Tradition and Living Magisterium

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The wordtradition (Greekparadosis) in theecclesiastical sense, which is the only one in which it is used here, refers sometimes to the thing (doctrine, account, or custom) transmitted from one generation to another; sometimes to the organ or mode of the transmission (kerigma ekklisiastikon, predicatio ecclesiastica).

In the first sense it is an old tradition thatJesus Christ was born on 25 December, in the second sense tradition relates that on the road to Calvary apious woman wiped the face ofJesus. Intheological language, which in many circumstances has become current, there is still greater precision and this in countless directions. At first there was question only of traditions claiming a Divine origin, but subsequently there arose questions of oral as distinct from written tradition, in the sense that a givendoctrine or institution is not directly dependent onHoly Scripture as its source but only on the oral teaching of Christ or theApostles. Finally with regard to the organ of tradition it must be an official organ, amagisterium, or teaching authority.

Now in this respect there are several points of controversy betweenCatholics and every body ofProtestants. Is allrevealedtruth consigned toHoly Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted thatChrist gave to HisApostles to be transmitted to HisChurch, that the Apostles received either from the very lips ofJesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine instructions which they transmitted to theChurch and which were not committed to the inspired writings? Must it be admitted thatChrist instituted HisChurch as the official and authentic organ to transmit and explain in virtue of Divine authority the Revelation made to men? TheProtestant principle is: The Bible and nothing but theBible; theBible, according to them, is the soletheological source; there are norevealedtruths save thetruths contained in theBible; according to them theBible is the solerule of faith: by it and by it alone should all dogmatic questions be solved; it is the only binding authority.Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certainrevealedtruths apart from those contained in theBible; they hold furthermore thatJesus Christ has established in fact, and that to adapt the means to the end He should have established, a living organ as much to transmit Scripture and written Revelation as to placerevealedtruth within reach of everyone always and everywhere. Such are in this respect the two main points of controversy betweenCatholics and so-calledorthodoxProtestants (as distinguished from liberalProtestants, who admit neithersupernatural Revelation nor the authority of theBible). The other differences are connected with these or follow from them, as also the differences between differentProtestantsects--according as they are more or less faithful to theProtestant principle, they recede from or approach theCatholic position.

BetweenCatholics and theChristiansects of the East there are not the same fundamental differences, since both sides admit the Divine institution and Divine authority of theChurch with the more or less living and explicit sense of itsinfallibility and indefectibility and its other teaching prerogatives, but there are contentions concerning the bearers of the authority, the organic unity of the teaching body, theinfallibility of the pope, and the existence and nature of dogmatic development in the transmission ofrevealedtruth. Nevertheless thetheology of tradition does not consist altogether in controversy and discussions with adversaries. Many questions arise in this respect for everyCatholic who wishes to give an exact account of hisbelief and the principles he professes: What is the precise relation between oral tradition and therevealedtruths in theBible and that between the living magisterium and the inspired Scriptures? May newtruths enter the current of tradition, and what is the part of the magisterium with regard to revelations whichGod may yet make? How is this official magisterium organized, and how is it to recognize a Divine tradition orrevealedtruth? What is its proper rôle with regard to tradition? Where and how arerevealedtruths preserved and transmitted? What befalls the deposit of tradition in its transmission through the ages? These and similar questions are treated elsewhere in the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, but here we must separate and group all that has reference to tradition and to the living magisterium inasmuch as it is the organ of preservation and transmission of traditional andrevealedtruth.

The following are the points to be treated:

I. The existence of Divine traditions not contained inHoly Scripture, and the Divine institution of the living magisterium to defend and transmitrevealedtruth and the prerogative of this magisterium;
II. The relation of Scripture to the living magisterium, and of the living magisterium to Scripture;
III. The proper mode of existence ofrevealedtruth in the mind of theChurch and the way to recognize thistruth;
IV. The organization and exercise of the living magisterium; its precise rôle in the defence and transmission ofrevealedtruth; its limits, and modes of action;
V. The identity ofrevealedtruth in the varieties of formulas, systematization, and dogmatic development; the identity offaith in theChurch and through the variations oftheology.

A full treatment of these questions would require a lengthy development; here only a brief outline can be given, the reader being referred to special works for a fuller explanation.

Divine traditions not contained in Holy Scripture; institution of the living magisterium; its prerogatives

Luther's attacks on theChurch were at first directed only againstdoctrinal details, but the very authority of theChurch was involved in the dispute, and this soon became evident to both sides. However the controversy continued for many years to turn on particular points of traditional teaching rather than on the teaching authority and the chief weapons were Biblical texts. TheCouncil of Trent, even while implying in its decisions andanathemas the authority of the living magisterium (which theProtestants themselves dared not explicitly deny), while appealing to ecclesiastical tradition and the sense of theChurch either for the determination of the canon or for the interpretation of some passages ofHoly Scripture, even while making a rule of interpretation in Biblical matters, did not pronounce explicitly concerning the teaching authority, contenting itself with saying thatrevealedtruth is found in the sacred books and in the unwritten traditions coming fromGod through the Apostles; these were the sources from which it would draw. The Council, as is evident, held that there are Divine traditions not contained inHoly Scripture, revelations made to the Apostles either orally byJesus Christ or by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and transmitted by theApostles to theChurch.

Holy Scripture is therefore not the onlytheological source of the Revelation made byGod to HisChurch. Side by side with Scripture there is tradition, side by side with the written revelation there is the oral revelation. This granted, it is impossible to be satisfied with theBible alone for the solution of all dogmatic questions. Such was the first field of controversy betweenCatholictheologians and theReformers. The designation of unwritten Divine traditions was not always given all the clearness desirable especially in early times; howeverCatholic controversialists soonproved to theProtestants that to belogical and consistent they must admit unwritten traditions as revealed. Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday? How could they regard infantbaptism as valid, orbaptism by infusion? How could they permit the taking of anoath, sinceChrist had commanded that we swear not at all? TheQuakers were morelogical in refusing alloaths, theAnabaptists in re-baptizing adults, theSabbatarians in resting on Saturday. But none were so consistent as not to be open to criticism on some point. Where is it indicated in theBible that theBible is the sole source offaith? Going further, theCatholic controversialists showed their opponents that of this very Bible, to which alone they wished to refer, they could not have the authentic canon nor even a sufficient guarantee without an authority other than that of theBible.Calvin parried the blow by having recourse to a certain taste to which the Divine word would manifest itself as such in the same way that honey is recognized by the palate. And this in fact was the only loophole, forCalvin recognized that no human authority was acceptable in this matter. But this was a very subjective criterion and one calling for caution. TheProtestants dared not adhere to it. They came eventually, after rejecting the Divine tradition received from the Apostles by theinfallible Church, to rest theirfaith in theBible only as a human authority, which moreover was especially insufficient under the circumstances, since it opened up all manner ofdoubts and prepared the way for Biblicalrationalism. There is not, in fact, any sufficient guarantee for the canon of the Scriptures, for the total inspiration or inerrancy of theBible, save in a Divine testimony which, not being contained in the Holy Books with sufficient clearness and amplitude, nor being sufficiently recognizable to the scrutiny of a scholar who is only a scholar, does not reach us with thenecessary warrant it would bear if brought by a Divinely assisted authority, as is, according toCatholics, the authority of the living magisterium of theChurch. Such is the way in whichCatholics demonstrate toProtestants that there should be and that there are in fact Divine traditions not contained inHoly Writ.

In a similar way they show that they cannot dispense with a teaching authority, a Divinely authorized living magistracy for the solution of controversies arising among themselves and of which theBible itself was often the occasion. Indeed experienceproved that each man found in theBible his ownideas, as was said by one of the earliest reforming sectarians: "Hic liber est in quo quaerit sua dogmata quisque, invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua." One man found theReal Presence, another a purely symbolic presence, another some sort of efficacious presence. The exercise of free inquiry with regard to Biblical texts led to endless disputes, todoctrinalanarchy, and eventually to the denial of alldogma. These disputes,anarchy, and denial could not be according to the Divine intention. Hence the necessity of a competent authority to solve controversies and interpret theBible. To say that theBible was perfectly clear and sufficient to all was obviously a retort born of desperation, a defiance of experience and common sense.Catholics refuted it without difficulty, and their position was amply justified when theProtestants began compromising themselves with thecivil power, rejecting thedoctrinal authority of theecclesiastical magisterium only to fall under that of princes.

Moreover it was enough to look at theBible, to read it without prejudice to see that the economy of theChristian preaching was above all one of oral teaching.Christ preached, He did not write. In His preaching He appealed to theBible, but He was not satisfied with the mere reading of it, He explained and interpreted it, He made use of it in His teaching, but He did not substitute it for His teaching. There is the example of the mysterious traveller who explained to the disciples ofEmmaus what had reference to Him in the Scriptures to convince them thatChrist had to suffer and thus enter into His glory. And as He preached Himself so He sent HisApostles to preach; He did not commission them to write but to teach, and it was by oral teaching and preaching that they instructed the nations and brought them to the Faith. If some of them wrote and did so underDivine inspiration it is manifest that this was as it were incidentally. They did not write for the sake of writing, but to supplement their oral teaching when they could not go themselves to recall or explain it, to solve practical questions, etc.St. Paul, who of all the Apostles wrote the most, did not dream of writing everything nor of replacing his oral teaching by his writings. Finally, the same texts which show us Christ instituting HisChurch and the Apostles founding Churches and spreadingChrist'sdoctrine throughout the world show us at the same time theChurch instituted as a teaching authority; the Apostles claimed for themselves this authority, sending others as they had been sent byChrist and as Christ had been sent byGod, always with power to teach and to imposedoctrine as well as to govern theChurch and tobaptize. Whoever believed them would be saved; whoever refused to believe them would be condemned. It is the living Church and not Scripture thatSt. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground oftruth. And the inference of texts and facts is only what is exacted by the nature of things. A book although Divine and inspired is not intended to support itself. If it is obscure (and what unprejudicedperson will deny that there are obscurities in theBible?) it must be interpreted. And even if it is clear it does not carry with it the guarantee of its Divinity, its authenticity, or its value. Someone must bring it within reach and no matter what be done the believer cannotbelieve in theBible nor find in it the object of hisfaith until he has previously made an act offaith in the intermediary authorities between the word ofGod and his reading. Now, authority for authority, is it not better to have recourse to that of theChurch than to that of the first comer? LiberalProtestants, such as M. Auguste Sabatier, have been the first to recognize that, if there must be a religion of authority, theCatholic system with the splendid organization of its living magisterium is far superior to theProtestant system, which rests everything on the authority of a book.

The prerogatives of this teaching authority are made sufficiently clear by the texts and they are to a certain extent implied in the very institution. TheChurch, according toSt. Paul's Epistle to Timothy, is the pillar and ground oftruth; the Apostles and consequently their successors have theright to impose theirdoctrine; whosoever refuses to believe them shall be condemned, whosoever rejects anything is shipwrecked in theFaith. This authority is thereforeinfallible. And thisinfallibility is guaranteed implicitly but directly by the promise of theSaviour: "Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world." Briefly theChurch continues Christ in its mission to teach as in its mission to sanctify; its power is the same as that which He received from His Father and, as He came full oftruth no less than of grace, theChurch is likewise an institution oftruth as it is an institution of grace. Thisdoctrine was intended to be spread throughout the world despite so many obstacles of every kind, and the accomplishment of the task requiredmiracles. So did Christ give to his Apostles themiraculous power which guaranteed their teaching. As He Himself confirmed His words by His works He wished that they also should present with theirdoctrine unexceptionable motives for credibility. Theirmiracles were the Divine seals of their mission and their Apostolate. The Divine seal has always been stamped on the teaching authority. It is notnecessary that every missionary should workmiracles, theChurch herself is an ever-livingmiracle, bearing always on her brow the unexceptionable witness thatGod is with her.

The relation of Scripture to the living magisterium, and of the living magisterium to Scripture

This relation is the same as that between the Gospel and the Apostolic preaching. Christ made use of theBible, He appealed to it as to an irrefragable authority, He explained and interpreted it and furnished the key to it, with it he shed light on His owndoctrine and mission. The Apostles did in like manner when they spoke to theJews. Both sides had access to the Scriptures in a text admitted by all, both recognized in them a Divine authority, as in the very word ofGod. This was also the way of the faithful in their studies and discussions; but withpagans and unbelievers it wasnecessary to begin with presenting theBible and guaranteeing its authority — theChristian doctrine concerning theBible had to be explained to the faithful themselves, and the guarantee of thisdoctrine demonstrated. The Bible had been committed to the care of the living magisterium. It was theChurch's part to guard theBible, to present it to the faithful in authorized editions or accurate translations, it was for her to make known the nature and value of the Divine Book by declaring what sheknew regarding its inspiration and inerrancy, it was for her to supply the key by explaining why and how it had been inspired, how it contained Revelation, how the proper object of that Revelation was not purely human instruction but a religious and moraldoctrine with a view to oursupernatural destiny and the means to attain it, how, theOld Testament being a preparation and annunciation of theMessias and the newdispensation, there might be found beneath the husk of the letter typical meanings, figures, and prophecies. It was for theChurch in consequence to determine the authentic canon, to specify the special rules and conditions for interpretation, to pronounce in case ofdoubt as to the exact sense of a given book or text, and even whennecessary to safeguard the historical, prophetical, or apologetic value of a given text or passage, to pronounce in certain questions of authenticity,chronology,exegesis, or translation, either to reject an opinion compromising the authority of the book or theveracity of itsdoctrine or to maintain a given body ofrevealedtruth contained in a given text. It was above all for theChurch to circulate the Divine Book by minting itsdoctrine, adapting and explaining it, by offering it and drawing from it nourishment wherewith to nourishsouls, briefly by supplementing the book, making use of it, and assisting others to make use of it. This is thedebt of Scripture to the living magisterium.

On the other hand the living magisterium owes much to Scripture. There it finds the word ofGod, new-blown so to speak, as it was expressed under Divine agency by the inspired author; while oral tradition, although faithfully transmittingrevealedtruth with the Divine assistance, nevertheless transmits it only in human formulas. Scripture gives us beyonddoubt to a certain extent a human expression of thetruth which it presents, since thistruth is developed in and by a human brain acting in a human manner, but also to a certain extent Divine, since this human development takes place wholly under the action ofGod. So also with due proportion it may be said of the inspired word what Christ said of His: It is spirit and life. In a sense differing from theProtestant sense which sometimes goes so far as to deify theBible, but, in atrue sense, we admit thatGod speaks to us in theBible more directly than in oral teaching. The latter, moreover, ever faithful to the recommendations whichSt. Paul made to his disciple Timothy, does not fail to have recourse to Biblical sources for its instruction and to draw thence the heavenlydoctrine, to take thence with thedoctrine a sure, ever-young, and ever-living expression of thisdoctrine, one more adequate than any other despite the inevitable inadaptability of human formulas to divine realities In the hands of masters Scripture may become a sharp defensive and offensive weapon againsterror andheresy. When a controversy arises recourse is had first to theBible. Frequently when decisive texts are found masters wield them skilfully and in such a way as to demonstrate their irresistible force. If none are found of thenecessary clearness the assistance of Scripture is not thereby abandoned. Guided by the clear sense of the living and luminoustruth, which it bears within itself, by its likeness tofaith defended at need againsterror by the Divine assistance, the living magisterium strives, explains, argues, and occasionally subtilizes in order to bring forward texts which, if they lack an independent and absolute value, have anad hominem force, or value, through the authority of the authentic interpreter, whose very thought, if it is not, or is not clearly, in Scripture, nevertheless stands forth with a distinctness or new clearness in this manipulation of Scripture, by this contact with it.

Manifestly there is no question here of a meaning which is not in Scripture and which the magisterium reads into it by imposing it as the Biblical meaning. This individual writers may do and have sometimes done, for they are notinfallible asindividuals, but not the authentic magisterium. There is question only of the advantage which the living magisterium draws from Scripture whether to attain a clearer consciousness of its own thought, to formulate it in hieratic terms, or to triumphantly reject an opinion favourable toerror orheresy. As regards Biblical interpretation properly so called theChurch isinfallible in the sense that, whether by authentic decision ofpope or council, or by its current teaching that a given passage of Scripture has a certain meaning, this meaning must be regarded as thetrue sense of the passage in question. It claims this power ofinfallible interpretation only in matters offaith andmorals, that is where religious or moraltruth is in danger, directly, if the text or passage belongs to the moral andreligious order; indirectly, if in assigning a meaning to a text or book theveracity of theBible, its moral value, or thedogma of its inspiration or inerrancy is imperilled. Without going further into the manifold services which theBible renders to the living magisterium mention must nevertheless be made as particularly important of its services in the apologetic order. In fact Scripture by its historic value, which is indisputable and undisputed on many points, furnishes theapologist with irrefragable arguments in support ofsupernatural religion. It contains for examplemiracles whose reality is impressed on the historian with the samecertainty as the most acknowledged facts. This istrue and perhaps more strikingly so of the argument from the prophecies, for the Scriptures, the Old as well as theNew Testament, contain manifest prophecies, the fulfilment of which we behold either in Christ and HisApostles or in the later development of theChristian religion.

In view of all this it will be readily understood that since the time ofSt. Paul theChurch has urgently recommended to herministers the study ofHoly Scripture, that she has watched with a jealous authority over its integral transmission, its exact translation, and its faithful interpretation If occasionally she has seemed to restrict its use or its diffusion this too was through an easily comprehensiblelove and a particular esteem for theBible, that the sacred Book might not like a profane book be made a ground for curiosity, endless discussions, and abuses of every kind. In short, since theChurch at last proves to be the best safeguard forhumanreason against the excesses of an unbridled reason, so by the very avowal of sincereProtestants does she show herself at the present day the best defender of theBible against an unrestrained Biblicism or an unchecked criticism.

The proper mode of existence of revealed truth in the mind of the Church and the way to recognize this truth

There is a formula current inChristian teaching (and the formula is borrowed fromSt. Paul himself) that traditionaltruth was confided to theChurch as a deposit which it would guard and faithfully transmit as it had received it without adding to it or taking anything away. This formula expresses very well one of the aspects of tradition and one of the principal rôles of the living magisterium. But thisidea of a deposit should not make us lose sight of thetrue manner in which traditionaltruth lives and is transmitted in theChurch. This deposit in fact is not an inanimate thing passed from hand to hand; it is not, properly speaking, an assemblage of doctrines and institutions consigned to books or other monuments. Books and monuments of every kind are a means, an organ of transmission, they are not, properly speaking, the tradition itself. To better understand the latter it must be represented as a current of life andtruth coming fromGod through Christ and through the Apostles to the last of the faithful who repeats his creed and learns hiscatechism. This conception of tradition is not always clear to all at the first glance. It must be reached, however, if we wish to form a clear and exactidea. We can endeavour to explain it to ourselves in the following manner: We are all conscious of an assemblage ofideas or opinions living in our mind and forming part of the very life of our mind, sometimes they find their clear expression, again we find ourselves without the exact formula wherewith to express them to ourselves or to others anidea is in search as it were of its expression, sometimes it even acts in us and leads us to actions without our having as yet the reflective consciousness of it. Something similar may be said of theideas or opinions which live, as it were, and stir the social sentiment of a people, afamily, or any other well-characterized group to form what is called the spirit of the day, the spirit of afamily, or the spirit of a people.

This common sentiment is in a sense nothing else than the sum of individual sentiments, and yet we feel clearly that it is quite another thing than the individual taken individually. It is a fact of experience that there is a common sentiment, as if there were such a thing as a common spirit, and as if this common spirit were the abode of certainideas and opinions which are doubtless theideas and opinions of each man, but which take on a peculiar aspect in each man inasmuch as they are theideas and opinions of all. The existence of tradition in theChurch must be regarded as living in the spirit and the heart, thence translating itself into acts, and expressing itself in words or writings; but here we must not have in mind individual sentiment, but the common sentiment of theChurch, the sense or sentiment of thefaithful, that is, of all who live by its life and are in communion of thought among themselves and with her. The livingidea is theidea of all, it is theidea ofindividuals, not merely inasmuch as they areindividuals, but inasmuch as they form part of the same social body. This sentiment of theChurch is peculiar in this, that it is itself under the influence of grace. Hence it follows that it is not subject, like that of other human groups toerror and thoughtless or culpable tendencies. TheSpirit of God always living in HisChurch upholds the sense ofrevealedtruth ever living therein.

Documents of all kinds (writings, monuments, etc.) are in the hands of masters, as of thefaithful, a means of finding or recognizing therevealedtruth confided to theChurch under the direction of herpastors. There is between written documents and the living magisterium of theChurch a relation similar, proportionately speaking, to that already outlined between Scripture and the living magisterium. In them is found the traditional thought expressed according to varieties of environments and circumstances, no longer in an inspired language, as is the case with Scripture, but in a purely human language, consequently subject to the imperfections and shortcomings of human thought. Nevertheless the more the documents are the exact expression of the living thought of theChurch the more they thereby possess the value and authority which belong to that thought because they are so much the better expression of tradition. Often formulas of the past have themselves entered the traditional current and become the official formulas of theChurch. Hence it will be understood that the living magisterium searches in the past, now for authorities in favour of its present thought in order to defend it against attacks or dangers of mutilation, now for light to walk the right road without straying. The thought of theChurch is essentially a traditional thought and the living magisterium by taking cognizance of ancient formulas of this thought thereby recruits its strength and prepares to give to immutabletruth a new expression which shall be in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within reach of contemporaryminds. Revealedtruth has sometimes found definitive formulas from the earliest times; then the living magisterium has only had to preserve and explain them and put them in circulation. Sometimes attempts have been made to express thistruth, without success. It even happens that, in attempting to expressrevealedtruth in the terms of some philosophy or to fuse it with some current of human thought, it has been distorted so as to be scarcely recognizable, so closely mingled witherror that it becomes difficult to separate them. When theChurch studies the ancient monuments of herfaith she casts over the past the reflection of her living and present thought and by some sympathy of thetruth of today with that of yesterday she succeeds in recognizing through the obscurities and inaccuracies of ancient formulas the portions of traditionaltruth, even when they are mixed witherror. TheChurch is also (as regards religious and moral doctrines) the best interpreter of truly traditional documents; she recognizes as byinstinct what belongs to the current of her living thought and distinguishes it from the foreign elements which may have become mixed with it in the course of centuries.

The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It isrevealedtruth always living in the mind of theChurch, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of theChurch in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts astrue or rejects asfalse the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of theFathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings--she judges them more than she is judged by them. Harnack has said that theChurch is accustomed to conceal her evolution and to efface as well as she can the differences between her present and her former thought by condemning asheretical the most faithful witnesses of what was formerlyorthodoxy. Not understanding what tradition is, the ever-living thought of theChurch, he believes that sheabjured her past when she merely distinguished between what was traditionaltruth in the past and what was only human alloy mixed with thattruth, the personal opinion of an author substituting itself for the general thought of theChristian community. With regard to official documents, the expression of theinfallible magisterium of theChurch embodied in the decision of councils, or the solemn judgments of thepopes, theChurch never gainsays what she has once decided. She is then linked with her past because in this past her entire self is concerned and not any fallible organ of her thought. Hence she still finds herdoctrine andrule of faith in these venerable monuments; the formulas may have grown old, but thetruth which they express is always her present thought.

The organization and exercise of the living magisterium; its precise rôle in the defence and transmission of revealed truth--its limits and modes of action

Closer study of the living magisterium will enable us to better understand the splendid organism created byGod and gradually developed that it might preserve, transmit, and bring within the reach of allrevealedtruth, ever the same, but adapted to every variety of time, circumstances, and environment. Properly speaking, this magisterium is a teaching authority; it not only presents thetruth, but it has theright to impose it, since its power is the very power given byGod toChrist and byChrist to HisChurch. This authority is called the teaching Church. The teaching Church is essentially composed of the episcopal body, which continues here below the work and mission of the Apostolic College. It was indeed in the form of acollege or social body thatChrist grouped HisApostles and it is likewise as a social body that the episcopate exercises its mission to teach.Doctrinal infallibility has been guaranteed to the episcopal body and to the head of that body as it was guaranteed to the Apostles, with this difference, however, between the Apostles and thebishops that each Apostle was personallyinfallible (in virtue of his extraordinary mission as founder and the plenitude of the Holy Ghost received on Pentecost by the Twelve and later communicated toSt. Paul as to the Twelve), whereas only the body ofbishops isinfallible and eachbishop is not so, save in proportion as he teaches in communion and concert with the entire episcopal body.

At the head of this episcopal body is the supreme authority of theRoman pontiff, thesuccessor of St. Peter in his primacy as he is his successor in hissee. As supreme authority in the teaching body, which isinfallible, he himself isinfallible. The episcopal body isinfallible also, but only in union with its head, from whom moreover it may not separate, since to do so would be to separate from the foundation on which theChurch is built. The authority of thepope may be exercised without the co-operation of thebishops, and this even ininfallible decisions which bothbishops and faithful are bound to receive with the same submission. The authority of thebishops may be exercised in two ways; now eachbishop teaches the flock confided to him, again thebishops assemble in council to draw up together and passdoctrinal or disciplinary decrees. When all thebishops of theCatholic world (this totality is to be understood as morally speaking; it suffices for the whole Church to be represented) are thus assembled in council the council is called oecumenical. Thedoctrinal decrees of an oecumenical council, once they are approved by thepope, areinfallible as are the ex cathedra definitions of thesovereign pontiff. Although thebishops, taken individually, are notinfallible their teaching participates in theinfallibility of theChurch according as they teach in concert and in union with the episcopal body, that is according as they express not their personalideas, but the very thought of theChurch.

Beside thesovereign pontiff are theRoman Congregations, many of which are especially concerned withdoctrinal questions. Some of them, such as the Congregation of the Index, are not so concerned save from a disciplinary standpoint, by prohibiting the reading of certain books, regarded as dangerous tofaith ormorals, if not by the verydoctrine which they contain, at least by their way of expressing it or by their unreasonableness. Other congregations, that of theInquisition, for example, have a more directlydoctrinal authority. This authority is neverinfallible; it is nevertheless binding and exacts a religious submission, interior as well as exterior. Nevertheless this interior submission does not necessarily bear on the absolutetruth orfalsity of thedoctrine concerned in thedecree, it may only bear on the safety or danger of a certain teaching or opinion, thedecree itself usually having in view only the moral qualification of thedoctrine. To assist them in theirdoctrinal task thebishops have all those who teach by their authority or under their surveillance;pastors andcurates, professors inecclesiastical establishments, in a word, all who teach or explainChristian doctrine.

Theological teaching in all its forms (inseminaries,universities, etc.) gives valuable assistance as a whole to the teaching authority and to all who teach under that authority. In the study oftheology the masters themselves have acquired theknowledge which usually assists them to discerntruth or falsehood indoctrinal matters, they have drawn thence what they themselves are to provide.Theologians as such do not form a part of the teaching Church, but as professional expounders ofrevealedtruth they study it scientifically, they collect and systematize it, they illumine it with all the lights ofphilosophy, history, etc. They are, as it were, the natural consultors of the teaching authority, to furnish it with thenecessary information and data; they thereby prepare and sometimes in an even more direct manner by their reports, their written consultations, their projects orschemata, and their preparatory redactions the official documents which the teaching authority completely develops and publishes authoritatively. On the other hand, their scientific works are useful for the instruction of those who should spread and popularize thedoctrine, put it in circulation, and adapt it to all by speech or writings of every kind. It is evident what marvellous unity is attained on this point alone inecclesiastical teaching and how the sametruth, descended from above, distributed through a thousand different channels, finally comes pure and undefiled to the most lowly and the mostignorant.

This multifarious work, of scientific exposition as well as of popularization and propaganda, is likewise assisted by the countless written forms of religious teaching, among which catechisms have a special character ofdoctrinal security, approved as they are by the teaching authority and claiming only to set forth with clearness and precision the teaching common in theChurch. Thus the child who learns hiscatechism may, provided he is informed of it, take cognizance that thedoctrine presented to him is not the personal opinion of the volunteer catechist or of thepriest who communicates it to him. Thecatechism is the same in all theparishes of adiocese, apart from a few differences of detail which have no bearing ondoctrine all the catechisms of a country are alike; the differences between those of one country and another are scarcely perceptible. It is truly the mind of theChurch received fromGod orChrist and transmitted by theApostles to theChristiansociety which thus reaches even little children by the voice of the catechist, or the savage by that of the missionary. This diffusion of the sametruth throughout the world and this unity of the samefaith among the most diverse peoples is a marvel which by itself forces the recognition thatGod is with HisChurch.St. Irenæus in his time was in admiration of it and he expressed his admiration in language of such brilliancy and poetry as is seldom to be met with in the venerableBishop ofLyons. The outer and visible cause of its diffusion and unity is the splendid organization of the living magisterium. This magisterium was not instituted to receive newtruths, but to guard, transmit, propagate, and preserverevealedtruth from every admixture oferror, and to cause it to prevail. Moreover the magisterium should not be considered as external to the community of thefaithful. Those who teach cannot and should not teach save what they have learned themselves, those who have the office of teachers have been chosen from among the faithful and they first of all areobliged to believe what they propose to thefaith of others. Moreover they usually propose to thebelief of the faithful only thetruths of which the latter have already made more or less explicit profession. Sometimes it is even by sounding as it were the common sentiment of theChurch, still more by scrutinizing the monuments of the past, that masters andtheologians discover that such and such adoctrine, perhaps in dispute, belongs nevertheless to the traditional deposit. More than one among the faithful may be unconscious of personalbelief in it, but if he is in union of thought with theChurch he believes implicitly that which perhaps he declines to recognize explicitly as an object of hisfaith. It was thus with regard to thedogma of the Immaculate Conception before it was inserted in the explicitfaith of theChurch.

Hence there is between the teaching Church and the faithful an intimate union of thought and heart. The teaching authority loses nothing of itsrights; these are limited only from above by the very conditions of the command which they have received. But the exercise of this authority is by so much more certain and easy as thefaithful, generally, so to speak, confirm by their adhesion the decisions of this authority: adogmatic definition scarcely does more than sanction thefaith already existing in theChristian community. The better to understand, adapt, and preserverevealedtruth against attacks orerrors the masters in theChurch and the professors oftheology naturally appeal to all the resources offered by humanscience. Among thesesciences philosophy, history, languages, philology in all its forms necessarily have an important place in the arsenal of the teaching magisterium. With regard totheological systematization in particular, philosophy necessarily intervenes to assisttheology better to comprehendrevealedtruth, the better to synthesize traditional data, and the better to explain the dogmaticidea. In theMiddle Ages a fruitful alliance was formed betweenScholastic philosophy andtheology. It may happen that philosophy and the other humansciences are at variance withtheology, thescience ofrevealedtruth. The conflict is never insoluble, for thetrue can never be opposed to thetrue, nor the humantruth ofphilosophy andhumanknowledge to thesupernaturaltruth oftheology. But the fact remains that scientific hypothesis,science which seeks itself, and philosophy which develops itself sometimes seem in opposition torevealedtruth. In this case the teaching Church has the right, in order to preserve traditionaltruth, to condemn the assertions, opinions, and hypotheses which, although not direct denials, nevertheless endanger it or rather expose somesouls to the loss of it. Authority has need to be prudent in these condemnations and it is well known that the cases are very rare when it may be asserted with any appearance of justification that it has not been sufficiently so, but its right to interfere is indisputable for anyone who admits the Divine institution of the magisterium.

There are then between purely profane facts and opinions andrevealedtruths mixed facts and opinions which by their nature belong to the human order, but which are in intimate contact and close connexion withsupernaturaltruth. These facts are calleddogmatic facts and these opinionstheological opinions. In very virtue of its mission the teaching authority hasjurisdiction over these facts and opinions; it is even a positivetruth, if not arevealedtruth, thatdogmatic facts andtheological opinions may also like dogmatictruths themselves be the object of aninfallible decision. TheChurch is no lessinfallible in maintaining that the five famous propositions are inJansenism than in condemning these propositions asheretical. A distinction must be made between dogmatic traditions orrevealedtruths,pious traditions,liturgical customs, and the accounts ofsupernatural manifestations or revelations which circulate in the world ofChristianpiety. When theChurch intervenes in order to pronounce in these matters it is never to canonize them, if we may so speak, nor to give them an authority offaith; in such cases it claims only to preserve them against temerarious attacks, to pronounce that they contain nothing contrary tofaith ormorals, and to recognize in them a human value sufficient forpiety to nourish itself therewith freely and without danger.

The identity of revealed truth in the varieties of formulas, systematization, and dogmatic development, the identity of faith in the Church and through the variations of theology

The saying of Sully Prud'homme is well known, "How is it that this which is so complicated (the"Summa" ofSt. Thomas) has proceeded from what was so simple (the Gospel)?" In fact when we read atheological treatise or the profession offaith and anti-Modernistoath imposed byPius X they seem at first glance very different from theHoly Scripture or theApostles' Creed. On closer study we become aware that the differences are not irreconcilable; despite appearances the "Summa" and the anti-Modernistoath are naturally linked with the Scripture and thefaith of the firstChristians. To grasp thoroughly the identity ofrevealedtruth such as was believed in the early centuries with thedogmas which we now profess, it isnecessary to study thoroughly the process of dogmatic expression in the complete history ofdogma andtheology. It is sufficient here to indicate its general outlines and characteristics. That which was shown in Scripture or theEvangelic Revelation as a living reality (the Divine Person ofJesus Christ) has been formulated in abstract terms (oneperson, two natures) or in concrete formulas (my Father and I are one); men passed constantly from the implicit seen or received to the explicit reasoned and reflected upon; they analyzed the complex data, compared the separate elements, built up a system of the scatteredtruths; they cleared up by analogies offaith and the light of reason points which were still obscure and fused them into a whole, in whose parts the data of Divine Revelation and those ofhumanknowledge were sometimes difficult to distinguish. Briefly all this led to a work of transposition, analysis, and synthesis, of deduction and induction, of the elaboration of the revealed matter bytheology. In the course of this work the formulas have changed, the Divine realities have become tinged with the colours of human thought,revealedtruths have been mingled with those ofscience and philosophy, but the heavenlydoctrine has remained the same throughout the varieties of formulas, systematization, and dogmatic expression. It is seen at different angles and to a certain extent with other eyes, but it is the sametruth which was presented to the firstChristians and which is presented to us today.

To this identity ofrevealedtruth corresponds the identity offaith. What the firstChristians believed we still believe; what we believe today they believed more or less explicitly, in a more or less conscious way. Since the deposit of Revelation has remained the same, the same also, in substance, has remained the taking possession of the deposit by the livingfaith. Each of the faithful has not at all times nor has he always explicit consciousness of all that he believes, but his implicitbelief always contains what he one day makes explicit in the profession offaith. Certaintruths, which may be called fundamental, have always been explicitly professed in theChurch either by word or action; others which may be called secondary may have long remained implicit, enveloped, as regards their precise detail, in a more generaltruth wherefaith did not discern them at the first glance. In the first case at a given time uncertainties may have existed, controversies have arisen,heresies cropped up. But the mind of theChurch, theCatholic sense, has not hesitated as to what was essential, there has never been in theChristian world that darkening of thetruth with whichheretics have reproached it; these might have seen and they who had eyes to see did see. On these points disputes have never arisen among the faithful; there have sometimes been very sharp disputes, but they had to do with misunderstandings or bore only on details of expression.

As regardstruths such as thedogma of the Immaculate Conception, there have been uncertainties and controversies over the very substance of the subjects involved. Therevealedtruth was indeed in the deposit oftruth in theChurch, but it was not formulated in explicit terms nor even in clearly equivalent terms; it was enveloped in a more generaltruth (that e.g. of theall-holiness of Mary), the formula of which might be understood in a more or less absolute sense (exemption from all actualsin, exemption even fromoriginal sin). On the other hand, thistruth (the exemption of Mary fromoriginal sin) may seem in at least apparent conflict with other certaintruths (universality oforiginal sin,redemption of all byChrist). It will be readily understood that in some circumstances, when the question is put explicitly for the first time, the faithful have hesitated. It is even natural that thetheologians should show more hesitation than the other faithful. More aware of the apparent opposition between the new opinion and the ancienttruth, they may legitimately resist, while awaiting fuller light, what may seem to them unreflecting haste or unenlightenedpiety. Thus didSt. Anselm,St. Thomas, andSt. Bonaventure in the case of the Immaculate Conception. But the livingidea of Mary in the mind of theChurch implied absolute exemption from allsin without exception, even fromoriginal sin; the faithful whomtheological preoccupations did not prevent from beholding thisidea in its purity, with thatintuition of the heart often more prompt and more enlightened than reasoning and reflected thought, shrank from all restriction and could not suffer, according to the expression ofSt. Augustine, that there should be question of anysin whatsoever in connexion with Mary. Little by little the feeling of the faithful won the day. Not, as has been said, because thetheologians, powerless to struggle against a blind sentiment, had themselves to follow the movement, but because their perceptions, quickened by the faithful and by their owninstinct offaith, grew more considerate of the sentiment of the faithful and eventually examined the new opinion more closely in order to make sure that, far from contradicting anydogma, it harmonized wonderfully with otherrevealedtruths and corresponded as a whole to the analogy offaith and rational fitness. Finally scrutinizing with fresh care the deposit of revelation, they there discovered the pious opinion, hitherto concealed, as far as they were concerned in the more general formula, and, not satisfied to hold it astrue, they declared it revealed. Thus to implicitfaith in arevealedtruth succeeded, after long discussions, explicitfaith in the sametruth thenceforth shining in the sight of all. There have been no new data, but there has been under the impulse of grace and sentiment and the effort oftheology a more distinct and clear insight into what the ancient data contained. When theChurch defined the Immaculate Conception it defined what was actually in the explicitfaith of the faithful what had always been implicitly in thatfaith. The same istrue of all similar cases, save for accidental differences of circumstances. In recognizing a newtruth theChurch thereby recognizes that it already possessed thattruth.

There is, therefore in theChurch progress ofdogma, progress oftheology, progress to a certain extent offaith itself, but this progress does not consist in the addition of fresh information nor the change ofideas. What is believed has always been believed, but in time it is more commonly and thoroughly understood and explicitly expressed. Thus, thanks to the living magisterium andecclesiastical preaching, thanks to the living sense oftruth in theChurch, to the action of the Holy Ghost simultaneously directing master and faithful, traditionaltruth lives and develops in theChurch, always the same, at once ancient and new--ancient, for the firstChristians already beheld it to a certain extent, new, because we see it with our own eyes and in harmony with our presentideas. Such is the notion of tradition in the double meaning of the word; it is Divinetruth coming down to us in the mind of theChurch and it is the guardianship and transmission of this Divinetruth by the organ of the living magisterium, byecclesiastical preaching, by the profession of it made by all in theChristian life.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT