may be called Fundamental, because they are most essential. We do not, however, admit the Latitudinarian distinction between Fundamental articles, i.e. which must be believed, and Non-fundamental articles which need not be believed. All Catholics are bound to accept, at least implicitly, every dogma proposed by the Church.
2. The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth, may be easily gathered from the principles already stated. They are nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX. to the Archbishop of Munich.
The following are the criteria of a dogma of Faith: (a) Creeds or Symbols of Faith generally received; (b) dogmatic definitions of the Popes or of ecumenical councils, and of particular councils solemnly ratified; (c) the undoubtedly clear and indisputable sense of Holy Scripture in matters relating to Faith and morals; (d) the universal and constant teaching of the Apostolate, especially the public and permanent tradition of the Roman Church; (e) universal practice, especially in liturgical matters, where it clearly supposes and professes a truth as undoubtedly revealed; (f) the teaching of the Fathers when manifest and universal; (g) the teaching of Theologians when manifest and universal.
II. Between the doctrines expressly defined by the Church and those expressly condemned stand what may be called matters of opinion or free opinions. Freedom, however, like certainty, is of various degrees, especially in religious and moral matters. Where there is no distinct definition there may be reasons sufficient to give us moral certainty. To resist these is not, indeed, formal disobedience, but only rashness. Where there are no such reasons this censure is not incurred. It is not possible to determine exactly the boundaries of these two groups of free opinions; they shade off into each other, and range from absolute freedom to morally certain obligation to believe. In this sphere of Approximative Theology, as it may be styled, there, are (1) doctrines which it is morally certain that the Church acknowledges as revealed (veritates fidei proximæ); (2) theological doctrines which it is morally certain that the Church considers as belonging to the integrity of the Faith, or as logically connected with revealed truth, and consequently the denial of which is approximate to theological error (errori theologico proximo); (3) doctrines neither revealed nor logically deducible from revealed truths, but useful or even necessary for safeguarding Revelation: to deny these would be rash (temerarium). These three degrees were rejected by the Minimizers mentioned at the end of the last section, and all matters not strictly defined were considered as absolutely free. Pius IX., however, on the occasion of the Munich Congress in 1863, addressed a Brief to the Archbishop of that city laying down the Catholic principles on the subject. The 22nd Proposition condemned in the “Syllabus” was taken from this Brief, and runs thus: “The obligation under which Catholic teachers and writers lie is restricted to those matters which are proposed for universal belief as dogmas of Faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.” And the Vatican Council says, at the end of the first constitution, “It sufficeth not to avoid heresy unless those errors which more or less approach thereto are sedulously shunned.”
SECT. 30.—DEFINITIONS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS CONSIDERED GENERALLY
The chief rules of Catholic belief are the definitions and decisions of the Church. Before we study them in detail, it will be well to treat of the elements and forms more or less common to them all.
I. Definitions and decisions are essentially acts of the teaching power, in the strictest sense of the word; acts whereby the holder of this power lays down authoritatively what his subjects are bound to accept as Catholic doctrine or reject as anti-Catholic. Hence, as distinguished from other acts of the Teaching Apostolate, they are termed decrees, statutes, constitutions, definitions, decisions concerning the Faith. In the modern language of the Church, “Definition” means the positive and final decision in matters of Faith (dogmas), and “Judgment” means the negative decision whereby false doctrines are condemned (censures). The wording of definitions is not restricted to any particular form. Sometimes they take the form of a profession of Faith: “The Holy Synod believeth and confesseth;” at other times they take the form of a declaration of doctrine, as in the “chapters” of the Council of Trent and the Vatican Council, or of canons threatening with “anathema” all who refuse to accept the Church’s teaching.
II. The general object of authoritative decisions in doctrinal matters is to propose dogmas in clear and distinct form to the Faithful, and thereby to promote the glory of God, the salvation of souls, and the welfare of the Church. Sometimes, however, there are certain specific objects; e.g., (1) to remove existing doubts. The definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the Infallibility of the Pope are cases in point. (2) To condemn criminal doubts prevailing against dogmas already defined, e.g. the case of the five propositions of Jansenius. (3) To prevent future doubts and to confirm the Faith of the weak. In this case, as in the preceding, the new definition takes the form of a confirmation or renewal of a former definition. Thus the Vatican Council, at the end of its first constitution, insists upon the duty of conformity to the doctrinal decision of the Holy See. The question of the “Opportuneness” of a definition must be decided by the judges themselves. Under certain circumstances they may withhold or postpone a definition in order to avoid greater evils, as in the case of the Gallican doctrines. Once the definition is given, there can be no further question as to its opportuneness. The Holy Ghost, who assists in making the definition, also assists in fixing its time.
III. Authoritative definitions and decisions can emanate only from the holders of the teaching power in the Church. Learned men and learned societies, such as universities, may publish statements of their views, and may thus prepare the way for a dogmatic definition. These statements may even have greater weight than the decisions of individual bishops. Nevertheless they are merely provisional, and stand to the final judgment in the relation of a consulting vote. Hence the importance of acting in conjunction with the Holy See. Even from the earliest times it has been the rule to refer to Rome the more important questions of Faith, and in recent times bishops and local (as opposed to general) councils have been ordered not to attempt to decide doubtful questions, but only to expound and enforce what has already been approved.
Each holder of the teaching power can judge individually, except those whose power is only delegated, and those who by reason of their functions are bound to act in concert; as, for instance, the Cardinals in the Roman Congregations. Still, it follows from their office, and it has always been the practice of the Church, that the Bishops, as inferior judges, should judge collectively in synods and councils, except when they act simply as promulgators or executors of decisions already given. The Pope, the supreme and universal judge, is subject to no other judges or tribunals, but all are subject to him. Matters of general interest (causæ communes) or of great importance (causæ majores) are of his cognizance. He is the centre of unity, and he possesses, in virtue of his sovereign power, a guarantee of veracity which does not belong to individual Bishops. But before coming to any decision he is bound to study the Sources of Faith, and to consult his advisers either individually or collectively. He may, nay sometimes he must allow his ordinary and extraordinary counsellors to act as subordinate colleges of judges, whose decisions he afterwards completes by adding his own. He may also place himself at the head of these various colleges, so that the members become his assessors. “The bishops of the whole world sitting and judging with us,” says the Proœmium of the first constitution of the Vatican Council. The same council also enumerates the various ways in which the Popes prepare their definitions: “The Roman Pontiffs, according as circumstances required,—at one time, by summoning ecumenical councils, or by ascertaining the opinion of the Church dispersed over the world; at another time, by means of local synods, or again by other means—have defined that those things are to be held which they have found to be in harmony with the Sacred Writings and Apostolical Traditions” (sess. iv., chap. 4).
IV. Dogmatic definitions being judicial acts presuppose an investigation of the case (cognitio causæ). If this is not made, the judge acts rashly, but the judgment is binding. When the authority of the judge is not supreme, and consequently the presumption in favour of the justice of the judgment is not absolute, a statement of the reasons may be necessary, and an examination of them may be permitted. Sometimes even the highest authority states his reasons for coming to a decision, but he does this merely to render submission easy. As regards the manner of conducting the investigation of the case, it should be noted that an examination of the Sources of Faith and the hearing of witnesses, although integral portions of the judicial functions, are not always necessary. When an already-defined doctrine has only to be enforced these processes may be dispensed with. However, even in this case, they may be advisable, so as to remove all suspicion of rashness or prejudice, and to enable the judges to affirm that they speak of their own full knowledge (ex plena et propria cognitione causæ).
Although doctrinal definitions are always supported by strong arguments, their binding force does not depend on these arguments but upon the supernatural authority of the judges, in virtue of which they are entitled to say, “It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.” In the case of individual judges the Divine guarantee depends upon the legitimacy of their appointment; in the case of councils or other bodies of judges it depends upon the legitimacy of their convocation. Hence the expression, “The synod lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost (In Spiritu Sancto legitime congregata).” We must, however, remember that the Divine guarantee is perfect only when final decisions for the universal Church are given. In other cases it is merely presumptive, and this presumption is not sufficient to make the judgment infallible or to exact unconditional submission. The formula, “It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us,” does not necessarily imply that the accompanying judgment is infallible. The authority of the judgment depends upon the rank of the judge. Inferior ecclesiastical judges as a rule ask the Pope to ratify their decisions, or they add the qualification, “Saving the judgment or under correction of the Apostolic See (salvo judicio, sub correctione Sedis Apostolicæ).” Hence no process is complete and final until the Holy See has given its judgment.
We shall now examine the various sources of Decisions and Judgments.
SECT. 31.—PAPAL JUDGMENTS AND THEIR INFALLIBILITY
I. The Pope, the Father and Teacher of all Christians and the Head of the Universal Church, is the supreme judge in matters of Faith and Morals, and is the regulator and centre of Catholic Unity. His decisions are without appeal and are absolutely binding upon all. In order to possess this perfect right and power to exact universal assent and obedience it is necessary that they should be infallible. The Vatican Council, completing the definitions of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, the Second Council of Lyons, and the Council of Florence, and the Profession of Faith of Pope Hormisdas, thus defines Papal Infallibility: “The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when, in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding Faith or Morals to be held by the Universal Church—by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals; and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church.”
II. The person in whom the Infallibility is vested is the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra; that is to say, exercising the highest doctrinal authority inherent in the Apostolic See. Whenever the Pope speaks as Supreme Teacher of the Church, he speaks ex cathedra; nor is there any other ex cathedra teaching besides his. The definition therefore leaves no room for the sophistical distinction made by the Gallicans between the See and its occupant (Sedes, Sedens). An ex cathedra judgment is also declared to be supreme and universally binding. Its subject-matter is “doctrine concerning Faith or Morals;” that is, all and only such points of doctrine as are or may be proposed for the belief of the Faithful. The form of the ex cathedra judgment is the exercise of the Apostolic power with intent to bind all the Faithful in the unity of the Faith.
The nature and extent of the Infallibility of the Pope are also contained in the definition. This Infallibility is the result of a Divine assistance. It differs both from Revelation and Inspiration. It does not involve the manifestation of any new doctrine, or the impulse to write down what God reveals. It supposes, on the contrary, an investigation of revealed truths, and only prevents the Pope from omitting this investigation and from erring in making it. The Divine assistance is not granted to the Pope for his personal benefit, but for the benefit of the Church. Nevertheless, it is granted to him directly as the successor of St. Peter, and not indirectly through the medium of the Church. The extent of the Infallibility of the Pope is determined partly by its subject-matter, partly by the words “possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals.” Moreover, the object of the Infallibility of the Pope and of the Infallibility of the Church being the same, their extent must also coincide.
From the Infallibility of ex cathedra judgments, the council deduces their Irreformability, and further establishes the latter by excluding the consent of the Church as the necessary condition of it. The approbation of the Church is the consequence not the cause of the Irreformability of ex cathedra judgments.
III. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the documents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so. Recommendations, proofs, and explanations accompanying the decision are not necessarily infallible, except where the explanation is itself the dogmatic interpretation of a text of Scripture, or of a rule of Faith, or in as far as it fixes the meaning and extent of the definition. It is not always easy to draw the line between the definition and the other portions of the document. The ordinary rules for interpreting ecclesiastical documents must be applied. The commonest forms of ex cathedra decisions used at the present time are the following:—
1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.
2. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta cura, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.
3. Apostolic Letters and Briefs, even when not directly addressed to the whole Church, must be considered as ex cathedra when they attach censures to the denial of certain doctrines, or when, like Encyclicals, they define or condemn in strict judicial language, or in equivalent terms. But it is often extremely difficult to determine whether these letters are dogmatic or only monitory and administrative. Doubts on the subject are sometimes removed by subsequent declarations.
4. Lastly, the Pope can speak ex cathedra by confirming and approving of the decisions of other tribunals, such as general or particular councils, or Roman Congregations. In ordinary cases, however, the approbation of a particular council is merely an act of supervision, and the decision of a Roman Congregation is not ex cathedra unless the Pope makes it his own.
SECT. 32.—GENERAL COUNCILS
I. The Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is infallible independently of the consent of the subordinate members of the Teaching Body. On the other hand, the whole of the Bishops apart from the Pope cannot pronounce an infallible judgment. The Pope, however, can assemble the Bishops and constitute them into a tribunal which represents the Teaching Body more efficiently than the Pope alone. Their judgments given conjointly with his are the most complete expression of the Teaching Body. This assembly is termed a Universal or Ecumenical Council. It is not an independent tribunal superior to the Pope. It must be convened by him, or at least with his consent and co-operation; all the Bishops of the Church must be commanded, or at least invited to attend; a considerable number of Bishops must be actually present, either personally or by deputy; and the assembled prelates must conduct their deliberations and act under the direction of the Pope or his legates. Some of the Councils styled ecumenical do not, however, fulfil all of these conditions. The First and Second Councils of Constantinople are well-known instances. But these Councils were not originally considered as ecumenical except in the sense of being numerously attended, or on account of the ambition of the Patriarchs. It was only in the sixth century, some time after the Creed of the First Council of Constantinople had been adopted at Chalcedon, that this Council was put on a level with those of Nicæa, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. Similar remarks apply to the Second Council of Constantinople. See Hefele vol. i., p. 41, and vol. ii., § 100.
It may seem strange that none of the early Western Councils, although presided over by the Roman Pontiff and accepted by the whole Church, received the title of Ecumenical. This, however, may be easily accounted for. The Western Councils only represented the Roman patriarchate, and consequently their authority was identical with that of the Holy See. Moreover, before the Great Schism the notion of a General Council was that of a co-operation of the East with the West: in other words, of the other patriarchates with the patriarchate of Rome. The Eastern Bishops attended personally, whereas the Pope and the Western Council sent deputies. Thus a Council, although meeting in the East, was really composed of representatives of the whole Church. The later Councils held in the West were far more conformable to the theological notions already given, because the entire, episcopate was convened in one place, by express command, not by mere invitation, and the body of the Bishops acted on the strength of their Divine mission, no distinction being made in favour of patriarchs or metropolitans, or other dignitaries.
II. Councils, when defining a dogma, perform a double function: they act as witnesses and as judges. The cooperation of the Pope is especially required as supreme judge. Care must be taken not to lay too much stress on the function of witnessing, lest the importance of the papal co-operation be unduly minimized and the true notion of a council be distorted. It is true, indeed, that many expressions of the Fathers of the fourth century concerning the Council of Nicæa seem to insist almost exclusively on the witnessing function. We must, however, remember that this Council was the first of the General Councils, and that under the then existing circumstances an appeal to the solemn testimony of so many Bishops was the best argument against the heretics. The subsequent Councils, especially the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, followed quite a different line of action. Stress was there laid upon the judicial function, and consequently upon the influence of the Roman Pontiff and the various grades of hierarchical jurisdiction.
III. The special object of General Councils is to attain completely and perfectly the ends which particular councils can attain only partially and imperfectly. In relation to the Pope’s judgment, which is in itself a complete judgment, the object of General Councils is (1) to give the greatest possible assistance to the Pope in the preparation of his own judgment by means of the testimony and scientific knowledge of the assessors; (2) to give the Papal definition the greatest possible force and efficacy by the combined action and sentence of all the judges; and (3) to help the Pope in the execution and enforcement of his decisions by the promulgation and subsequent action of the assembled judges. The co-operation of the Council brings the testimony and the judicial power of the whole Church to bear upon the decision of the Pope.
IV. The action of General Councils essentially consists in the co-operation of the members with their Head. To the Pope therefore belongs the authoritative direction of all the proceedings of the Council. He can, if he chooses to exercise his right, determine what questions shall be dealt with and the manner of dealing with them. Hence no decision is legitimate if carried against his will or without his consent. Even a decision accepted by his legates, without an express order from him, is not absolutely binding. On the other hand, no decision is unlawful or void on account of a too extensive use of the papal right of direction, because in such a case the restriction of liberty is caused by the internal and legitimate principle of order, not by external and illegitimate pressure. The decision would not be illegitimate even if, as in many of the earlier Councils, and indeed in all Councils convoked for the purpose of promulgating and enforcing already existing papal decisions, the Pope commanded the acceptance of his sentence without any discussion. At most, the result of this pressure would affect the moral efficiency of the Council. On the other hand, the forcible expulsion of the papal legates from the “Latrocinum” (Council of Bandits) at Ephesus was rightly considered by the Catholics as a gross violation of the liberty of a Council. The sentence of the majority, or even the unanimous sentence, if taken apart from the personal action of the Pope, is not purely and simply the sentence of the entire Teaching Body, and therefore has no claim to infallibility. Such a sentence would not bind the absent Bishops to assent to it, or the Pope to confirm it. Its only effect would be to entitle the Pope to say that he confirms the sentence of a council, or that he speaks “with the approval of the Sacred Council” (sacro approbante concilio).
The Vatican Council, even in the Fourth Session, may be cited as an instance of a Council possessing in an eminent degree, not only the essential elements, but also what we may call the perfecting elements. The number of Bishops present was the greatest on record, both absolutely and in proportion to the number of Bishops in the world; the discussion was most free, searching, and exhaustive; universal tradition, past and present, was appealed to, not indeed as to the doctrine in question itself, but as to its fundamental principle, which is the duty of obedience to the Holy See and of conformity to her Faith; absolute unanimity prevailed in the final sentence, and an overwhelming majority even in the preparatory judgment.
The decrees of the General Councils may be found in the great collections of Labbe, Hardouin, Mansi, Catalani; the more important decrees are given in Denzinger’s Enchiridion.
SECT. 33.—THE ROMAN CONGREGATIONS—LOCAL OR PARTICULAR COUNCILS
I. The Roman Congregations are certain standing committees of Cardinals appointed by the Pope to give decisions on the various questions of doctrine and discipline which arise from time to time. The most important Congregations are the following:—
1. The Congregation of the Council of Trent;
2. The Congregation of Bishops and Regulars;
3. The Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith (Propaganda);
4. The Congregation of Sacred Rites;
5. The Congregation of the Index of Prohibited Books;
6. The Congregation of the Holy Office (the Inquisition).
To these must be added the Pœnitentiaria, which is a tribunal for granting absolutions from censures and dispensations in matters of vows and matrimonial impediments. It also passes judgment on moral cases submitted to its decision.
These Congregations have as their principal function the administration, or, if we may so term it, the general police of doctrine and discipline. It is their duty to prosecute offences against Faith or Morals, to prohibit dangerous writings, and to attach authoritative censures to any opinions the profession of which is sinful. They do not give decisions without appeal, because finality is inseparable from infallibility. Although they act in the Pope’s name, their decrees are their own and not his, even after receiving his acknowledgment and approbation. If, however, he himself gives a decision based upon the advice of a Congregation, such decision is his own and not merely the decision of the Congregation. What, then, is the authority of the Roman Congregations?
1. Doctrinal decrees of the Congregations, which are not fully and formally confirmed by the Pope, are not infallible. They have, however, such a strong presumption in their favour that even internal submission is due to them, at least for the time being. The reason of this is plain. The Congregations are composed of experienced men of all schools and tendencies; they proceed with the greatest prudence and conscientiousness; they represent the tradition of the Roman Church which is especially protected by the Holy Ghost. We may add that their decrees have seldom needed reform. Hence Pius IX. points out that learned Catholics “must submit to the doctrinal decisions given by the Pontifical Congregations” (Brief to the Archbishop of Munich, Tuas libenter, 1863).
2. If the Pope fully and formally confirms the decrees they become infallible. It is not easy, however, to decide whether this perfect confirmation has been given. Certain formulas, e.g. the simple approbavit, may signify nothing more than an act of supervision or an act of the Pope as head of the Congregation, and not as Head of the Church.
II. Particular or Local Councils are assemblies of the Bishops of a province or a nation as distinguished from assemblies of the Bishops of the world. When the council is composed of the Bishops of a single province, it is called a Provincial Council; when the Bishops of several provinces are present, it is called a Plenary or National Council. Thus in England, where there is only one province, the province of Westminster, the English Councils are called the “Westminster Provincial Councils.” In Ireland there are four provinces, and consequently when all the Irish Bishops meet in council the assembly is called the “National Council.” The usual name given to similar assemblies in the United States is Plenary Council. Every Particular Council must be convened with the approbation of the Holy See. The Bishops act indeed in virtue of their ordinary power, and not as papal delegates; nevertheless it is only fitting that they should act in union with their Head. Moreover, the decrees must be submitted to the approval of Rome. The approval granted is either Simple or Solemn (approbatio in forma simplici, approbatio in forma solemni). The Simple form, which is that usually granted, is a mere act of supervision, and emanates from the Congregation of the Council. The Solemn form is equivalent to an adoption of the decrees by the Holy See as its own, and is seldom granted. The Provincial Councils held against Pelagianism are well-known instances. In modern times, Benedict XIII. granted the solemn approbation to the decrees of the Council of Embrun. Without this solemn approval the decrees of Provincial Councils are not infallible. The presumption of truth in their favour depends partly on the number and the personal ability and character of the Bishops present, and partly on the nature of their proceedings and the wording of their decrees. Peremptory and formal affirmation of a doctrine as Catholic, or condemnation of a doctrine as erroneous, would not be tolerated by the Holy See unless such affirmation or condemnation was in accordance with the teaching of Rome; and consequently even the simple approval of decrees of this kind gives a strong presumption of truth. When, however, the decrees have not this peremptory and formal character, but are simply expositions of doctrine or admonitions to the Faithful, the presumption in their favour is not so strong.
See Bellarmine, De Conciliis; Benedict XIV., De Synodo Diocesana, 1. xiii. c. 3. The decrees of the various Provincial and other Particular Councils may be found in the great collections of Councils named above. The more recent decrees are given in the Collectio Lacensis (Herder, Freiburg). The Westminster Councils, of which four have been held, have been published by Burns and Oates. The most important National Council of Ireland is the Synod of Thurles held in 1851. There have been three Plenary Councils of Baltimore (United States), held in the years 1852, 1866, and 1884 respectively.
SECT. 34.—DOGMATIC CENSURES
I. The Vatican Council has spoken of the right of censure belonging to the Church in the following terms: “Moreover, the Church having received, together with the apostolic office of teaching, the command to keep the Deposit of the Faith, hath also the right and the duty of proscribing knowledge falsely so-called, lest any one should be deceived by philosophy or vain deceit. Wherefore all the Faithful are forbidden, not only to defend as legitimate conclusions of science opinions of this kind which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of the Faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, but are also bound to hold them rather as errors having the deceitful semblance of truth” (sess. iii., chap. 4). See also Pius IX.’s brief Gravissimas inter.
II. Dogmatic censures impose most strictly the duty of unreserved assent. In matters of Faith and Morals they afford absolute certainty that the doctrines or propositions censured are to be rejected in the manner required by the particular censure affixed to them. Sometimes the obligation of submitting to the Church’s judgment is expressly mentioned; e.g. in the Bull Unigenitus: “We order all the Faithful not to presume to form opinions about these propositions or to teach or preach them, otherwise than is determined in this our constitution.” In cases of this kind the infallibility of the censures is contained in the infallibility concerning Faith and Morals which belongs to the Teaching Apostolate, because submission to the censure is made a moral duty. No difference is here made between the binding power of lesser censures and that of the highest (heresy). Moreover, these censures bind not only by reason of the obedience due to the Church, but also on account of the certain knowledge which they give us of the falsity or untrustworthiness of the censured doctrines. To adhere to these doctrines is a grievous sin because of the strictness of the ecclesiastical prohibition sanctioned by the heaviest penalties, and also because all or nearly all the censures represent the censured act as grievously sinful.
The duty to reject a censured doctrine involves the right to assert and duty to admit the contradictory doctrine as sound, nay as the only sound and legitimate doctrine. The censures do not expressly state this right and duty, nevertheless the consideration of the meaning and drift of each particular censure clearly establishes both. In the case of censures which express categorically the Church’s certain judgment, such as “Heresy,” “Error,” “False,” “Blasphemous,” “Impious,” and also in cases where moral certainty is expressed, such as “Akin to Heresy,” “Akin to Error,” “Rash,” there can be no question as to this. Doubt might perhaps arise whether the other censures, such as “Wicked,” “Unsound,” “Unsafe,” and mere condemnations without any particular qualification, impose the duty of admitting the falsity of the condemned doctrines as at least morally certain, or whether it is enough to abstain from maintaining them. As a rule, however, we must not be content with the latter.
III. The Church’s judgment is also infallible when condemning doctrines and propositions in the sense meant by some determinate author. This infallibility is already contained in the infallibility of the censure itself when no distinction can be drawn between the meaning of the words and the meaning intended by the author. But, where this distinction can be drawn, the infallibility of the judgment concerning the author’s meaning is at least virtually contained in the infallibility of the censure itself. The Church sometimes condemns an author’s propositions in the sense conveyed by their context, and sometimes formulates propositions conveying the author’s meaning. In the former case the censure applies to the context as well as to the proposition; in the latter case there is a twofold censure, one on the propositions as formulated by the judge, and another on the text as containing the sense of the propositions. In neither of these cases would the censure be infallible, if it were not infallible in determining the sense of the author. For this reason the Church does not give a separate judgment to establish that a particular text conveys a particular meaning; she simply attaches the censure to the text as it stands.
These various distinctions were of great importance in the Jansenistic controversy. The Jansenists admitted that the five propositions censured by Innocent X. were worthy of condemnation, but denied that they were to be found in their master’s works.
SECT. 35.—DEVELOPMENT OF DOGMA
I. The truths which God has been pleased to reveal to mankind were not all communicated in the beginning. As time went on, the later Patriarchs had a larger stock of revealed truth than those who preceded them; the Prophets had a still larger share than the Patriarchs. But when the Church was founded, the stock of Revelation was completed, and no further truths were to be revealed (§ 6). The infallibility of the Church manifestly precludes any change in dogmas previously defined. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Church has not always possessed the same explicit knowledge of all points of doctrine and enforced them just in the same way as in the time of the Apostles. In what terms should this difference be stated?
II. 1. It is not enough to say that the difference between the earlier and the later documents is merely nominal; viz. that the terminology of the earlier Creeds is obscure and vague, while in the later ones it becomes clear and precise.
2. Nor, again, will it do to make use of the comparison of a scroll gradually unrolled or of a casket whose contents become gradually known. There is, indeed, some truth in these comparisons, but they cannot account for all the facts.
3. A better comparison is that the later defined doctrines are contained in the earlier ones as the conclusion of a syllogism Is contained in the premisses. This is to admit that there has been a real, though only logical, development in the Church’s doctrine. Such is the argument of St. Augustine in the dispute concerning the re-baptism of heretics. According to him, a dogma may pass through three stages: (1) implicit belief; (2) controversy; (3) explicit definition. Thus in the early ages the validity of heretical Baptism was admitted in practice by the fact of not repeating the Sacrament. But when the question was formally proposed, there seemed to be strong arguments both for and against the validity. At this stage the most orthodox teachers might, and indeed did, disagree. Finally, the matter was decided, and thenceforth no further discussion was lawful within the Church. (De Bapt, II. 12–14; Migne, ix. 133. See also Franzelin, De Trad., thes. xxiii.)
4. But can we not go further and admit an organic development? In the case of logical development all the conclusions are already contained in the premisses, and are merely drawn out of them, whereas in organic development the results are only potentially in the germs from which they spring (Mark 5:28–32). In organic development there is no alteration or corruption, no mere addition or accretion; there is vitality, absorption, assimilation, growth, identity. Take, for example, the doctrines mentioned above. Scripture teaches plainly that there is only one God; yet it speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and it speaks of Jesus Christ in such terms that He must be both God and Man. It was not until after some centuries that these truths were elaborated into the definitions which we are bound to believe. Who can doubt that during these centuries the primitive teaching absorbed into itself the appropriate Greek elements, and that the process was analogous to the growth of an organism? (Supra, p. xx.) This view of the organic development of the Church’s teaching is a conclusive answer to those who ask us to produce from ancient authorities the exact counterpart of what we now believe and practise. They might just as well look for the branches and leaves of an oak in the acorn from which it sprang.
“Shall we then have no advancement of religion in the Church of Christ? Let us have it indeed, and the greatest.… But yet in such sort that it be truly an advancement of faith, not a change (sed ita tamen ut vere profectus sit ille fidei, non permutatio), seeing that it is the nature of an advancement, that in itself each thing (severally) grow greater, but of a change that something be turned from one thing into another.… Let the soul’s religion imitate the law of the body, which, as years go on, develops indeed and opens out its due proportions, and yet remains identically what it was.… Small are a baby’s limbs, a youth’s are larger, yet they are the same.… So also the doctrine of the Christian religion must follow those laws of advancement; namely, that with years it be consolidated, with time it be expanded, with age it be exalted, yet remain uncorrupt and untouched, and be full and perfect in all the proportions of each of its parts, and with all its members, as it were, and proper senses; that it admit no change besides, sustain no loss of its propriety, no variety of its definition. Wherefore, whatsoever in this Church, God’s husbandry, has by the faith of our fathers been sown, that same must be cultivated by the industry of their children, that same flourish and ripen, that same advance and be perfected” (Commonitorium, nn. 28, 29).
III. Revelation does not follow the merely natural laws of development like any other body of thought. While it is indeed necessarily influenced by the natural environment in which it exists, this influence works under Divine Providence and the infallible guidance of the Church. Moreover, it can never come to pass that an early dogmatic definition should afterwards be revoked, or be understood in a sense at variance with the meaning originally attached to it by the Church. “The doctrine which God has revealed has not been proposed as some philosophical discovery to be perfected by the wit of man, but has been entrusted to Christ’s Spouse as a Divine deposit to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared. Hence sacred dogmas must ever be understood in the sense once for all (semel) declared by Holy Mother Church; and never must that sense be abandoned under pretext of pro-founder knowledge (altioris intelligentiæ).” (Vat. Council, Sess. iii. chap. 4.) On the whole subject, see Newman’s great work, Development of Christian Doctrine.
SECT. 36.—THE CHIEF DOGMATIC DOCUMENTS—CREEDS AND DECREES
The most important dogmatic documents are the Creeds, or Symbols of Faith, and the decrees of the Popes and of General and Particular Councils.
I. Creeds
1. The simplest and oldest Creed, which is the foundation of all the others, is the Apostles’ Creed. There are, however, twelve different forms of it, which are given in Denzinger’s Enchiridion. See Dublin Review, Oct., 1888, July, 1889; and Le Symbole des Apôtres, by Batiffol and Vacant, in the Dict. de Théol. Catholique.
2. The Nicene Creed, published by the Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325), defines the Divinity of Christ. It originally ended with the words, “and in the Holy Ghost.” The subsequent clauses concerning the Divinity of the Holy Ghost were added before the First Council of Constantinople. In its complete form it is now used in the Mass.
3. The Athanasian Creed was probably not composed by St. Athanasius, but is called by his name because it contains the doctrines so ably expounded and strenuously defended by him. It is aimed at the heresies of the fourth and fifth centuries, and dates back at least to the sixth or seventh century.
4. The Creed of Toledo, published by the sixth council of Toledo (A.D. 675), further develops the Athanasian Creed, and is the most complete of the authentic expositions of the dogmas of the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation. As it closely follows St. Augustine’s teaching, it might almost be called “St. Augustine’s Creed” with even more reason than the preceding creed is called the creed of St. Athanasius. See Denzinger, n. xxvi.
5. The Creed of Leo IX. is a free elaboration of the Nicene Creed, with some additions against Manichæans and Pelagians. See Denzinger, n. xxxix. It is still used at the consecration of Bishops.
6. The Creed of the Fourth Lateran Council, the famous caput Firmiter credimus, under Innocent III. (1215), which is the first Decretal in the Corpus Juris Canonici, is in substance similar to the foregoing, but further develops the doctrine concerning Sacrifice, Baptism, and particularly Transubstantiation. The subjoined condemnation of Abbot Joachim completes the dogmatic definition of the Holy Trinity. See Denzinger, n. lii.; also St. Thomas, Expositio Primæ et Secundæ Decretalis, Opuscc. xxiii. and xxiv.
7. The formula prescribed by the same Pope Innocent III. (1210) to the converts among the Waldenses, states more or less extensively the doctrine concerning the Sacraments, and also various matters of morals and discipline. Denzinger, n. liii.
8. The Confession of Faith made by Michael Palæologus in the Second Council of Lyons, 1274, accepted by Pope Gregory X., is based upon the Creed of Leo IX., but adds clauses containing the doctrine concerning the Four Last Things (Death, Judgment, Hell, Heaven), the Sacraments, and the Primacy of the Roman Church.
After the Council of Trent three more professions of Faith for the use of converts were issued by the Popes, all of which begin with the Nicene Creed, and contain in addition appropriate extracts from the decrees of several councils.
9. The so-called Tridentine Profession of Faith, drawn up in 1564 by Pius IV. for converts from Protestantism, recapitulates the most important decrees of the Council of Trent. Denzinger, n. lxxxii.
10. The Profession of Faith prescribed by Gregory XIII. to the Greeks contains the principal decrees of the Council of Florence concerning the Trinity, the Four Last Things, and the Primacy. Denzinger, n. lxxxiii.
11. Lastly, the Profession of Faith for the Easterns, prescribed by Urban VIII., is copied from the Decretum pro Jacobitis, published by the Council of Florence. It is a summary of the teaching of the first eight ecumenical councils, and contains the same extracts from the Council of Florence as the foregoing Profession. It also includes many definitions of the Council of Trent. It is composed on historical lines, and is the most complete of all the Creeds. Denzinger, n. lxxxiv.
II. The decrees of the Popes and the councils are sometimes negative and aphoristic, and sometimes positive and developed formulas. The drawing up of these formulas was, as a rule, the work of doctors or of particular Churches or of the Holy See; in a few cases these were the results of the combined labours of the bishops assembled in councils. In this respect the Council of Trent excelled all others. The various decrees are given in Denzinger’s Enchiridion.