THE SCIENCE OE SACRED THEOLOGY FOR TEACHERS

The Channels of Revelation

B y E m m an u el D oronzo

B ook T hree

Notre Dame Institute Press

Middleburg, Virginia

MT. ANGEL ABBEY LIBRARY

ST. BENEDICT, OREGON 97373
 ÿT
I ϊ-Ί.λ.
DM3

NIHIL OBSTAT
R ev. M sgr. E ugene K evane, P h. D .
C ensor d ep u tatu s

IMPRIMATUR
M ost R ev. Jo h n T . R ussell, D .D .
F eb ru ary 7, 1973
R ichm ond, V irginia

L ibrary of C ongress catalog card num ber: 74-76099

C opyright (C) by Institute for C hristian C ulture, Inc. t 4 1
Printed in the U nited Stales of A m erica

ii
Contents

B ibliography iv

In tro d u ctio n v

P art I. T he T h ree C h an n els of R evelation 1

C h ap ter O ne. S crip tu re, T h e W ritten

D eposit of R evelation 2

C h ap ter T w o. T raditio n , T h e L iving

D eposit of R evelation 10

C h ap ter T hree. T h e M agisterium ,

O rgan of R ev elatio n 33

P art II. T he T heological C ontents

O f th e C h an n els of R ev elatio n 38

C h ap ter F our. D ogm a 39

C h ap ter F ive. T heological C onclusion 52

C h ap ter S ix. T heological N otes and C en su res GO

G lossary 67

A n aly tical In d ex 72

iii
Bibliography

C ano, M ., D e lo c is th e o lo g ic is (p o sth u m o u s w ork, first edited

at S alam an ca in 1563; th e last edition is found in M e lc h io r is
C a n i O p e r a T h e o lo g ic a . 3 vols., R om e 1900).

C asado, F ., “ E n to rn o a la genesis del ‘ D e locis thologicis. ’ ”

R e v ista e s p a û o la d e te o lo g ia 32 ( 1972) 55-82.

D oronzo, E ., T h e o lo g ia d o g m a tic a 1 (W ashington, D C . 19G 6 )

399-544.

G ardeil, A ., “ L a notion du lieu th éo lo g iq u e, ” R e v u e d e s

s c ie n c e s p h ilo s o p h iq u e s e t th é o lo g iq u e s 2 ( 1908) 51-73, 246-
276, 484-505; “ L ieux théologiques,” D ic tio n n a ir e d e th é o lo ­
g ie c a th o liq u e 9-1 (P aris 1926) 712-747 .

L ang, A ., D ie L o c i T h e o lo g ic i d e s M e lc h io r C a n o u n d d ie
M e th o d e d e s d o g m a tisc h e n B c w e is e s , M ünchen 1925.

L ubac, H . de, S o u r c e s o f R e v e la tio n (tran s, from th e F ren ch ),

N ew Y ork 1968.

M arcotte, E ., L a n a tu r e d e la th é o lo g ie d ’ a p r è s M e lc h io r C a n o
(O ttaw a 1949) 110-162.
».
M y s te r iu m s a lu tis . D o g m a tiq u e d e l ’ h is to ir e d u s a lu t (tran s ­
latio n of th e G erm an collective w o rk ), 1 /2 : L a r é v é la tio n
d a n s l ’ E c r itu r e e t la T r a d itio n ; 1 /3 ' L ’ E g lis e e t la tr a n s m is ­
s io n d e la r é v é la tio n , P aris 1969.

iv
Introduction

In th e p reced in g treatise th e fact of rev elatio n has b een es ­

tablished th ro u g h ev id en t criteria. T h e question w hich now
logically follow s is: w h ere do w e find th is rev elatio n ? W hat
are th e ch an n els w hich b rin g it to us, so th at w e m ay know
su rely and ex actly w h at w e should believe? T hese channels
are considered h ere fo rm ally as th e o lo g ic a l “ lo c i, ” th at is, as
“ places ” or bases of theological investigation.

H ence th is treatise is a kind of theological dialectics (th eo ­

logical logic, o r theological m ethodology ) and belongs to fu n d ­
am en tal theology. B ut, u n lik e th e preceding tract w hich is
m erely apologetic, it considers th e ch an n els of rev elatio n as
th e in trin sic foundation of theology and proceeds u n d er th e
lig h t of rev elatio n itself. H ence it is a d o g m a tic fu n d a m e n ta l
th e o lo g y .

T his treatise m ay be d efin ed : A scientific in q u iry on th e

p ro b ativ e v alu e of th e ch an n els of rev elatio n , carried o u t u n ­
d er th e lig h t of rev elatio n itself. T h e ch an n els of rev elatio n
(o r “ loci ” ) are th e m aterial o b ject of th is treatise, th eir p ro ­
b ativ e v alu e is its form al object, and th e light of rev elatio n is
its fo rm al reaso n . 1

T h e ch an n els th ro u g h w hich rev elatio n com es to us, and

hence th e “ loci ” o r places w h ere theologians find th e p rin ci ­
ples and bases fo r th eir in v estig atio n , are essentially th ree,
nam ely, S crip tu re, T raditio n , and th e M agisterium ,2 w ith this

1 F or the m eaning of these three expressions, see our treatise on

In tr o d u ctio n to T h e o lo g y , pp. 9-13, and its G lo ssa ry , under the entry:
O bject of a science, p. 52.
2 A ccording to the list given by M elchior C ano (the founder of
this treatise), and com m only follow ed by later theologians th e th e o ­
lo g ica l “ lo c i ” w o u ld b e te n , of w hich seven are taken on the part of

v
F u n d a m e n ta l T h e o lo g y

difference, how ever, th at S criptu re and T rad itio n are also d e ­

posits of rev elatio n , th at is, places in w hich rev elatio n has
been deposited and k ep t by G od, w h ile th e M agisterium is
o n ly th e o rg an ( g u ardian , d isp en ser, in terp reter) of rev ela ­
tion. 3

T his treatise is divided into tw o p arts. T he first deals w ith

th e th ree ch an n els considered in them selves as to th eir n atu re
and p ro b ativ e value, i.e., S criptu re (chap. 1 ), T rad itio n (chap.

revelation itself, nam ely, S cripture. T radition, the believing C hurch

(the sense of the faithful), the M agisterium of the Pope, the M agis ­
terium of the C ouncils, the F athers, the theologians; and three are
derived extrinsically from the natural reason, that is. this reason it ­
self according to its natural and scientific principles, the authority
of philosophers, and hum an history.
D iscarding these three extrinsic “ loci.” w hich can only lightly
confirm a theological truth and help a theological investigation, all
the other seven “ loci ” can be reduced to three, nam ely S cripture.
M agisterium and T radition. In fart, the Popes and C ouncils m ake up
one general M agisterium , w hile the believing C hurch, the F athers
and the theologians, in as m uch as they are w itnesses of T radition,
can be reduced to T radition itself. T he F athers and theologians as
private doctors have only a lim ited and fallible authority: they w ill
be considered under this aspect together w ith the believing C hurch
in special notes after the treatm ent of T radition (pp. 22-32).
3 W ith regard to term inology, until V atican C ouncil IT S cripture
and T radition w ere usually called the tw o s o u r c es o f revelation, both
by theologians and in the docum ents of the recent M agisterium : thus
the title of the present treatise w as “ O n the Sources of R evelation ”
(together w ith the title “ O n T heological “ L oci ” ): P ius XT speaks of
the sources of revelation (E ncycl. “ M ortalium A nim os ” 1928. A A S
X X 12) and P ius XTT uses the sam e plural expression five tim es in
his E ncycl. “ H um ani generis ” 1950 (D enz. 3886; he uses even the
expression “ both sources ” ). V atican J I. how ever, preferred a slightly
different term inology, according to w hich the s o u r ce of revelation
is the G ospel itself (that is C hrist ’ s preaching), w hile S cripture and
T radition are the d e p o s it (even the one d e p o s it) of revelation, "en ­
trusted ” to the M agisterium .
F ollow ing this reform ed term inology, w e call s o u r c e of revelation,
the gospel itself; c h a n n e ls of revelation. S cripture, T radition, and
the M agisterium ; d e p o sit (or deposits since, at least m aterially, they
are tw o) of revelation. S cripture and T radition; o rg a n of revelation,
the M agisterium .
vi
 In tro d u c tio n

2 ), M agisterium (chap. 3 ). T h e second considers th e theologi ­

cal co n ten t of these channels, p articu larly of th e M agisterium ,
th at is, dogm a (chap. 4 ), theological conclusions (chap. 5 ),
theological notes and cen su res (chap. 6 ).

vii
Part I
The Three Channels of Revelation

i
I
Scripture, The Written
Deposit of Revelation4

1. T h e N a tu re o f S c rip tu re .

W e sh all g ath er u n d er this h ead in g and b riefly ex p lain five

q u estio n s w hich are treated ex ten siv ely by biblical scholars,
nam ely, th e in sp iratio n , canonicity, au then ticity, inerrancy
and in terp retatio n of H oly S crip tu re. T hese p ro p erties are all
defined o r tau gh t b y th e C ouncil of T ren t ( S ess. 4, D enz. 1501-
1508), V atican I (S ess. 3, D enz. 3029), L eo X III (E ncycl. “ P ro-
v id en tissim u s, ” D enz. 3291-3293). P ius X II (E ncycl. “ D ivino
afflante S p iritu , ” D enz. 3925-38 31), and V atican II (D ogm atic
C o n stitu tio n on D ivine R evelation, nos. 11-13).

In s p ir a tio n as a fact is defined b y T ren t and V atican I. Its

n atu re is described as a d irect action of G od into th e intellect

* C f. J. L evie. “ L es lim ites da la preuve d ’ E criture S ainte en théo ­

logie, " N o u v e lle r e v u e th é o lo g iq u e 71 (1949) 1009-1029; Λ . B oa, "11
progresso noli ’ interpretazionc della S. S crittura, ” G r e g o ria n u m 33
(1952) 85-105: L . A lonso-Schokel. "A rgum ent d ’ E criture et théo ­
logie biblique dans l ’ enseignem ent théologique. ” N o u v e lle r e v u e
th é o lo g iq u e 91 (1959) 337-354; S c h r ift u n d T r a d itio n (collective
w ork), E ssen 1962: D e S c r ip tu r a e t T r a d itio n e (collective w ork).
R om e 1963; J. D upont. “ E criture et T radition, ” N o u v e lle r e v u e th é o ­
lo g iq u e 8 5 (1963) 337-356, 449-468; M y s te r iu m s a lu tis. D o g m a tiq u e
d e l'h is to ire d u s a lu t (collective w ork translated from the G erm an),
I 2: L a r é v é la tio n d a n s l ’ E c ritu r e e t la T r a d itio n , P aris 1969; E.
H am el, "L ’ E criture, âm e de la théologie, ” G r e g o ria n u m 5 2 (1971)
511-535.

2
 S c r ip tu r e , T h e W r itte n D e p o sit o f R e v e la tio n

and w ill of th e h ag io g raph ers, on acco u n t of w hich th eir w rit ­

ings are to be attrib u ted to G od him self as th eir p rin cip al
au th o r (V atican I; L eo X III; V atican II). Its ex ten sio n em ­
braces all th e canonical books of both T estam en ts, “ in th eir en ­
tirety and in all th eir p arts ” (T ren t; V atican I; V atican II),
“ in ev ery th in g asserted by th e inspired au th o rs ” (V atican II)
and not only in “ m atters of faith and m o rals ” (L eo X III);
briefly, “ ev ery th in g th e h ag io g rap h er asserts, en u n ciates, su g ­
gests ” (B iblical C om m ission, Ju n e. 18, 1915, D enz. 3629).

C a n o n ic ity , th at is, th e d efin ite canon o r list of books w hich

m ust be considered as inspired, is proposed as d e fid e by T ren t
and V atican I.

T he a u th e n tic ity of th e tex t of th ese books is ex p licity d e ­

clared by T ren t and confirm ed by V atican I as reg ard s th e
L atin version called th e “ V u lg ate, ” by reason of its “ ap p ro b a ­
tion by th e C hurch th ro u g h m an y cen tu ries of usage in public
lectures, serm ons, an d ex p lan atio n s ” (T ren t, D enz. 1506; V ati ­
can I, D enz. 3006). T w o corollaries are d raw n from th is d ecla ­
ration. O ne is literary , nam ely, th at th e V u lg ate is su b stan tial­
ly in conform ity w ith th e original, so th at it contains all and
only th e in sp ired books, as w ell as all th e dogm atic original
tex ts, in th eir sum to tal ( alth o u g h th ere m ay be a d o u b t o r a
dispute ab o u t one or an o th er p articu lar tex t, especially if it
regards a m odal discrepancy w ith th e o rig in al tex t as criti ­
cally established I . T h e o th er co ro llary is dogm atic, nam ely,
th at th e tex t of th e V ulgate is im m une from all erro r in m at ­
ters of faith and m orals, and it can be used safely an d w ith o u t
danger of erring .

T he in e rr a n c y of th e en tire biblical tex t, being a m ere con ­

sequence of its in sp iratio n , can be considered im p licitly d e ­
fined by T ren t and V atican I, at least as reg ard s m atters of
faith and m orals. T h e absolute exclusion of all erro r, ev en in
o th er m atters, follow s from th e sam e in sp iratio n , w hich m akes
G od au th o r of th e en tire tex t, and is considered by L eo X III
as likew ise defined by th e M ag isteriu m (D enz. 3292 f).

A s reg ard s th e in te r p r e ta tio n , o r h erm en eu tics, of th e tex t,

biblical scholars d istin gu ish a th r e e fo ld s e n s e , nam ely, literal,

3
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

typical, and am p ler. 3

*5

T he lite r a l s e n s e (o r g ram m atical, historical, logical sensei

is th at w hich th e letter or w ords im m ediately carry and w hich
is in ten d ed b y th e w riter as such. 6 T his is th e necessary and
p rim ary sense in a biblical tex t, as in ev ery speech or w ritin g :
th e presence of only a ty p ical sense w ould not be su fficien t to
ju stify th e w ords of S crip tu re, for th e typical sense m u st be
based on th e literal sense, as w ill be show n below . T he literal
sense, in ten d ed in a biblical tex t, is only one, at least accord ­
ing to th e m ore com m on opinion. O therw ise fallacy or equivo ­
cation w ould be attrib u ted to G od, as w as found in th e oracles
of pagan religions. T hese often carried a double co n trary m ean ­
ing so th at th e p red ictio n w ould b e tru e in eith er ev en t. 7 8
T h e ty p ic a l s e n s e (o r real, sp iritu al, m ystical sen se) is th at
w hich is n o t attach ed to th e w ords them selves b u t to th e things
o r persons signified by th e w ords, and th erefo re is not in ten d ­
ed b y th e biblical w riter b u t only by G od in sp irin g his w ords.
H ence, it can n o t be know n b u t th ro u g h G od ’ s rev elatio n , th at
is, from S criptu re o r T rad itio n or th e sense of th e C hurch, for
th e h ag io g rap h er him self u n d er th e in sp iratio n and rev elatio n ,
o r th e C hurch, u n d er th e assistance of th e H oly S p irit, can
in fallib ly in terpret th e sense of th e H oly S crip tu re. S everal
ty p ical senses are certain ly proposed by th e h ag io g rap h ers
them selves, eith er ex p licitly (M att. 2.15:19.36; C or. 10.1-11;
G al. 4.22-31) o r im plicitly (M att. 5.5: 26.28: C ol. 2.11 f; H eb.
12.22; A poc. 2.7).

3 T he so called a c c o m m o d a te d se n se ., based on som e likeness w ith

w hat is said and signified in the biblical text, is not a biblical sense.
It can be used and is in fact used by preachers and spiritual w riters;
but this should be done w ith discretion and m oderation, lest such
sense be m istaken for the real sense or its use involve disrespect for
the sacred text. See V erbum D o m in i (1938) 272-278.
8 T he literal sense can be cither proner (as if I say: P eter is sly)
or m e ta p h o ric a l (if I say: P eter is a fox). If an entire speech or peri ­
cope is m etaphorical, its sense is called allegoric, and in the case of a
particular form of allegory it is called parabolic (cf. S u m m a T h e o l.,
p. 1, q. 1, a. 10, ad 3).
t C Î. P r o b le m i s c e lti di te o lo g ia c o n te m p o r a n e a (R om e 1954) 251-
273.
4
 S c r ip tu r e , T h e W r itte n D e p o sit o f R e v e la tio n

T he a m p le r s e n se ( “ sensus p len io r ” called also th e u ltra ­

literal o r evangelical sen se) w ould be a sense b etw een th e
literal and th e typical, in tro d u ced and stressed by sev eral m od ­
ern ex eg etes, 8 b u t rejected by o th ers. 89 It w ould be a sense in ­
tended by G od alone in th e v ery w ords of th e h ag io g rap h er,
beyond th e sense understood and in ten d ed by th e latter. 10 It
seem s d ifficu lt to ad m it such a sense, fo r it w ould be at once
literal (o n th e p art of G od) and not literal (o n th e p art of th e
h ag io g rap h er); in such case th e w ords w ould carry an ex tra
sense w hich th ey do n o t have, since th ey are w ords proceeding
from th e m ind of th e h ag io g rap h er, w hom G od uses as an in ­
stru m en t. H ence, th is opinion seem s to proceed from a false
notion of in sp iratio n , because G od in sp ires only and all th at
th e h ag io g rap h er says, and th e biblical tex t proceeds to tally
from tw o causes, th at is, from G od as p rin cip al au th o r and
fro m th e h ag io g rap h er as G od ’ s in stru m en t. T h ere is no point
in ap p ealin g to th e case of th e typical sense, in ten d ed by G od
and n o t understood b y th e h ag io g raph er; fo r th is sense is not
attach ed to th e w o r d s them selves, b u t only to th e th in g s signi ­
fied by th e w ords. T h u s it is ex trin sic to th e w ords and is
know n only th ro u g h th e ex trin sic rev elatio n of G od. 11

2. T h e p r o b a tiv e v a lu e o f S c r ip tu r e , a s a th e o lo g ic a l p la c e .

T his v alu e can be ex p ressed w ith th e follow ing norm s and

rules.

8 A s A . F ernéndez, In s titu tio n e s btbltcae, vol. 1, p. 390; D . P. D e

A m broggi, J. R enié, D . B uzy, J. C erfaux, J. M . B raun, M . N icolau,
J. C oppens (see E p h e m e r id e s th e o lo g ic a e L o v a n ie n se s [1958J 5-20).
9 A s R . B ierberg, in C a th o lic B ib lic a l Q u a r te r ly (1949) 182-185; J.
D aniélou (see E p h em e r id e s th e o lo g ic a e L o v a n ie n s e s [1948] 119-126);
G . C ourtade (see R e c h e rc h e s d e s c ie n c e r e lig ie u se [1950J 481-497).
»0 T his sense is used by the aforem entioned exegetes, especially
in explaining som e of the m essianic prophecies, w hich the prophets
w ould not have understood in the full m essianic m eaning intended
by G od. T hus, for instance, in the E m m anuel conceived of a young
w om an (the H ebrew 'alm âh, translated by virgin), Isaias (7.14) m ay
have understood E zechias, son of A chaz, w hile G od intended C hrist,
the M essias.
11 W ith regard to the m essianic prophecies, those that cannot be
sufficiently explained by the literal sense, are aptly and fully ex ­
plained by the typical sense, w ithout recourse to any “ am pler sense. ”

5
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

F ir st n o r m . S ince S criptu re is a tru e deposit of revelation,

en h an ced m oreover by th e ch arism of in sp iratio n , it is a p r o p ­
e r , p r im a ry , p r iv ile g e d , a n d in d e p e n d e n t th e o lo g ic a l p la c e ,
fro m w hich a theologian can confidently proceed in his inves-
gation, d raw in g fro m it certain o r p ro b ab le arg u m en ts, accord ­
in g to w h eth er th e sense of a biblical tex t is certain or only
probable. It is tru e th at S criptu re depends on T rad itio n and
p articu larly on th e M agisterium w ith reg ard to th e in terp re ­
tatio n of its sense; b u t, once th is sense has been established,
theologians arg u e d irectly from S crip tu re, as from a proper
and p rim ary place, ev en before arg u in g eith er from T radition,
o r from th e M agisterium , w hich, b ein g only th e organ and
g u ard ian of th e d ep o sit of faith , is in ferio r to it. 12

S e c o n d n o r m . S ince th e V u lg ate version, an d th is alone, has

been d eclared au th entic by th e M agisterium , th at is, substan ­
tially in co n fo rm ity w ith th e o rig in al tex t, th e theologian can
and m u st tak e it into consideration in his labor, giving it p re ­
feren ce to an y o th er v ersion o r o rig in al tex t critically estab ­
lished. H ow ever, since th is d eclaratio n of th e M agisterium re ­
g ards only th e su b stan tial conform ity, in case of d o u b t as to
th e co n fo rm ity of som e p articu lar tex t of th e V u lg ate w ith the
o rig in al tex t as critically estab lish ed , only a p ro b ab le argu ­
m en t can be d raw n from it, and, in th e case of c e r ta in discrep ­
ancy, no biblical arg u m en t can be claim ed b u t only an argu ­
m en t of T rad itio n , inasm uch as T rad itio n d e fa c to used the
tex t to ex p ress its faith in a p articu lar tru th . A t an y rate, the
critical in v estig atio n of th e o rig in al tex t is v ery u sefu l to th e
theologian, even fo r th e rig ht u n d erstan d in g of th e V ulgate
tex t, and hence he should be aw are of th e critical conclusion
of th e ex eg etes ab o u t a p articu lar tex t, before in tro d u cin g it

12 V atican II em phasizes this inferiority, saying: “ T he M agister ­

ium is not above the W ord of G od, but rather m inisters to it, teach ­
ing only w hat has been handed on. T hus, by divine com m ission and
under the assistance of the H oly S pirit, the M agisterium listens to
the W ord of G od piously, guards it religiously and exposes it faith ­
fully, draw ing from this deposit of faith all those things w hich it
proposes to be believed as divinely revealed ” (D ogm atic C onstitu ­
tion on D ivine R evelation, no. 10).

6
 S c r ip tu r e , T h e W r itte n D e p o n it o f R e v e la tio n

into his theological elab o ratio n . 13

T h ir d n o r m . R eg ard in g th e in te rp r e ta tio n o f th e s e n s e o f a
b ib lic a l te x t, w e m ay d istin gu ish th ree rules.

T h e fir s t a n d s u p r e m e r u le is th e s e n se g iv e n b y T r a d itio n
a n d th e M a g iste riu m , as is ex p licitly an d rep eated ly stated by
th e M agisterium itself. (T ren t, D enz. 1507; V atican I, D enz,
3007; P ius X II in his E ncycl. “ H um ani G en eris; ” V atican II,
D ogm . C onstitution on D ivine R evelation, nos. 10, 12, 23, 26).
In p articu lar note th e follow ing. T he m o rally u n an im o u s a-
greem ent of th e F a th e r s in in terp retin g a biblical tex t, if it
im plies a positive and firm assertio n ab o u t an object consid ­
ered as p ertain in g to faith , m akes th eir in terp retatio n abso ­
lutely certain, for th is ag reem en t is th e voice of T rad itio n ; on
th e co n trary a sim ilar ag reem en t of m ere th eo lo g ian s m akes
th eir in terp retatio n only probable, because th ey are only falli ­
ble w itnesses to T radition. L ikew ise th e au th en tic in terp reta ­
tion of a tex t, given b y th e s o le m n M a g is te r iu m , is absolutely
certain. T his is done in tw o w ays. E ith er d ir e c tly w ith th e
m anifested in ten tio n of in terp retin g a p articu lar tex t; such is
the case of R om . 5.12 on th e u n iv ersality of o rig in al sin, child ­
ren included; Jo h n 3.5, on th e necessity of tru e w ater in B ap ­
tism ; M att.26.26 ff. and p arallel tex ts, on th e E u ch arist in its
proper sense; Jo h n 20.22 f. on th e sacram en t of P en an ce; Jas.
5.14 f., on th e A nointing of th e S ick; L u k e 22.19, on th e in sti ­
tu tio n of th e priesthood; M att. 16.16 f. an d Jo h n 21.15 ff., on
P eter ’ s p rim acy (D enz. 1514, 1615, 1637, 1703, 1716, 1752,
3053). O r in d ir e c tly , by m erely b ring in g fo rth a biblical tex t
w ith th e ev id en t in ten tio n of confirm ing a p articu lar tru th ;
th u s th e C ouncil of T ren t in tro d u ces R om . 5.12 to confirm th e
doctrine of o rig in al sin, and 2 T im . 1.6 f. in confirm ation of
th e sacram en t of O rd ers (D enz. 1512, 1766). H ow ever, such
in ten tio n is not alw ay s clear, fo r o ften th e M ag isteriu m quotes
S crip tu ral tex ts only as a m ere illu stratio n and ex p lan atio n .
In this case th ere is no au th en tic in terp retatio n , b u t m erely a
su itab le use of such tex ts. A lso th e o r d in a r y M a g iste r iu m en ­
joys p er se th e sam e au th o ritativ e in terp retatio n , alth o u g h th e
discernibility of its p ro n o u n cem en ts is not so easy, by reason

13 C f. P ius X II, E ncycl. "D ivino afflante S piritu ” 1943 (D enz.

3825).

7
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

of th e m anifold elem en ts by w hich th is M agisterium is m ade

up and carried out.
T h e s e c o n d a n d s u b sid ia ry r u le is th e reco u rse to th e so-call­
ed “ an alo g y of faith, ” th at is, th e m u tu al ag reem en t w hich
m u st ex ist b etw een th e d ifferen t tru th s of th e sam e faith, so
th at one cannot co n tradict th e others, b u t rath er one can il-
lu srate an o th er sim ilar to it o r connected w ith it. F o r exam ple,
th e E u ch arist can be illu strated b y th e In carn atio n and vice
versa, th e m y stery of th e C h u rch b y th e m y stery of C h rist and
vice versa, and th e p o w er of g ran tin g in d ulg en ces b y th e gen ­
eral p o w er of rem ittin g sin . 14
T h e th ir d r u le ( th e only one left if th e o th er tw o fail) is the
e x e g e tic a l e x a m in a tio n o f th e te x t, according to th e tw o bibli ­
cal senses, th e literal and th e ty p ical (sin ce th e so-called
“ am p ler sen se ” seem s h ard ly u sefu l). A lth o u g h th e typical
sense is tru ly biblical, b ein g in ten d ed b y G od, and o ften nob ­
ler, on acco u n t of a h ig h er o b ject signified, th e theologian
should tu rn his atten tio n p rim ary to th e lite r a l s e n s e , fo r sev ­
eral reasons. F irs t, because it is necessary and u n iv ersal, that
is, found in ev ery w ord, w h ile th e ty p ical sense is only occas ­
ionally attach ed to th e tex t. S e c o n d ly , because it is fu n d am en t­
al, since th e ty p ical sense is based on it and depends on it.
T h ir d ly , because it is m ore m an ifest and certain , since it is
k n o w n ration ally , w h ile th e ty p ical sense is know n only
th ro u g h G od ’ s rev elatio n . F o u r th ly , because it is scientifically
m ore efficacious, and h en ce m ore su itab le to theological in ­
v estig atio n ( it is ev en th e only one w hich fits an apologetical
or ratio nal p u rp o se).15

14 T his expression is found in several docum ents of the recent

M agisterium . See L eo X III, E ncycl. “ P rovidentissim us ” (D enz. 3283) ;
P ius X , A ntim odcrnistic O ath (D enz. 3546); P ius X II, E ncycl. “ H u ­
m ani generis ” (D enz. 3887); V atican II, D ogm atic C onstitution on
D ivine R evelation (no. 12). A bout the use of the “ analogy of faith ”
in theological investigation see our treatise on In tro d u c tio n to T h e o ­
lo g y , p. 22.
w C f. P iu s X II, E ncycl. “ D ivino afflante S piritu ” 1943 (D enz.
3829 f.). V a tic a n II insists expecially on the observation of the “ lit ­
erary form s, ” in w hich the various books w ere w ritten, considered
both generically, w hether, for instance, their style is poetical or
8
 S c r ip tu r e , T h e W r itte n D e p o sit of R e v e la tio n

H aving clearly estab lish ed th e literal sen se of a tex t th e th e ­

ologian should tu rn his atten tio n to its ty p ic a l sense, 16 w hich
often is th e p rin cip al sense in ten d ed by G od an d w hich h as a
tru ly d em o n strativ e force. T hus, for exam ple, fro m th e fact
th at M elchisedech as a p riest w as th e ty p ical fig u re of C h rist,
as S t. P au l testifies, w e rig h tly an d certain ly in fer th at C hrist,
like M elchisedech, o ffered a sacrifice. H ow ever, th e ex isten ce
of th e typical sense in a p articu lar tex t sh o u ld n o t be easily
asserted, fo r it is k n o w n only by rev elatio n w hich is not clear
in m any cases. M oreover, ev en w h en th e ex isten ce of th e ty p i ­
cal sense is certain , its ex ten sio n should n o t be u n d u ly ex ag ­
gerated; th u s, from th e su re fact th at M elchisedech is a ty p i ­
cal figure of C h rist by reaso n of th e su p erio rity of his p riest ­
hood over th e p riesth o o d of A aron, it does n o t necessarily fol ­
low th at h e is th e fig u re of C h rist also u n d er th e o th er ch ar ­
acters, by w hich his excellence is described in G enesis, and
th at w e can necessarily in fer such ch aracters in C hrist.

H ence th e th eo lo g ian should use o n ly th e m ore certain types

and tak e th em only w ith in th e m ore certain lim its of th eir
typicality. T h e apostles (p articu larly S t. P au l) could h an d le
th e typical sense m ore freely and m ore su rely o n acco u n t of
th eir charism of in sp iratio n an d rev elatio n , an d so could th e
F ath ers, by reason of a special assistan ce of th e H oly S p irit
and of a co n n atu ral in tu itio n , fru it of a d eep er sp iritu al life
and of an in tim ate fam iliarity w ith th e tru th s of faith ; b u t
theologians do not en jo y such sp iritu al gifts.

prophetical, or historical, and specifically, that is, w ith regard to

the contem porary style, influenced by circum stances of tim e and
culture (D ogm atic C onstitution on D ivine R evelation, no. 12).
16 C f. P ius X ll in the sam e E ncyclical (D enz. 3828).

9
 π
Tradition, The Living
Deposit of Revelation17

1. T h e n a tu r e o f T r a d itio n .
a) G e n e ra l n o tio n
T rad itio n (in L atin “ T rad itio , ” from “ tran s-d o , ” th at is, I
h an d o v er; in G reek “ P arâd o sis ” from “ p arâ-d id o m ai, ” I hand

17 C f. R . H ull, “ T he C ouncil of T rent and T radition ” A m e rica n

E c cle sia s tic a l R e v ie w 81 (1929) 469-482, 602-615; C h. B aum gartner,
“ T radition et M agistère, ” R e ch e r ch e s d e s c ie n c e r e lig ie u se 41 (1953)
161-187; G . D ejaifvc, “ B ible, T radition, M agistère dans le théologie
catholique," N o u v e lle r e v u e th é o lo g iq u e 78 (1956) 133-151. D . V an
den E ynde, “ T radizione e M agistero, ” P r o b le m i c o r ie n ta n t e n ti d i
te o lo g ia d o m m a tic a 1 (M ilano 1957) 231-252; S c h r ift u n d T ra d itio n
(collective w ork), E ssen 1962; D e S c r ip tu ra e t tr a d itio n e (collective
w ork), R om a 1963; J. D upont, “ E criture et T radition,” N o u v e lle
r e v u e th é o lo g ü ju e 8 5 (1963) 337- 356, 449-468; Y . C ongar, T h e M e a n ­
in g o f T r a d itio n (trans. Λ . N . W oodrow ), N ew Y ork 1964; T ra d itio n
a n d T r a d itio n s . N ew Y ork. 1967; J. R atzinger and K . R ahner, R e v e ­
la tio n a n d tr a d itio n (trans, from the G erm an), F reiburg 1966; M y s ­
te riu m s a lu tis. D o g m a tiq u e d e l ’ h is to ir e d u s a lu t (trans, from the
G erm an), I 2 : L a r é v é la tio n d a n s V E c r itu r e e t la T r a d itio n , P aris
1969; P. L engsfeld, “ L a tradition dans le tem ps constitutif de le
révélation,” M y ste riu m s a lu tis I 2 (P aris 1969) 13-72; “ T radition et
E criture. L eur rapport, " ib id . 270-310; A . K errigan, “ D octrina C on ­
cilii V aticani I de ‘ sine scripto T raditionibus ’ , ” D e d o c tr in a C o n c ilii
V a tic a n i P r im i (C ittà dei V aticano 1969) 3-26; A . M eredith, T h e T h e ­
o lo g y o f T r a d itio n , N otre D am e, Indiana 1971; J. P elikan, T h e C h ris ­
tia n T r a d itio n , 1: T h e E m e rg e n c e o f th e C a th o lic T r a d itio n (1 0 0 -6 0 0 ),
C hicago 1971.

10
 T r a d itio n , T h e L iv in g D e p o sit o f R e v e la tio n

over) etym ologically m eans th e action of h an d in g over som e ­

thing from one to an o th er (activ e T rad itio n ), and by logical
extension, it m eans also th e th in g , o r o b ject h an d ed o v er (o b ­
jective T rad itio n ). In th is double m ean in g of activ e and ob ­
jective T rad itio n th e w ord w as used to signify th e h an d in g
over of C h ristian d o ctrin es and usages, and it becam e classi ­
cal in C h ristian literatu re as w ell as in theology. S criptu re
speaks of d o ctrin al trad itio n s of th e P h arisees (M att. 15.2,3,6;
M ark 7.3, 5,8,9,13), of h eretics (C ol. 2,8), an d of th e apostles
them selves (1 C or. 11.2; 2 T hess. 2.14; 3.6). T he F ath ers and
the theologians up to th e C ouncil of T ren t used th e w ord T rad ­
ition only in th e g en eral and com plete sense of th e en tire
C hristian rev elatio n en tru sted b y C h rist and th e A postles to
th e C hurch and by th e C h u rch tran sm itted continuously
through w h atever m eans (either w ritten o r o ral). A fter th e
C ouncil of T ren t, how ever, b y reaso n of th e P ro testan t claim
th at th e C h ristian d o ctrin e is fo u n d an d tran sm itted only in
the w ritten S crip tu re, theologians took T rad itio n also in th e
p articu lar and restricted sense of w h atev er w ould be found
and tran sm itted only o rally and n o t in th e S crip tu re.

H ence th e o b je c tiv e T r a d itio n in theology is tak en in tw o

senses. F ir st and m ore p ro p erly , it signifies th e in te g ra l T r a d i ­
tio n . th at is, ev ery th in g h an d ed o v er in th e C h u rch from
C hrist and th e apostles dow n to us, w h eth er th ro u g h inspired
w ritings (S crip tu re) o r o rally (th ro u g h o th er m ean s th an
S crip tu re). S e c o n d ly , it signifies th e p a r tia l T r a d itio n , th at is,
only th at p art of d o ctrin es an d usages w h ich is n o t ex p licitly
or sufficiently found in S criptu re b u t only in th e o ral T rad i ­
tion.

T he a c tiv e T r a d itio n ( o r th e action b y w hich C h ristian doc ­

trin e is tran sm itted ) in th e apostolic tim es consisted in preach-
in (C hrist, th e apostles, th eir disciples) an d in in sp ired w rit ­
ings (S crip tu re). In th e follow ing ages it consists in com m on
preaching, in th e d eclaratio n s of th e M ag isteriu m u n d er th e
assistance of th e H oly S p irit, in th e n o n -in sp ired w ritin g s of
th e F ath ers and of th e o th er ecclesiastical doctors, an d also,
equivalently or im plicitly, in v ariou s p ractical m ean s by
w hich th e faith of th e C h u rch and of th e people m an ifests it ­
self, such as litu rg ical p ractices (litu rg y ), canonical law s (hav ­
ing dogm atic fo u n d atio n ), and artistic p ro d u ctio n s (arch aeo ­

11
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

logical, arch itectu ral, scu lp tu ral, p icto rial).

b ) T h e p r o p e r c h a ra c te r o f T r a d itio n a s d e p o s it o f r e v e la ­
tio n .

T r a d itio n , ta k e n a s a w h o le (in te g ra l T r a d itio n ) is a tr u e

a n d e v e r liv in g d e p o s it o f r e v e la tio n , w h e th e r it b e w r itte n
in in s p ire d S c r ip tu r e o r g iv e n th r o u g h o th e r m e a n s; h e n c e
S c r ip tu r e is n o t th e o n ly d e p o sit o f r e v e la tio n o r th e o n ly r u le
o f fa ith .

T his h as b een d efin ed , as d e fid e , ag ain st o ld er and recent

ad v ersaries 10 by th e C ouncil of T ren t, d eclarin g th at “ the
tru th and th e discipline [first p ro m u lg ated b y C h rist and
p reach ed b y th e A postles] is contained in th e w ritten books
and in th e u n w ritten trad ition s, w hich h av e b een received by
th e A postles fro m th e m o u th of C h rist him self, o r u n d er the 18

18 In the second century Irenaeus and T ertullian opposed to the

G n o stic s the force of T radition. In the fourth century P e la g iu s,
founder of Pelagianism , is quoted by St. A ugustine as saying: “ L et
us believe w hat w e read [in S cripture], and judge as unlaw ful to
build up w hat w e do not read" (St. A ugustine, O n N a tu r e a n d G ra c e
39). N ot long before the rise of P rotestantism , J o h n W y c lif repeated:
“ Λ truth, w hich is not found in S cripture, does not exist ” (O n C iv il
P o w e r 1.44, ed. Poole, pag. 339). T he P r o te s ta n ts hold as fundam ent ­
al the aphorism “ S cripture is the only rule of faith ” (thus L uther,
M elachthon, C alvin, and all the C onfessions of P rotestant faith, in ­
cluding the A nglican).
R egarding the preaching of the apostles them selves, the P rotes ­
tants teach that it w as for the tim e being a source of revelation, but
after the hagiographers consigned into inspired w riting the truths
preached by the apostles, this S cripture succeeded to the preached
w ord as the only deposit of revelation and the only rule of faith.
S everal m odern P rotestants, particularly am ong A nglicans and
F rench-S w iss C alvinists, grant som e connatural value to T radition
in interpreting the sense of S cripture, but they hold that only S crip ­
ture has of itself the force of rule of faith. T he various valuations
of m odern P rotestants are described in the w ork S c r ip tu r e a n d T r a d ­
itio n , L ondon, 1955.
In the C atholic w ork D e S c r ip tu r a e t T r a d itio n e (R om a 1963) 506-
512, there is a sufficient explanation of the doctrine of both the first
R eform ers (L uther, M elanchthon, C alvin) and the m itigated m odern
P rotestants (I. A . L euba, O . C ullm ann, F r. L eenhardt, M . T hurian).

12
 T r a d itio n , T h e L iv in g D e p o sit o f R e v e la tio n

dictation of th e H oly S p irit h av e been tran sm itted by th e

A postles and have com e dow n to us as it w ere fro m h an d to
h an d ” ( S ess. 4, D enz. 1501 ). T his d efin itio n has been repeated
v erb atim by V atican I (S ess. 3, chap. 2, D enz 3006) and ex ­
plained m ore at len g th b y V atican II (D ogm . C onstit. on D i ­
vine R evelation, nos. 7-10).

T he tru th of th is statem en t of th e M agisterium is also ap ­

p aren t from th e follow ing considerations. F irs t, C h rist him ­
self w ro te no books, b u t only preached his d o ctrin e, and gave
likew ise th e apostles no com m and to consign his d o ctrin es to
w ritings, b u t com m anded th em to preach th em to all nations
u n d er th e continued assistance of th e H oly S p irit (M att. 28.18
f.; M ark 16.15; Jo h n 14.16,26); hence C h rist deposited his
rev elatio n in a living and p erp etu al T rad itio n .

S e c o n d ly , th e apostles co n stan tly claim ed for them selves th e

office of p reach in g (1 C or. 7.17; 11.23; 2 C or. 1.18; G al. 1.8;
C ol. 2.6; 2 T hess. 2.14), b u t n ev er th e task of w ritin g . H ence
they proposed th e living T rad itio n as th e m ain deposit of rev ­
elation. In p articu lar S t. P au l en tru sted th e sam e office to his
disciple T im othy, say in g : “ H old to th e form of sound teach ­
ing w hich thou h ast h eard from m e . . . G u ard th e good tru st
through th e H oly S p irit . . . T h e things th at th o u h ast h eard
from m e th ro u gh m any w itnesses, com m end to tru stw o rth y
m en w ho sh all be com petent in tu rn to teach o th ers ” I 2 T im .
1.13 f.; 2.2) and he rem in d ed th e T hessalonians of his teach ­
ing given to th em th ro u g h his w ords and his previous letter:
“ S tand firm , and hold th e teach in g s th at you h av e learn ed ,
w h eth er by w ord o r by letter of o u rs ” (2 T hess. 2.14; th e let ­
ter h ere is p o in ted out not as som ething special an d form al,
but as one of th e tw o m eans by w hich d e fa c to S t. P au l com ­
m unicated his d o ctrin e to th e T h essalo n ian s).

T h ir d ly , th e N ew T estam en t S crip ture does n o t b ear th e

ch aracter of an official com pendium of d o ctrin es and law s,
au th o ritativ ely given to th e faith fu l, b u t it show s only a lim it ­
ed, o r secondary, o r occasional ch aracter. It is a collection of
historical n arrativ es on th e life of C h rist and on th e acts of th e
apostles, of p asto ral and in stru ctio n al letters, and of fu tu re
apocalyptical events, w ritten u n ev en ly b y few of th e apostles
(M atth ew , au th o r of one gospel; Jo h n , au tho r of an o th er gos-
13
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

pci, th ree sh o rt ep istles and th e A pocalypse; Jam es and Jude,

each au th o r of one ep istle; P eter, au th o r of tw o epistles; P aul,
au th o r of m ost of th e ep istles). If th e apo stles had intended
to leave after th em th e S criptu re to succeed th eir preaching
as th e sole norm of faith , all of th em w ould have cooperated,
at least th rou g h a com m on co n su ltatio n , to its d raftin g and
th ey w ould h av e w ritten it in clear and o rd erly m an n er, in the
form of a code of d o ctrin es and law s fo r th e C hurch, as w as
done b y M oses in th e O ld T estam en t for th e synagogue.

F o u r th ly , even after th e H oly S crip tu re, or p art of it, had

b een w ritten, th e apostles k ep t ap p ealin g to th e au th o rity of
th eir p reach in g ; only once o r tw ice th ey m entioned occasion ­
ally th e au th o rity of one o r an o th er w ritin g of th e N ew T esta ­
m en t; th u s S t. P eter, 2nd ep. 3.15 f., m en tion s th e au th o rity of
th e ep istles of S t. P au l, and Jo h n in th e A poc. 1.11; 22.7, 9,19,
18 f., testifies to th e p ro p h etical ch aracter of his ow n book; S t.
P au l him self in his second ep istle to th e T hessalonians refers
to his first ep istle m erely as to one of th e tw o m eans b y w hich
he had exposed his d o ctrin e to th em (see ab o v e).

I f w e c o m p a r e th is in te a r a l T r a d itio n w ith S c r ip tu r e , it is
m a n ife st th a t it is a n o ld e r, a m p le r a n d m o r e in d e p e n d e n t d e ­
p o s it o f r e v e la tio n . It is o ld er th at S crip tu re, because th e
p reach in g of th e rev ealed tru th had been stead ily going on for
ab o u t tw en ty y ears b efo re th e oldest w ritin g s of th e H oly
S criptu re (th e tw o ep istles of S t. P au l to th e T hessalonians)
cam e o u t. 19 It is a m p le r th an S crip tu re, first because it in ­
cludes S criptu re itself, w hich is a w ritten T rad itio n and then
because it contains som e tru th s and custom s w hich w ere not

19 C hrist preached his gospel for about tw o years before his death,
w hich took place in the year 30 of our era, and he continued to in ­
struct the apostles for forty days after the resurrection. T he apostles
after the P entecost kept on preaching for about tw enty years before
the first w ritings of the H oly S cripture, nam ely, the tw o epistles of
St. P aul to the T hessalonians, w ere issued (about 50-51; a first gos ­
pel of St. M atthew , suppositively w ritten in A ram aic betw een 40 and
50, is lost and is not part of the actual canon of S cripture). T he three
S ynoptic G ospels and the A cts of the A postles w ere w ritten betw een
the year 62 and the year 70: the A pocalypse about the year 95: and
St. John ’s gospel betw een 90 and 100.
14
 T r a d itio n , T h e L iv in g D e p o s it o f R e v e la tio n

consigned o r su fficiently ex p ressed in S criptu re (see below ).

It is a m o r e in d e p e n d e n t an d self-sufficient deposit, because it
does n o t depend on S criptu re for its in terp retatio n , w hile
S crip ture depends on T rad itio n both fo r its in terp retatio n (see
above, p. 7) and for its ow n au th o rity since w e know only
from T rad itio n th at S criptu re (at least as a w hole) is inspired;
besides, S crip tu re is n o t ab so lu tely necessary fo r th e C hurch,
but T rad itio n w ith th e M agisterium as its in terp reter w ould
have been strictly sufficient.

O n th e o th er hand S c r ip tu r e e n jo y s a r e la tiv e e x c e lle n c e

o v e r th e u n w r itte n T r a d itio n , first, because it is precisely a
w ritten docum ent, fo r w ritin g s are m ore d efin ite an d m ore
easily p reserv ed from alteratio n (according to th e aphorism
“ W ords fly, w ritin g s rem ain ” ), and secondly and especially
because it is w ritten by G od him self th ro u g h th e in sp iratio n of
th e hagiographer. H ence w e u n d erstan d w hy G od provided th e
C hurch and its M agisterium w ith th is p riv ileg ed channel, so
th at C h rist ’ s teach in g could be handed o v er m ore su rely and
easily, and th e M agisterium itself w ould be helped in its ex am ­
ination and finding of th e rev ealed tru th by th e collation of
both deposits of revelation. B y reaso n of th is in tim ate con ­
nection and com m unity of purpose b etw een S crip tu re and u n ­
w ritten T rad itio n , w e m ay say w ith V atican II th at th ey m ake
up to g ether one single and to tal d ep o sit of rev elatio n .20

W e stated above ( p. 11) th at T rad itio n can b e tak en in tw o

senses, th at is, as in teg ral T rad itio n , w hich includes S crip tu re
itself, and as p artial or c o n s titu tiv e T r a d itio n , w hich is dis ­
tin ct from S criptu re as to its object, because it contains som e
doctrines and usages not su fficien tly show n in S crip tu re. L ate ­
ly som e w riters have denied th e v ery ex isten ce of c o n s titu tiv e
T r a d itio n as reg ard s th e rev ealed tru th s (n o t th e u sag es),
claim ing th at th ese tru th s are contained to tally in S crip tu re
and to tally in T raditio n , an d hence th ere is no co n stitu tiv e b u t
only d eclarativ e T rad itio n , w hich only ex p lain s and declares
w h at is alread y sufficien tly contained in S crip tu re. 21 T his

20 D ogm atic C onstitution on D ivine R evelation, no. 9 f.

21 T his opinion w hich gave rise to a sharp controversy, w as pro ­
posed for the first tim e, at least explicitly and definitely, in 1956 by
J. R . G eiselm ann, "D as M issverstandnis über das V erhaltnis von
15
 T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

opinion w as sim p ly rejected and sev erely criticized by other

theologians of th e trad itio n al type, as being opposed to the
d eclaratio n s of T ren t and V atican I (sec above p. 12). 22 H ow ­
ever, o th er au th o rs h av e tried to follow a m iddle opinion, say ­
in g th at all th e rev ealed tru th s are in som e w ay tru ly contain ­
ed in S crip tu re, b u t only as to th eir su b stan ce, o r v irtu ally, or
im plicitly, o r n o t sim ply, so th at T rad itio n accid en tally and
tru ly com pletes S crip tu re. 23
D iscarding th e p articu lar featu res of th is d eb ate, th ere are
fo u r th in g s w hich seem to be ad m itted by everyone. F irst, sev ­
eral m atters co n cern in g discipline (m o rals and usages) of
d ivin e o rig in and connected w ith rev ealed tru th s (fo r instance
in fan t B ap tism ) are found in T rad itio n and n o t su fficien tly in
S crip tu re; hence th ere is a co îtstitu tiv e T r a d itio n regarding
these. S econdly, th e can o n icity and in sp iratio n of S criptu re as
a w hole is know n only th ro u g h T rad itio n and n o t through
S criptu re itself (see above p. 14); hence th ere is also a c o n ­
s titu tiv e T r a d itio n reg ard in g th is im p o rtan t tru th . T hirdly,
th e know ledge of sev eral tru th s, as d eriv ed from S crip tu re, is
not certain unless it is com pleted by th e d ata of T radition;

S chrift und T radition und seine U eberw indung in dor katholischen

T héologie, ” U n a S a n c ta 11 (1956) 131-150: D ie H e ilig e S c h r ift
u n d th e T r a d itio n ( “ Q uaestiones disputatae ” 18), F reiburg-B asel-
W ien 1962. H e w as follow ed bv several other w riters, particular ­
ly by G . H . T avard. H o ly W r it o r H o ly C h u r c h . T h e C risis o f th e
P ro te s ta n t R e fo rm a tio n . L ondon 1959: cf. his tw o articles in T h e o ­
lo g ica l S tu d ie s (1962) 337-405: (1963) 278-290, and H . H olstein. “ La
T radition d'après le concile de T rente, ” R e ch e r ch e s d e s c ien c e r e ­
lig ie u s e (1959) 367-390; L a T radition d a n s V E g lise , P aris, 1960.
22 T hus H . L ennerz (w ho w as the first to attack G eiselm ann),
“ S criptura sola? ” , G r e g o ria n u m 40 (1959) 39-53; “ Sine scripto tradi ­
tiones. ” ibid. 42 (1961) 517-522: C . B oyer, "T raditions apostoliques
non écrites. ” D o c to r C o m m u n is 15 (1962) 5-21; cf. ibid. 16 (1963)
51-57; 17 (1964) 5-19; B . X iberta, L a T r a d iciô n y su p r o b le m â tic a
a c tu a l. B arcelona 1964; several am ong the w riters in the collective
w orks S c h r ift u n d T r a d itio n . E ssen 1962, and D e S c rip tu r a e t T r a d i ­
tio n e , R om a 1963. edited on the occasion of this controversy and of
the opening of V atican C ouncil II.
23 T hus, am ong others, J. B eum er in the collective w ork D e
S c r ip tu r a e t T r a d itio n e (R om a 1963) 17-40, and Y . M .-J. C ongar, in
R e v u e d e s s c ie n ce s p h ilo s o p h iq u e s e t th é o lo g iq u e s 48 (1964) 645-657.

16
 T r a d itio n , 'D ie L iv in g D e p o s it o f R e v e la tio n

hence th ere is a c o m p le tiv e T r a d itio n in th is reg ard . F o u rth ly ,

th e know ledge of o th er tru th s d eriv ed from S criptu re is fu r ­
th er illu strated and confirm ed by T rad itio n ; an d hence th ere
is a d e c la r a tiv e T r a d itio n . T hese are th e fo u r w ays in w hich
T rad itio n tru ly com pletes and p erfects S crip tu re. 24
B ut, fu rth erm o re, it seem s to us th at th e co n stitu tiv e T r a d i ­
tio n m u st be en larg ed w ith reg ard to sev eral o th er tru th s,
w hich can h ard ly b e said to be su fficien tly ex p ressed o r in ­
dicated in S crip tu re, even im plicity, so as to be necessarily
d raw n from o th er tru th s, ex p licitly related in it. S uch are, for
instance, th e v alid ity of B aptism ad m in istered by a h eretic
o r a pagan, w hich S t. A u g u stin e claim s fro m T rad itio n alone
(O n B a p tis m 5.23); th e necessity of B aptism fo r in fan ts, or
th eir inclusion in Jo hn 3.5, w hich th e C ouncil of T ren t refers
to th e “ trad itio n of th e ap o stles ” (sess. 5, can. 4, D enz. 1514);
th e non-necessity of C om m union fo r in fan ts, o r th eir non-in-
clusion in Jo h n 6.53, according to th e sam e C ouncil (sess. 21,
chap. 4, D enz. 1730); th e sevenfold n u m b er of th e sacram en ts;

24 T hese are also the conclusions briefly indicated by V atican II

(D ogm . C onstit. on D ivine R evelation, no. 8 f.). T he C ouncil teaches:
“ T hrough T radition the com plete canon of the S acred B ooks com es
to be know n by the C hurch ” ; “ through T radition the Sacred W rit ­
ings are m ore fully understood and becom e unceasingly active ” ;
“ T radition transm its integrally the w ord of G od to the successors of
the apostles [that is, to the M agisterium ], so that through their
preaching they m ay faithfully preserve, explain, and spread it ” ;
“ T he C hurch draw s its certitude about all the revealed things not
from the S acred S cripture alone. ”
T he C ouncil, therefore, attributes four things to T radition, nam e ­
ly, the know ledge of the canonical books, a fuller understanding of
w hat is contained in S cripture, the transm ission of the entire revela ­
tion, and the certitude about all the revealed truths. T he first tw o
things are attributed to T radition alone, as distinct from S cripture;
of w hich the very first show s a constitutive T radition, the second a
com pletive, or at least a declarative. T radition.
In one passage the C ouncil says that “ the apostolic preaching is
expressed in a special m anner in the inspired books. ” T his refers
both to the character and force of the charism of inspiration, and
to the fullness of particular facts and circum stances about C hrist ’ s
life and the apostolic m inistry, know n through the G ospels and the
A cts.

17
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

th e cu lt of im ages, w hich S t. Jo h n D am ascene refers to T radi ­

tion (O n th e O r th o d o x F a ith 4 .1 6 ); th e Im m acu late C oncep ­
tio n and th e A ssum ption of th e B lessed V irgin, tru th s w hich
w ere developed only in later T rad itio n th ro u g h th e sense of
th e faith fu l.

H ow ever, w e can say th at these and all th e o th er revealed

truth s are found also in S crip ture in som e w ay, inasm uch as
one can alw ay s fin d in S criptu re itself s o m e s e e d o r fo u n d a ­
tio n from w hich th ey can be derived b y m eans of th e d ata of
T rad itio n . T h u s w e can u n d erstan d b etter how S crip tu re and
T rad itio n com plete each o th er and m ak e up, as it w ere, one
single deposit of rev elatio n h av in g tw o m odes of expression,
in terrelated and n ecessary fo r th e fu ll know ledge of a revealed
tru th . T his seem s to b e th e m ind of th e V atican C ouncil IT,
w hen it p refers to speak of “ one deposit of rev elatio n ,” as w ell
as of P iu s X II h im self w ho, d efin in g th e A ssum ption of the
B lessed V irgin, d eclares: “ A ll these arg u m en ts and considera ­
tions of th e H oly F ath ers and theologians are based on the
S acred W ritin g s as th eir u ltim ate fo u n d atio n ” (D enz. 3900).

c. D is c e r n ib ility o f T r a d itio n .

T h ere are tw o w ays, o r criteria, th ro u g h w hich w e can find

o u t fo r certain w h eth er a d o ctrin e o r p ractice belongs to T rad i ­
tion.

T h e fir s t and p rim ary criterio n is th e d e c la r a tio n o f th e

M a g is te r iu m , especially th e in fallib le and solem n. H ence, if
th e M agisterium ex p licitly d eclares th at a d o ctrin e is found
in T rad itio n , it is certain ly so; if th e M agisterium m erely de ­
fines o r teaches a doctrine, such a d o ctrin e is necessarily found
in th e d ep o sit of rev elatio n , and hence eith er in S crip tu re or
T rad itio n o r both.

T h e s e c o n d criterio n (open both to th e theologian and to the

M ag isteriu m itself w hich, before defining a tru th m u st inquire
w h eth er it is really contained in th e deposit of rev elatio n ) is
th e ex am in atio n of th e v ario u s m eans th ro u g h w hich th e ob ­
jectiv e T rad itio n is tran sm itted , or in w hich th e active T rad i ­
tio n consists ( see above p. 11). T his criterio n is g en erically ex ­
pressed in th e fam ous statem en t of V incent o f L e r in s ( ~ before
4 5 0 ): “ In th e C atholic C hurch g reat care m u st b e tak en th a t

18
 T r a d itio n , T h e L iv in g D e p o s it o f R e v e la tio n

w e h o ld w h a t h a s b e e n b e lie v e d e v e r y w h e r e , a lw a y s, a n d b y
a ll ” (C o m m o n ito riu m p r im u m , chap. 2 ); th is is to say, th at a
doctrine w hich d e fa c to is u n iv ersally believed, belongs to
T radition. T his u n iv ersality of belief can be ascertain ed es ­
pecially in tw o w ays, n am ely th rou g h th e d o ctrin e of th e F a ­
th ers and th ro u g h th e com m on sense of th e faith fu l. H ence if
the F ath ers com m only teach, as a tru th of faith , a d o ctrin e not
sufficiently contained in S crip tu re, such a d o ctrin e h as su rely
been tran sm itted o r developed by T rad itio n ; likew ise, if a
doctrine, w hose origin can n o t be ascertain ed th rou g h th e F a ­
th ers or th e C ouncils, is n ev erth eless com m only believed in
th e C hurch, it certain ly com es dow n from T radition.

2. T h e p r o b a tiv e v a lu e o f T r a d itio n , a s a th e o lo g ic a l p la c e .

T his v alu e can be ex p ressed w ith th e follow ing six n o r m s.

F ir s t n o r m . S ince T rad itio n is a tru e and p rim ary deposit of

revelation, it is co n seq u en tly a p r o p e r , p r im a ry a n d in d e p e n d ­
e n t th e o lo g ic a l p la c e , fro m w hich a theologian can confidently
proceed in his investigation. It is a p rim ary place ev en w ith re ­
spect to S crip tu re, in th e sense ex p lain ed above (p . 14). It is
sim ply in d epen d ent from S crip tu re, ev en fo r its in terp reta ­
tion, it is also in d ep en d en t from th e M agisterium , n o t as to its
in terp retatio n (fo r th e M ag isteriu m in terp rets both S crip tu re
and T rad itio n ), b u t as to its p ro b ativ e force, as ex p lain ed a-
bove w ith reg ard to S criptu re ( p. 6 ).
S e c o n d n o r m . In in terp retin g th e sense of T raditio n , th e first
and suprem e ru le is th e a u th e n tic d e c la r a tio n o f th e M a g is ­
te r iu m , as w e stated also fo r S crip tu re (p . 7 ). H ow ever, th is
does not dispense a theologian fro m in q u irin g d irectly into th e
various m eans by w hich T rad itio n is h an d ed over ( see above
p. 11), in o rd er to clarify th e tru th of th e m ag isterial d eclara ­
tion and to com plete his ow n theological know ledge.

T h ir d n o r m . A theological arg u m en t o r in v estig atio n can be

based on any of th e m eans b y w hich T rad itio n is handed over,
as th e M agisterium , th e F ath ers, litu rg y , etc.; b u t it w ill be
m ore effective, if it is b a s e d o n s e v e r a l a t o n c e , in th e m an n er
of a synthesis, show ing how a tru th flow s from th e original
source th ro u g h th e various channels and b ran ch es of th e sam e
T radition.

19
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

F o u rth n o r m . A m ong th ese m eans, th e d o c trin e o f th e

F a th e rs has a p articu lar v alu e and a g reater force in any argu ­
m en t d raw n from T rad itio n , because it is scientifically the
su rest and easiest w ay to find th e tru th ; th is is th e reason w hy
th e arg u m en t fro m T rad itio n is often called “ arg u m en t from
th e F ath ers ” and is confined m ainly to th eir doctrine.25 In the
m ak in g of such an arg u m en t, th e tex ts should be critically and
certain ly estab lish ed , th e d o ctrin e should b e carefu lly valuat-
ed, to m ake su re th at th e F ath ers speak of a d o ctrin e about
faith o r m o rals and propose it positively ( not m erely opinia-
tiv ely ) as som ething to be held w ith faith , and finally the
m o rally unanim ous ag reem en t of th e F ath ers on such a doc ­
trin e should be estab lish ed . 26

F ifth n o r m . S ince a p articu lar tru th can be contained in

T rad itio n o n ly im p lic itly a n d la te r b e c o m e e x p lic it through
leg itim ate and logical p ro g ress in th e C h ristian m ind and con ­
science (see below p. 4 9 ), th e arg u m en t of T rad itio n for such
a tru th consists p recisely in show ing how it w as im plicitly con-

23 W e are dealing here w ith the F athers only as w itnesses of T ra ­

dition or as part of it. F urther below (op. 24-27) w e shall consider
them as private doctors having a personal and fallible authority and
w e w ill also explain the proper concept and m eaning of the title
“ F ather of the C hurch. ”
2fl In order to have a m orally unanim ous agreem ent, it is suf ­
ficient that all the F athers of o n e a g e agree: for, T radition being
one and im m utable, one age cannot disagree w ith another. It is also
sufficient that all the F athers of one la rg e p a r t o f th e C h u r c h , fo r
instance the W estern or the E astern regions, agree, w hile the other
part does not positively disagree: for, the C hurch being one in faith,
it is im possible that a large part of it disagrees w ith the other about
the sam e faith. L ikew ise, it is sufficient that s e v e r a l o u ts ta n d in g
F a th e rs , in various principal churches and in various places and
tim es, agree: for. it is im possible that a large and im portant part of
the C hurch be lacking in faith. It m ay also happen that the doctrine
of v e r y fe w F a th e r s , or even of one single F a th e r , be sufficient, as
expressing the tacit agreem ent of the others, if those F athers or that
F ather have been recognized (particularly by the M agisterium ) as
doctors or defenders of the com m on faith in a particular circum ­
stance or w ith regard to a particular dogm a, as is the case of St.
A thanasius in the question of Incarnation against A rianism , and of
St. A ugustine in the question of grace against Pelagianism .

20
 T r a d itio n , T h e L iv in g D e p o sit of R e v e la tio n

tained in an o th er ex p licit tru th since th e beginning and how

afterw ard s it progressed step b y step from im plicit to explicit.
T hus, for th e tru th of th e Im m acu late C onception, th e logical
and historical step s of its p ro g ress w ere: th e fu lln ess of grace
in M ary (th e biblical “ H ail, fu ll of g race ’ ’ ), th e com parison
w ith th e p u rity of E ve before th e original sin (several F a ­
th ers), th e g reatest san ctity after th at of C h rist as w as fittin g
divine m atern ity (F ath ers and theologians, p articu larly S.
T hom as), fin ally privileged im m u n ity from o rig in al sin in
conception (d efin itio n of th e M ag isteriu m ).

S ix th n o r m . W hen th e preceding d irect w ays of d eterm in ­

ing a trad itio n al tru th fail o r are less efficacious ( by reason of
the lack of docum ents or th e m u ltip licity of elem en ts necessary
to show th e co n tin u ity of a d o ctrin e w ith th e apostolic tim es),
the theologian m ay have recourse to th e so-called a r g u m e n t o f
p r e sc r ip tio n , w hich, alth o u g h in d irect, is likew ise based on
T radition. 27
T his arg u m en t can tak e a n eg ativ e o r a positive form . Its
n e g a tiv e fo r m am ounts to th is: T h e C h u rch , in som e d eterm in ­
ed age and for a long tim e before, has p eacefu lly tau g h t a doc ­
trin e as being of apostolic origin ( fo r in stance th e d o ctrin e of
th e seven sacram ents, held ex p licitly from th e 12th to th e
16th centuries, w hen th e P ro testan ts attack ed it). B u t ad v er ­
saries cannot p ro v e th e non-apostolic origin of such doctrine,
or assign th e au th o r, tim e, place, m an n er, by w hich it w ould
have arisen in som e su b seq u en t age. T h erefo re, th ey h av e no
rig h t to attack th e apostolic origin of such d o ctrine and th e
C hurch has th e title of p rescrip tio n of such doctrine, th at is,
th e rig h t of n o t being d istu rb ed in its profession.

27 T his argum ent w as sagaciously introduced and effectively used

first by T ertullian in his w ork O n th e P r e s c r ip tio n o f H e r etic s (about
the year 200), w ho transferred analogically the concept of prescrip ­
tion from its proper juridical object to the apologetico-theological
field. Its basic principle is: “ T he possessor has the juridical advant ­
age ” ( “ M elior est conditio possidentis ” ); w hich m eans that no one
can be disturbed in his peaceful and continued possession of som e ­
thing, until certain docum ents are brought forw ard to prove that
he has no right on such thing. C f. P. D e L abriolle "L ’ argum ent de
prescription,” R e v u e d ’ h is to ire e t d e litté r a tu r e r e lig ie u se (1906)
408-429, 497-514.

21
 T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

Its p o s itiv e a n d s tro n g e r fo r m , w hich goes beyond th e m ere

concept of p rescrip tio n by show ing th e exclusion of possible
causes of a post-apostolic origin of som e doctrine, ru n s as fol ­
low s: If a doctrine, w hich is considered apostolic, w ould have
been introduced in som e later tim e, th is w ould have happened
in tw o w ays, nam ely, eith er by a com m on conspiracy of de ­
ception, o r by a g en eral relax atio n , carelessness, and inadver ­
tence, th ro u g h w hich an erro r w ould have been slow ly intro ­
duced. N ow , both w ays are excluded, in view of th e diversity
of places and persons, and especially of th e zeal of m any faith ­
ful and p asto rs in g u ard in g th e deposit of faith. T herefore,
such a d o ctrin e is tru ly of apostolic origin and p ertain s to T ra ­
dition.

N o te 1. O n th e s e n se o f th e fa ith fu l, a s a th e o lo g ic a l p la c e . 20

W e stated above ip . 19) th at one of th e w ays of discerning

T raditio n , o r know ing w h eth er a p articu lar doctrine belongs
to T rad itio n , is to consult th e com m on sense of th e faithful
T his com m on sense can be considered as one of th e m eans by
w hich T rad itio n is h an d ed over, o r rath er it is an outstanding
w itn e s s to T r a d itio n .

T he im portance of this w itness lies in its in fa llib ility . usual ­

ly called p a s s iv e in fallib ility ( w ith resp ect to th e a c tiv e in ­
fallib ility of th e M agisterium , w hich has a g reat influence on
it): h o w ev er it likew ise h as its ow n true active ch aracter as
being also u n d er th e d irect in flu en ce of th e H oly S o irit. T his
in fallib ility is based on th e assistance of th e H oly S p irit pro ­
m ised b y C h rist to th e C hurch as a w hole, even abstracting
from th e M agisterium (cf. Jo h n 14.16; 17.20-22; 1 T im . 3.14.
w h ere th e en tire C h u rch is called ‘ ‘ th e p illar and th e m ainstay
of th e tru th ” ). It is show n also by th e follow ing considerations.
T h e p u rp o se of th e in fallib le M agisterium , w hich is to direct
and stren g then th e faith of th e C h ristian people (cf. M att.
16.18; 28.18-20), w ould be fru strated if th e people w ould ever 23

23 C f. F. M arin-Sola. L ’ é v o lu tio n h o m o g è n e d u d o g m e c a th o liq u e

(F ribourg. Sw isse 1924) 353-392: C . B alic, “ Il senso C ristiano c il pro ­
gresso del dogm a. ” G r e g o ria n u m 33 (1952) 106-134; W . M . T hom p ­
son. “ Sensus fidelium and Infallibility.” A m e r ic a n E c c le sia stica l
R e v ie w 167 (1973) 450-486.

22
 T r a d itio n , T h e L iv in g D e p o s it o f R e v e la tio n

err in m atters of faith. T he F ath ers in th eir co n tro v ersies w ith

heretics, and th e M agisterium itself in its definitions, appeal
to th e com m on sense of th e faith fu l; th u s P iu s IX before d efin ­
ing th e Im m aculate C onception in q u ired of th e bishops
throughout th e w orld “ w h at w as th e p iety and devotion of
th eir faith fu l to w ard th e Im m acu late C onception of th e
M other of G od; ” m oreover th e V atican C ouncil II ex p licitly
declared th e in fallib ility of th e C h ristian people, as a p ro perty
of th e prophetic office of th e C hurch in w hich th ey sh are. 29
R eason itself illustrates th is tru th by an analogical com pari ­
son w ith th at kind of n atu ral in fallibility , restin g on in tu itio n ,
w hich is found in th e so-called com m on sense. F o r, ju st as th is
n atu ral sense spontaneously springs u p from com m on n atu ral
reason, on th e basis of ev iden t g en eral principles, and b e ­
com es an acknow ledged criterio n m an ifestin g n atu ral tru th ,
so th e com m on ag reem en t of th e faith fu l ab o u t som e su p er ­
n atu ral tru th can not b u t sp rin g co n n atu rally fro m th eir com ­
m on faith, infused and m oved in th eir h earts by th e H oly
S pirit. 30

T he principal m e a n s o f d e s c e r n in g th is sense of th e faith fu l

are C hristian literature, th e p ractice of p ray er and devotions,
popular preaching, and th e m o n u m en ts of C h ristian art itself
(arch itectu ral, scu lp tu ral, p icto rial).

B y reason of its in fallibility , th is C h ristian sense, besides

being a w itness or sign of T raditio n , can be tak en also as a
d is tin c t th e o lo g ic a l p la c e , having by itself th e force of a p rin ci ­
ple of theological arg u m en tatio n . H ow ever, it m u st be used

29 “ T he holy P eople of G od shares also in the prophetic office of

C hrist, by spreading a living testim ony to H im especially by a life
of faith and charity and by offering to G od a sacrifice of praise, the
fruit of lips praising H is nam e (cf. H eb. 13.15). T he w hole body of
the faithful, anointed as it is by the H oly O ne (cf. John 2.20 and 27),
cannot be deceived in his belief. It m anifests this property by m eans
of the supernatural sense of faith of the w hole people, w hen, ’ from
the B ishops dow n to the low est m em ber of the laity ’ [St. A ugustine,
O n th e P re d e stin a tio n o f S a in ts 14.27] it show s a universal agree ­
m ent in m atters of faith and m orals ” (D ogm atic C onstitution on the
C hurch, no. 12).
30 C f. M arin-Sola, op. ctt. 382 f.

23
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

w ith carefu l discretion, th at is, only w h en th e u n iv ersal agree ­

m en t of th e C h ristian people is certain and w hen it is question
of p rin cip al and m ore com m on tru th s w hich alone are easily
b ro u g h t into ex p licit and g en eral know ledge, as w ell as into
d efin ite and com m on practice, ju st as in th e o rd er of natural
tru th s no one w ould reaso n ab ly appeal to th e com m on sense,
ex cep t in those things w hich are of in terest to all and suitable
to th e in tellig en ce and ju d g m en t of all.

N o te 2 . O n th e F a th e r s o f th e C h u r c h a s a th e o lo g ic a l place. 31

T he F ath ers of th e C hurch can be considered in tw o w ays.

F ir st as w itn e s s e s to T r a d itio n , as w e considered them above
(pp. 7, 11, 19, 2 0 ), and th u s th ey are a p rim ary and sure
theological place, o r rath er th ey m ingle w ith o th er elem ents
into one p rim ary theological place w hich is T rad itio n itself.
S e c o n d ly , th ey can be considered in them selves or in their
cap acity an d v alu e as p r iv a te d o c to r s in th e C hurch, and thus
th ey rep resen t a p articu lar and d istin ct theological place, but
of secondary and m ere p ro b ab le value, as w e sh all explain be ­
low , after a b rief d eterm in atio n of th e notion of F ath er of the
C hurch and of th e connected notions of ecclesiastical w riter
and of D octor of th e C hurch.

F a th e r o f th e C h u r c h , as a title of trad itio n al use, w as orig ­

in ally connected w ith th e concept of g en eratin g o th ers in
C h ristian faith , and later received its fu ll theological m ean ­
ing, according to w hich F ath er of th e C hurch is properly de ­
fin ed : H e w h o . b y r e a so n o f a p a r tic u la r h o lin e ss , e m in e n t a n d
o r th o d o x d o c trin e , r e m o te a n tiq u ity , a n d e c c le s ia s tic a l a p p r o ­
b a tio n , h a d a c o n n a tu r a l in flu e n c e in th e g e n e ra tio n o f th e
fa ith fu l a n d th e p r o p a g a tio n o f th e fa ith .

H ence fo u r q u alities are req u ired in a m an to deserve such

title. P a rtic u la r h o lin e ss is req u ired , by reason of th e intim ate
connection b etw een C h ristian life and C h ristian doctrine.
E m in e n t a n d o r th o d o x d o c trin e is req u ired b y th e concept of
p atern ity in faith , lest th e p etty w ould g en erate th e p etty and
th e blind w ould guide th e blind; how ever, th e em inence of

31 C f. Y . M .-J. C ongar, “ L es S aints Pères, organes privilégiés de

la T radition. ” Ir é n ik o n 35 (1962) 479-498.
24
 T r a d itio n , T h e L iv in g D e p o s it o f R e v e la tio n

doctrine is to be understood relativ ely to th e tim e and o th er

circum stances (as is, for instance, effective refu tatio n of h ere ­
sies); orthodoxy is n o t affected b y a p articu lar erro r, eith er
secondary (as found in m an y F ath ers) or m aterial (as w as S t.
C yprian ’ s erro r on reb ap tism ). R e m o te a n tiq u ity , or n earn ess
to the beginnings of th e C hurch, is req u ired th at one m ay be
considered as g en eratin g and b rin g in g to m atu rity th e adoles ­
cent C hurch; th is condition applies strictly to th e first five
centuries, (u p to and including S t. G reg o ry th e G reat + 6 0 4 ),
but theologians com m only ex ten d th e p atristic age to th e
eighth cen tu ry , m ore ex actly u p to S t. Isid o re of S eville
(+ 636) in th e W est and to S t. Jo h n D am ascene (+ ab o u t 749)
in th e E ast. E c c le sia s tic a l a p p r o b a tio n is req u ired because only
th e M agisterium is q u alified to ju d g e on th e o rth o d o x y of a
w riter; this ap p ro b atio n is given eith er in g en eral, inasm uch
as C ouncils and R om an P o n tiffs in th eir acts refer g en erically
to th e au th o rity of th e F ath ers, o r in p articu lar, and again
eith er im plicitly, if th e w orks of a w riter are publicly used in
th e acts of th e M agisterium , o r ex p licitly , if th e w orks of an
individual w riter are com m ended by nam e (th u s S t. A ugus ­
tine ’ s w orks w ere d irectly com m ended by P opes C elestin e and
H orm isdas; S ain ts C y prian, G reg o ry N azianzen, B asil, A than-
anius, and o th ers, w ere com m ended b y P ope G elasius; cf.
D enz. 237,353 ) o r even solem nly by th e attrib u tio n of th e spec ­
ial title “ D octor of th e C h u rch ” (as S ain ts A m brose, A ugus ­
tine, Jerom e, and others; see b elo w ).
E c c le s ia s tic a l w r ite r , in th e strict sense an d as distinguished
from “ F ath er, ” is th e one w ho en jo y s an tiq u ity b u t lacks one
or another of th e th ree rem ain in g p ro p erties req u ired in a
F ath er, th at is, holiness, orthodoxy, o r ap p ro b atio n of th e
C hurch. E specially b y reason of th e lack of full orthodoxy, th e
title of F ath er of th e C hurch is to b e refu sed to som e v ery o u t ­
standing ecclesiastical w riters, such as T ertu llian , O rigen, and
E usebius of C esarea.32 H ow ever, in th e theological arg u m en t

32 T he follow ing are not strictly F athers: som e am ong the so-call ­
ed A pologists of the second century, that is, A ristides, A thenagoras,
and T atian (this one on account of his heretical E ncratism ); like ­
w ise T ertullian (on account of his m ontanist heresy), O rigen (w ho
w as condem ned several tim es for som e unorthodo x opinions, such
as the preexistence of souls and the universal eschatological rear-

25
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

from th e F ath ers o r from T raditio n , these and o th er ecclesias ­

tical w riters are included on account of th e v alu e of th eir re ­
m ain in g doctrine, in w hich th ey are at tim es far superior to
those w ho are p ro p erly F ath ers; such is T ertu llian in apolo ­
getics, O rigen in exegesis and g en erally in theology, and E use ­
bius of C aesarea in ecclesiastical h isto ry .33

D o c to r o f th e C h u r c h is a special and specific title given by

th e M agisterium , since th e end of th e th irteen th century
(startin g from B oniface V III in 1295). It w as first given to
som e of th e F ath ers, and th en also to theologians and other
ecclesiastical w riters, for both th eir holiness and th eir em inent
d o ctrin e, w hich in som e p articu lar m atter o r m an n er contri ­
b u ted to th e b u ild in g u p of th e faith . U p to th e p resen t tim e 32
have been declared doctors. 20 am ong th e F ath ers and 12 a-
m ong theologians (of w hom tw o are w om en, C atherine of
S iena and T h eresa of A v ila). T h e first F ath ers declared doc ­
to rs b y B oniface V III in 1295 are th e fo u r g reat doctors of the
W est: A m brose. A ugustine. Jero m e, and G regory th e G reat;
m uch later P iu s V in 1568 gave th e sam e title to th e four great
doctors of th e E ast, A th an asiu s. B asil. G regory of N azianzus,
and C hrysostom . T h e first, th eo lo g ian to receive th e title w as
S t. T hom as A quinas (b y P iu s V in 1567) and th e second w as
S t. B o n av en tu re (b y S ix tu s V in 1588). 34

rangem ent of the fate of m en), A rnobius. L actantius, E usebius of

C aesarea (w ho w as not sufficiently exem pt from A rianism ), R ufinus
of A quilea (w ho indirectly favored O rigenism ). T hcodoret of C yrus
and T heodore of M opsuesta (for their connection w ith N estorianism ).
33 O ften in the sam e argum ent arc included also som e of the out ­
standing w riters of the late patristic or m edieval age, particularly
B ede (4-735), A nselm of C anterbury ( | 1109), and B ernard of C lair-
vaux (4-1153).
34 T he other doctors am ong the F athers, besides the eight just
m entioned, are: A nselm of C anterbury (declared doctor in 1720),
Isidore of S eville (1722), P eter C brysologus (1729). L eo the G reat
(1754), P eter D am ian (1828). B ernard of C lairvaux (1830). H ilary of
P oitiers (1851), C yril of A lexandria (1882), C yril of Jerusalem
(1882), John D am ascene (1890), B ede (1899), E phraem (1920).
T he other doctors am ong theologians, besides S t. T hom as and St.
B onaventure, are: St. A lphonsus L iguori (1871), St. F rancis de Sales
(1877), St. P eter C anisius (1925), St. John of the C ross (1926). St.

26
 T r a d itio n , T h e L iv in g D e p o s it of R e v e la tio n

T h e F a th e rs < and p ro p o rtio n ally also th e o th er ecclesiastical

w riters), not as w itnesses to T rad itio n (see above, p. 20) b u t
as p r iv a te d o c to rs , th at is, w hen th ey do n o t propose a doctrine
as to be held by faith o r do not unanim ously ag ree on such a
doctrine, m ake up a p r o p e r a n d d is tin c t th e o lo g ic a l p la c e , b u t
o n ly s e c o n d a r y a n d p r o b a b le , on w hich th erefo re a theologian
can base only a p ro b ab le arg u m en tatio n .
H ow ever, these p ro b ab le p atristic arg u m en ts are not to be
discarded or u n d erv alu ed , for these w riters g reatly co n trib u t ­
ed to th e increase and evolution of theological science, as is
evident p articu larly of so m any secondary d o ctrin es of S t.
A ugustine, w hich gave to m edieval theologians th e o p p o rtu n i ­
ty of in q u irin g fu rth er in to various theological tru th s, som e of
w hich (as th at on th e sacram en tal ch aracter) reach ed later
on th e m atu rity of a dogm a defined by th e M agisterium . N at ­
urally th e force of p ro b ability in such arg u m en ts grow s ac ­
cording to th e n u m b er of F ath ers w ho can be b ro u g h t fo rw ard
(short of universal ag reem en t), to th eir g reater n earn ess to
the apostolic age, and to th e g reater au th o rity of one o r an ­
other individual F ath er, based on a su p erio r intelligence, o r a
particular in q u iry into th e su b ject m atter, o r a special ap ­
probation of th e C hurch (su ch is th e theological au th o rity of
S t. A ugustine above all th e o th er F ath ers, ev en of th e E astern
C hurch).

N o te 3. O n th e th e o lo g ia n s a s a th e o lo g ic a l p la c e d

L ike th e F ath ers, theologians can be considered in tw o w ays.

F ir s t, as w itnesses to T raditio n; th u s all th at has b een said a-
bove about th e F ath ers ( p. 20 ) ap p lies p ro p o rtio n ally to them ,
although in a m uch lesser degree of im p o rtan ce an d au th o rity .

R obert B ellarm ine (1931), St. A lbert the G reat (1932), St. A nthony
of Padua (1946), St. L aw rence of B rindisi (1959), Ste. T heresa of
A vila (1970), Ste. C atherine of Siena (1970). R egarding these last
tw o D octors, first am ong w om en to be honored by the C hurch w ith
such title, see C iv iltà C a tto lic a 121 (1970), vol. 3, pp. 458-468; vol.
4, pp. 18-30; C la r e tia n u m 12 (1972) 257-289.
35 C f. II. L am iroy, “ D e auctoritate theologorum , ” C o lla tio n e s
B ru g en se s 24 (1924) 66-69; H . V an L aak, T h e s e s q u a e d a m d e P a tr u m
e t th e o lo g o ru m m a g is te r io n e c n o n d e fid e liu m s e n s u (R om a 1933)
33-49.

27
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

S e c o n d ly , th ey can be considered as p r iv a te d o c to rs , and in this

resp ect th ey are like th e F ath ers, b u t at a low er level, a dis ­
tin ct theological place of secondary and m ere probable value.

T heologians b y definition are C a th o lic m e n , w h o a fte r th e

c lo s in g o f th e p a tr is tic a g e h a v e ta u g h t o r te a c h s a c r e d s c ie n c e ,
e ith e r b y w o r d in th e s c h o o ls o r (a n d e s p e c ia lly ) b y w r itin g s ,
w ith a n e m in e n tly o r th o d o x d o c trin e a n d u n d e r th e a p p r o b a ­
tio n o f th e M a g is te r iu m .

A m ong th e fo u r p ro p erties req u ired in th e F ath ers (see

above p .2 4 ), only tw o are req u ired in a theologian, th at is, no
an tiq u ity and no official holiness, b u t em in en t orthodox doc ­
trin e and th e ap p ro b atio n of th e M agisterium .3 ®

T h e d o c trin e m u st be strictly theological, alth o u g h auxiliary

sciences are not excluded b y reaso n of th eir in tim ate connec ­
tion w ith theology. It can be also a d o ctrin e proposed only by
w ords (as in teach in g o r p reach in g ), alth o u g h it is usually
given o r accom panied b y w ritin g s. It m u st be em in en t; for not
everyone w ho dabbles w ith theology, o r ev en teaches theology,
o r achieves th e academ ic degree of doctor in theology, is prop ­
erly a theologian, but only he w ho produces v alu ab le theologi ­
cal w ritin g s, according to th e com m on estim atio n , o r spends a
long and successful teach in g career. It m u st be orthodox, es ­
sen tially and as a w hole, n o tw ith stan d in g a possible secondary
o r m aterial erro r, as w e said in reg ard to th e F ath ers them ­
selves (p .2 5 ). T he a p p r o b a tio n o f th e C h u r c h m u st be at least
g en eral and im plicit, th at is, contained in th e v ery fact th at
th e w ords o r th e w riting s of a d o cto r are allow ed b y th e vigi ­
lan t M agisterium to be used in preaching, in stru ctio n of the
faith fu l, and in th e p ro g ram of schools. H ow ever, also an ex ­
plicit ap p ro b atio n has often been given to theologians by the
M agisterium , eith er in general o r in p articu lar (as in th e case
of S t. T h o m as), and m oreover som e of th em ( tw elv e up to the
p resen t tim e, as show n above, p. 26) h av e been also given the

38 H ence strictly speaking all the ecclesiastical w riters from the

eighth century on, including St. B ede (+ 735), St. A nselm (4-1109),
and St. B ernard (+ 1153), are theologians, although in a stricter or
m ore com m on sense, only the scientific w riters from the tw elfth
century on are called “ theologians.”

28
 T r a d itio n , T h e L iv in g D e p o sit o f R e v e la tio n

official title of D octor of th e C hurch i first in tim e S t. T hom as

h im self). 37

T heologians, considered n o t as w itnesses to T rad itio n , but

as p r iv a te d o c to r s, th at is, w hen th ey do not propose a doctrine
as of faith o r do not u n an im o u sly agree on such doctrine, con ­
stitu te, like th e F ath ers them selves, alth o u g h on a low er level,
« p r o p e r a n d d is tin c t th e o lo g ic a l p la c e , b u t o n ly s e c o n d a r y
a n d p r o b a b le , w hose force is g reater or lesser according to th e
au th o rity and th e n u m b er of th e d efen d ers of a doctrine. S uch
theologically p ro b ab le d o ctrin es should n o t b e u n d erv alu ed ,
for they o ften carry th e seed of a fu tu re certain doctrine,
w hich w ill fin ally g ath er th e general ag reem en t and pave th e
w ay to a solem n d eclaratio n of th e M agisterium ; at an y rate,
they are alw ays useful fo r a d eep er u n d erstan d in g of th e re ­
vealed tru th s.

A s reg ard s th e solid p ro b ab ility of a theological opinion,

and hence its conform ity w ith th e teach in g of th e M agisterium ,
it is not sufficient th at such an opinion be held by one or a few
theologians, unless it is a question of a theologian especially
com m ended b y th e M agisterium , p articu larly u n d er th e title
of D octor of th e C h u rch (su ch as S t. T h o m as), o r of a few com ­
m only recognized as w eig h ty au th o rities in th eir field. H ence
A lexander V II condem ned th e follow ing lax ist proposition:
“ A n opinion, ex p ressed in th e book of a y o u n g er o r m odern

37 A m ong others, the follow ing are certain and outstanding theo ­
logians: T he tw elve D octors of the C hurch, m entioned above (am ong
w hom tw o w om en); the leaders of the better know n theological
schools, as St. T hom as, Scotus, Suârez; their principal predecessors
and follow ers, as P eter L om bard, A lexander of H ales, A lbert the
G reat, B onaventure, C apreolus, C ajetan, F errariensis, V ictoria, C ano,
T oletus, V âsquez, M olina, B ellarm ine, John of St. T hom as, St. A l-
phonsus L iguori, and m any others up to our present tim e, in a spec ­
ial m anner the authors of w orks used as m anual or reference books
in theological schools, for the instruction and form ation of future
apostolic preachers.
H eretical and schism atic w riters, as w ell as those w hose doctrine
has been censured by the M agisterium (as C atholic S em irationalists
and Sem im odernists), how ever learned they m ay be in auxiliary
sciences or disciplines, a re n o t th e o lo g ia n s, for lack of orthodox
doctrine.

29
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

au th o r, should be considered as probable, as long as it is not

ev iden t th at it has been rejected as im probable by th e A pos ­
tolic S ee ” (D enz. 2047 1. 38

T h o m a s A q u in a s , am ong and above all o th er theologians,

m ay be considered as a p a r tic u la r a n d d is tin c t th e o lo g ic a l
p la c e , h av in g a stro ng er p ro b ab le v alu e fo r a sound and sure
theological in v estig ation . 39 T his is based on a v e r y s p e c ia l
c o m m e n d a tio n of his w orks and d o ctrin es by th e M agisterium ,
beyond th e title of D octor of th e C hurch, given also to several
o th er theologians. T h e M agisterium , in fact, besides contin ­
uously p raisin g and com m ending his d o ctrin es through cen ­
tu ries since th e v ery day of his canonization by Jo h n X X II

38 T his is m ore than a w arning to that kind of theological laxism

or im m oderate freedom , claim ed for probable opinions in the pre ­
sent tim e. Som e recent w riters have even gone so far as to claim for
the theologians a kind of M agisterium in the C hurch, practically
equal or at least parallel to that of the H ierarchy, based on an alleg ­
ed true m agisterial office w hich w ould pertain to the entire C hurch.
T hus w e read in the w ork D is se n t In a n d F o r th e C h u r c h (by C harles
E. C urran. R obert E. H unt, and others. N ew Y ork 1969, p. 86 f.): “ In
the face of this trend tow ard establishing an e x c lu siv e teaching pre ­
rogative in the hierarchy, recent historical studies have exercised a
m odifying influence by pointing out the presence of error in past
papal and episcopal teaching and the correction of error by w ay of
theological dissent. D issent thus appears traditionally as one pos ­
sible, responsible option in the theological task. and. in its ow n w ay,
is an intrinsic elem ent in the total m agisterial function of the
C hurch. T he entire C hurch, as truly m agistral, can never be con ­
tained sim ply and exclusively in w hat has becom e know n as the
h ie ra r c h ic a l m agisterium . ’’ See the right evaluation and criticism of
this book m ade by J. F. C ostanzo, “ A cadem ic D issent: an O riginal
E cclesiology, ” T h o m is t 34 (1970) 636-653.
39 C f. I. B . R aus, “ L ’ enseignem ent de la doctrine de saint T hom as
considérée dans ses rapports avec le C ode et les écoles théologiques. ’ '
N o u v e lle r e v u e th é o lo g iq u e 52 (1925) 261-291, 358-380: H . D ieck-
m ann, “ D e auctoritate theologica S. T hom ae A quinatis,” S c h o la stik
(1926) 567 ff.; R . V illeneuve. “ Ite ad T hom am . ” A n g e lic u m 13 (1936)
3-23; I. M . R am irez. D e a u c to rita te d o c tr in a li S . T h o m a e A q u in a tis.
S alm anticae 1952; “ T he A uthority of St. T hom as, ’ ’ T h o m is t 15 (1952)
1-100; A . D . L ee, “ T hom ism and the C ouncil,” V a tic a n II: th e T h e o ­
lo g ica l D im en s io n (collective w ork, T he T hom ist P ress 1963) 451-
492.

30
 T r a d itio n , T h e L iv in g D e p o n it of R e v e la tio n

(Ju ly 18, 1323), has recen tly proclaim ed him “ P r in c e a n d

M a s te r o f a ll s c h o la stic d o c to r s ” i L eo X III, E ncycl. “ A etern i
P atris ” ), “ P a r tic u la r s u p p o rt a n d g lo r y o f th e C a th o lic
C h u r c h ” (ib id .), “ L e a d e r o f S tu d ie s ” ( P iu s X I, E n c y c l. “ S tu ­
diorum ducem ’ ), “ C o m m o n o r u n iv e rs a l D o c to r o f th e C h u r c h
. . . w h o s e d o c trin e th e C h u r c h h a s m a d e its o w n ” (ib id ,), th e
one w ho occupies “ th e m a in p la c e ” am ong C atholic doctors
(P aul V I, A llocution given at th e G reg orian U n iv ersity , S ept.
10,195 1. 40 B esides, th e M agisterium has in sisten tly and stro ng ­
ly declared th at theological stu d ies should be m ade according
to th e doctrine of S t. T hom as. H is S um m a T heologiae w as p re ­
scribed as a tex t for th e Italian S em in aries b y P iu s X (M otu
P roprio “ S acro rum an tistitu m ” ) and by B enedict X V in 1920,
and for G erm an y by th is sam e P ope in 1921. U n d er th e sam e
P ontiff th e C ode of C anon L aw proposed S t. T ho m as ’ teaching
in sem inaries u n d er th e form of a law : “ P rofessors shall
handle th e stu d ies an d th e in stru ctio n of th eir stu d en ts accord ­
ing to th e m ethod, th e d o ctrin e, and th e p rin ciples of th e
A ngelic D octor and keep th ese relig io u sly ” (can. 1366, §2).
P ius X II in his E ncycl. ' ‘ H um ani g en eris ” u rg ed th e ap p lica ­
tion of th is canonical law . V atican II d eclared th at th e stu d y
of speculative theology in th e sem in aries should be m ade “ u n ­
d er th e guidance of S t. T hom as ” (D ecree on P riestly F o rm a ­
tion, no. 16) and in C atholic schools, p articu larly in U n iv er ­
sities and faculties, m odern q u estio n s and in v estig atio n s
should be m ade “ follow ing in th e footsteps of th e D octors of
the C hurch, above all of S t. T hom as A q u in as ” (D eclaration on
C hristian E ducation, no. 10).

A s long as th e afo rem en tio n ed law rem ain s in th e C ode,

th ere is an obligation for professors of theology to follow th e
teaching of S t. T hom as in its m ain p rin ciples an d conclusions,
o r as a d o ctrin al body, alth o u g h th e w eig h t of th is obligation
is judged m ore o r less strictly or lig h tly by v ario u s theolo ­

<° T he three special nam es given to S. T hom as are: “ A n g e lic D oc­

to r ” (used since the 15th century, repeated by P ius V and later com ­
m only by the theologians and the M agisterium ), “ E u c h a r istic D oc­
to r ” (used in the 17th century, at least by the S alm anticenses in
their
treatise on the E ucharist, and repeated by P ius X I), and “ C om m on
D o c to r ” (first and pointedly introduced by P ius X I).

31
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

gians. H ow ever, no faith fu l o r p ru d en t son of th e C hurch, nor

an y docile h earer of its M agisterium , can conscientiously over ­
look th e fact th at th e C hurch has m ade th e doctrine of S t.
T hom as its ow n d o ctrin e and th e M agisterium has been in ­
sisten tly u rg in g th e theologians to follow it, fo r th e good of
th e C hurch and for th eir ow n good.

32
Ill
The Magisterium,
Organ of Revelation41

1. T h e n a tu r e of th e M a g is te r iu m .

T his m atter is to be ex am in ed m ore d istin ctly in th e treatise

on th e C hurch, as in its p ro p er place. H ere w e b riefly g ath er a
few g en eral and essen tial notions, w hich are necessary to as-
tablish th e o th er and p rin cip al point of th is question, nam ely
th e v alu e and use of th e M agisterium as a theological place, or
base of theological investigation.
M a g iste r iu m is d e fin e d as th e rig ht and th e d u ty of teach ­
ing au th o ritativ ely th e rev ealed tru th , to w hich on th e p art
of th e faithfu l corresponds th e obligation of accepting th e p ro ­
posed d o ctrin e w ith subm ission of h eart and m ind.
It is d iv id e d into o rd in ary M agisterium and ex traord in ary
or solem n M agisterium .
T he o r d in a r y M a g is te r iu m is th at w hich is exercised in a

41 C f. B aum gartner, D ejaifve, and V an den E ynde, cited above,

on p. 10; M . C audron, “ M agistère ordinaire et infaillibilité pontifi ­
cale d ’ après la C onstitution D ei F ilius [de V atican I], ” E p h e m er id e s
th e o lo g ic a e L o v a n ie n se s 36 (1960) 393-431; A . P iolanti, “ Il m agistero
della C hiesa e la scienza teologica," D iv in ita s 5 (1961) 531-551; L.
C iappi, “ Il m agistero della C hiesa nel pensiero di S. S. Pio X II, ”
ibid. 552-580; P. N au, “ L e m agistère pontifical ordinaire au prem ier
C oncile du V atican, ” R e v u e th o m is te 62 (1962) 341-397; M y ste r iu m
sa lu tis. D o g m a tiq u e d e l ’ h is to ir e d u s a lu t (trans, from the G erm an),
1/3: L ’ E g lise e l la tr a n s m is s io n d e la r é v é la tio n , P aris 1969.
33
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

com m on m an n er b y th e p astors of th e C h u rch (P o p e and

bishops) o r u n d er th eir d irectio n , by m eans of o rd inary papal
docum ents o r allocutions, docum ents of th e R om an C uria,
p astoral letters and allocutious of local bishops, preaching of
p riests, w ritin g s of F ath ers and theologians, scholarly teach ­
ing and catechetical in stru ctio n s. It can be eith er in fallib le or
noninfallible.

T h e e x tra o r d in a r y M agisterium consists in a form al, ex p li ­

cit and solem n d eclaratio n , m ade only b y th e su p rem e au th o r ­
ity in th e C h u rch , nam ely, th e R om an P o n tiff o r an E cum eni ­
cal C ouncil. D epending on th e w ill of th is au th o rity and on
th e m ode o r fo rm u la of th e d eclaratio n , it can be eith er in fal ­
lible fas are th e d efinitio n s of V atican I) o r n o n in fallib le (as
are th e C o n stitu tio n s, D ecrees, and D eclaratio n s of V atican
ID .
T h e M agisterium , both ex trao rd in ary and o rd in ary , is th e
o r g a n o f r e v e la tio n , th at is, th e ch an n el th ro u g h w hich rev ela ­
tio n com es to us from th e d ep o sit of S criptu re and T radition.
W hen it proposes w ith in fallib ility a rev ealed tru th , it becom es
also th e p r o x im a te r u le o f fa ith , th at is, th e norm d eterm in in g
fo r us th e o b ject to be believed, w hile S criptu re and T rad i ­
tion rem ain th e rem o te ru le of faith : in o th er w ords, w h at w e
believe and w e h av e to believe is not sim ply th e w ord of G od
contained in S criptu re and T rad itio n , b u t th at sam e w ord as
d eterm in ately and au th o ritativ ely proposed to us b y th e in ­
fallib le act of th e M ag isteriu m . 42 B y b ein g th e organ of rev ela ­
tion contained in T rad itio n , th e M agisterium becom es also
p art of th e active T raditio n , th at is. one of th e principal
m eans b y w hich th e o b jectiv e T rad itio n is tran sm itted , as w e
noted above (pp.11,18).

2. T h e p r o b a tiv e v a lu e o f th e M a g iste r iu m ., a s a th e o lo g ic a l
p la c e .

T his v alu e can be expressed b y th e follow ing th ree norm s.

42 V a tic a n I: “ B y divine and C atholic faith, all those things m ust

be believed w hich are contained in the w ritten or transm itted W ord
of G od and are proposed by the C hurch, either through a solem n
pronouncem ent or through the ordinary and universal M agisterium ,
to be believed as revealed truths" (sess. 3. chap. 3, D enz. 3011).
34
 T h e M a g is te r iu m , O r g a n of R e v e la tio n

F ir s t n o r m . S ince th e M ag isteriu m is th e o rg an of rev elatio n

and th e p ro x im ate ru le of faith , on w hich depend th e in ter ­
p retatio n and th e p resen tatio n of S criptu re and T rad itio n , it
is a p r o p e r , p r im a r y , in d e p e n d e n t, p r o x im a te a n d m o s t e f ­
fic a c io u s th e o lo g ic a l p la c e , o r basis of theological in v estig a ­
tion. It is tru e th at th e M agisterium , being only an o rg an and
a g u ard ian and not a deposit of rev elatio n , depends on S crip ­
tu re and T rad itio n , as th e o b ject to be g u ard ed and in terp ret ­
ed (see above, pp. 6, 15), b u t s u b je c tiv e ly o n o u r p a r t, and
hence for theological in v estig atio n , it is th e fir s t th e o lo g ic a l
p la c e , since S criptu re and T rad itio n depend on it fo r th e rig h t
in terp retation of th eir sense (see above pp. 6, 7, 18, 19).

S e c o n d n o r m . T h e o r d in a r y M a g iste r iu m h as th e sam e th e ­
ological v alu e as th e ex trao rd in ary ; it is ev en in itself m ore
valuable, inasm uch as it consists in th e o rd in ary an d co n n at ­
u ral proposition and ex p lan atio n of th e en tire deposit of rev ­
elation, w h ile th e ex trao rd in ary M agisterium has a provisional
ch aracter and a p articu lar objective, nam ely, th at of solem nly
proclaim ing a p articu lar tru th or condem ning a p articu lar er ­
ror.

H ow ever, on o u r p art and fo r theological in v estig atio n , th e

ex trao rd in ary M ag isteriu m is m uch m ore efficacious, because
it has a w ell-d eterm in ed su b ject (th e P ope and th e C ouncil)
and it m an ifests itself in w ell-d efin ite form ulas, w h ile th e o r ­
d in ary M agisterium is m ade up of n u m ero u s an d d ifferen t
elem ents, ex p ressin g them selves in v ariou s and in d efin ite
form s. H ence it is m ore d ifficu lt to ascertain and to determ ine.
T his is ev iden t as reg ard s those tru th s th at are o n ly im plicitly
contained in th e deposit of rev elatio n and g rad ually are
b ro u g h t in to ex p licit know ledge (su ch as th e Im m acu late C on ­
ception and th e A ssu m p tio n ); b u t also those tru th s w hich, b e ­
ing ex p licit and fu n d am en tal (as th e d iv in ity of C h rist, th e
hypostatic union, and th e m y stery of th e T rin ity), w ere p ro ­
posed since th e beginning by th e o rd in ary M agisterium ,
have received a m ore d efin ite and theologically m ore v al ­
uable fo rm u latio n by th e ex trao rd in ary M agisterium .

T h ir d n o r m . B efore using a d eclaratio n of th e ex trao rd in ary

M agisterium for a theological arg um en tatio n o r investigation,
it is necessary to a s c e r ta in th e d e g r e e o f its fo r c e , its p r o p e r
35
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

a n d d ir e c t o b je c t, a n d th e e x a c t s e n s e o f its w o r d s o r fo r m u la s.

R eg ard in g th e d e g r e e o f its fo r c e , it has to be noted th at not

all th e d eclaratio n s of th is M agisterium , h o w ev er solem n, are
d efin ite p ro n o u n cem en ts im p ly in g in fallib ility , b u t often they
are sim ple au th o ritativ e ex p lanatio n s of a doctrine, p referred
by th e M agisterium an d m ore com m on in th e C hurch, or w arn ­
ings, advices, persuasions, cen su res and p ro h ib itio n s of opin ­
ions. co n d em n atio n s of erro rs, w ith o u t a d efin ite and final
ju d g m en t th at th e d o ctrin e is to be held as an article of faith.
M oreover, it is not alw ay s easy to ascertain w h eth er a p articu ­
lar d eclaratio n carries th e w eight of in fallib ility . T he surest
signs of th is are: a d eclaratio n m ade u n d er th e form of a p ro ­
fession of faith , as is th e C reed of th e C ouncils of N icaea and
C o n stan tin o p le I; th e use of th e ex p licit fo rm u la “ W e define
such d o ctrin e to be a rev ealed tru th , o r to be held by faith, or
u n d er pain of in cu rrin g h eresy , ” as in th e definitions of the
Im m acu late C onception and th e A ssum ption; th e infliction of
th e n o te of h eresy on th e opposite doctrine, as is done also u n ­
d er th e w ord “ an ath em a,” at least in som e of th e canons of
T ren t and V atican I, w h ile in o th er canons, especially of older
C ouncils, th is w ord m eans only excom m unication, o r sep ara ­
tion from th e u n ity of th e C h u rch . 43

43 H ence, am ong recent pronouncem ents of the M agisterium , the

surest infallible definitions arc the canons of T rent and V atican I,
and the tw o definitions of the Im m aculate C onception (by P ius IX )
and the A ssum ption (by P ius X II).
N on-infallible docum ents are m ost of the doctrinal encyclicals of
L eo X III and subsequent Popes, and the constitutions, decrees and
declarations of V atican II.
D oubtful infallible definitions, by reason of the various judgm ents
of theologians, are som e of the m ost im portant docum ents of recent
Popes, as the encyclical “ Q uanta cura ” by P ius IX 1864 (against
N aturalism and Socialism ), the S yllabus by the sam e 1864 (against
R ationalism ), the m ere chapters of V atican I (the sam e holds for the
chapters of T rent), the epistle “ A postolicae curae ” by L eo X III
1896 (on A nglican ordinations), the encyclical “ P ascendi ” by Pius
X 1907 (in w hich M odernism is condem ned as “ a collection of all
heresies ” ), the encyclical “ C asti connubii ” by P ius X I 1930 (on
M atrim ony), the encyclical “ M ystici C orporis" by P ius X II 1943
(on the nature of the C hurch), the apostolic constitution “ Sacra-
36
 T h e M a g iste riu m , O r g a n o f R e v e la tio n

F rom th e p r o p e r a n d d ir e c t o b je c t, w hich alone is in fallib ly

defined, h av e to be excluded th e th in g s w hich are casually
and in ciden tally asserted (u sually u n d er an in d irect fo rm i,
th e m erely ex p lan ato ry propositions w ith o u t w hich th e sense
of th e defined tru th rem ains unchanged, and th e reasons or
arg u m en ts added to prove th e defined tru th . F or th e M agis ­
teriu m does not in ten d to d efin e in cid en tal or accidental de ­
term in atio n s. n o r is it in fallible in arg u ing and proving tru th s
b u t only in d eterm in in g th em and ju d g in g on them .
In d eterm in in g th e e x a c t sense of th e w ords and form ulas
w ith w hich th is p ro p er and d irect o b ject of th e d efin itio n is ex ­
pressed, carefu l atten tio n should be paid to tw o things. F ir st, to
the sense w hich those w ords and fo rm u las had at th e tim e th ey
w ere used, considering th e h isto rical circu m stan ces and th e
contem porary statu s of th e sacred science an d ecclesiastical
term inology ( fo r in stan ce, at th e tim e of T ren t and V atican I).
S e c o n d , to th e in ten tio n and th e ch aracter of th e P ope o r th e
C ouncil defining, considering ex p ecially th e circum stances
w hich provoked th e definition, th e acts of th e C ouncil, as w ell
as th e ch aracter and m en tality of th e h eretics ag ain st w hom
th e d efin itio n w as issued. F rom th e lack of such ex am in atio n ,
it happens at tim es th at th e w ords of o ld er C ouncils (ev en of
T ren t itself) are u n d u ly understood according to th e develop ­
ed and m ore d efin ite sense w hich th ey g rad u ally acq u ired in
m ore recen t theological term inology.

M oreover, it is to be noted th at th e d efin itio ns of th e M ag ­

isterium , considered in th eir p ro p er object, do not necessarily
express th e fu ll positive sense of a rev ealed tru th , since th ey
are u su ally b ro u g h t fo rth to ex clu d e som e p articu lar erro r,
rather th an to ex p lain d irectly a d o ctrin e in itself. H ence it is
necessary fu rth er to co m p are such d efin itio ns w ith th e deposit
of rev elatio n (S crip tu re and T rad itio n ), not so m uch in o rd er
to prove th eir conform ity w ith it, as to g rasp th e fu ller sense
of th e proposed tru th .

m entum O rdinis" by the sam e in 1947 (on the m atter and form of
the S acram ent of O rders).
37
Part II
The Theological Contents
Of the Channels of Revelation

T h e p ro p er c o n te n ts of rev elatio n , and hence of its channels,

are eith er ex p licit tru th s, w hich can be called dogm as in a gen ­
eric sense, o r im p licit tru th s, able to be d raw n from th e ex ­
p licit tru th s them selves, w hich are called theological conclus ­
ions. B oth are th e o lo g ic a l c o n te n ts of those channels, because
a theologian m u st n ecessarily d eal w ith th em in his scientific
in v estig atio n , since th ere is n o th in g else in theology, as in any
o th er science, th an p rin ciples and conclusions. H ence, this
second p art of o u r d ialectic and m ethodological treatise ab o u t
th e ch an n els of rev elatio n consists in a theological ev alu atio n
of both d o g m a (chap . 4) an d th e o lo g ic a l c o n c lu s io n (chap. 5).
It is logical to add to th is an ex p lan atio n and d eterm in atio n of
th e so-called th e o lo g ic a l n o te s and censures, w hich im ply a
ju d g m en t ab o u t th e ag reem en t o r d isag reem ent of a proposi ­
tion w ith th e co n ten ts of rev elatio n (ch ap . 6 ).

38
rv
Dogma'4
lo V Jilidilic)

1. N o tio n o f d o g m a .

D ogm a (a G reek noun, from “ dokéo ” = I th in k, I d ecree)

etym ologically signifies eith er a n o p in io n o r a p r e c e p t, and in
this tw ofold sense it is used both in S crip tu re (L u k e 2.1 and
A cts 17.7: im p erial decree; A cts 14.4: cerem onials law s of th e
O .T .; C ol. 2.14: G od ’ s d ecree) and by th e G reek F ath ers, w ho
how ever, g rad u ally gave to th e w ord th e stricter sense of a

44 A lszeghy, Z. and F lick, M ., Lo s v ilu p p o d e l d o g m a c a tto lico , ed.

2, B rescia 1069.
B oyer, C h., "L o sviluppo del dogm a, ” P r o b le m i e o r ie n ta m c n ti d i
te o lo g ia d o m m a tic a 1 (M ilano 1957) 359-380.
D oronzo, E., T h e o lo g ia d o g m a tic a 1 (W ashington 1966) 491-526.
G ardeil, A . L e d o n n é r é v é lé e t la th é o lo g ie (é d . 2, P aris 1912) 77-186.
G arrigou-L agrange, R .. "V érité et im m utabilité du dogm e, ” A ngeli ­
cum 24 (1947) 124-139.
G randm aison, L. de, L e d o g m e c h r é tie n . S a n a tu r e, sc s fo r m u le s, so n
d é v e lo p p e m e n t, éd. 3. P aris 1928.
Journet, C h., T h e C h u r c h a n d th e W o r d In c a rn a te 1 (tr. A . H . C.
D ow nes, N ew Y ork 1950) 338-353.
M alevez, L ., "L ’ invariant et le divers dans le langage de la foi, ”
N o u v e lle r e v u e th é o lo g ig u e 9 5 (1973) 353-366.
M arin-Sola, F., L a e v o lu c iô n h o m o g é n e a d e l d o g m a c a tô lic o . V a ­
lencia-M adrid 1924. Second edition in F rench (trans. B . C am bon),
L ’ é v o lu tio n h o m o g è n e d u d o g m e c a th o liq u e , 2 vols., F ribourg.
Suisse 1924. T he best and m ost com plete w ork on this subject.
N ew m an, J. H .. A n E ssa y o n th e D e v e lo p m e n t o f C h r is tia n D o c tr in e ,
n e w edition, N ew Y ork 1949.
P arente, P., "L a form ola dom m atica di fronte alla cultura in evolu-
zione,” D o c to r C o m m u n is 2 2 (1969) 89-108.

39

MT. ANGEL ABBEY LIBRARY

ST. BENEDICT, OREGON 9737o
T h e C h a n n e ls of R e v e la tio n

d o c trin a l d e c r e e o r o b lig a to r y d o c tr in e . W ith th is specific sense

th e w ord w as later in tro d u ced , especially by S t. A ugustine
and V incent of L erins, into th e L atin C h u rch and becam e
classical in ecclesiastical literatu re. In th e 17th cen tu ry , how ­
ev er, on th e occasion of th e Jan sen ist controversy, th e w ord
received also th e m ore strict and technical sense of a d o c tr in e
of fa ith d e fin e d by th e C h u r c h . In th is sense it is used occas ­
ionally in th e docum ents of th e M agisterium ( P iu s V I speaks
of th e “ dogm a of T ran su b stan tiatio n ” and V atican I of the
“ dogm as proposed by th e C h u rch ” and of th e in fallib ility of
th e P ope as ‘ a d iv in ely rev ealed dogm a, ” D enz. 2629, 3043,
3073). H ence “ dogm a ” in ecclesiastical and theological use has
tw o senses, one g en eral, th at is, an y revealed tru th , th e o th er
specific, th at is, a r e v e a le d tr u th in fa llib ly d e fin e d b y th e M a g ­
is te riu m a s to b e b e lie v e d o f d iv in e fa ith .
In th is second sense and p ro p er definition, dogm a is m ade
up of tw o elem en ts, th at is, th e rev ealed tru th , w hich is th e
d irect and only o b ject of o u r faith , and th e d efin itio n of th e
M agisterium , w hich is not th e o b ject of o u r faith , b u t only its
p ro xim ate rule, th at is, th e necessary condition, w ith o u t w hich
w e are not obliged to believe w h at is found in th e deposit of
rev elatio n , as far as th e force of th e m ere deposit is concern ­
ed. 45

R ahner, K ., “ T he D evelopm ent of D ogm a, ” T h e o lo g ic a l In v e s tig a ­

tio n s (tr. C . E rnst) 1 (B altim ore 1961) 39-77.
R ondet, H ., L es d o g m e s c h a n g e n t-ils ? T h é o lo g ie d e l ’ h is to ir e d u
d o g m e , P aris 1960; H is to ir e d u d o g m e , T ournai-P aris, 1970.
Schultes, R . M ., “ C irca dogm atum hom ogeneam evolutionem ,” D ivus
T h o m a s (Piacenza) 2 (1925) 83-89, 554-564; “ E claircissem ents sur
l ’évolution du dogm e, ” R e v u e d e s s c ie n c e s p h ilo s o p h iq u e s e t th é o ­
lo g iq u e s 14 (1925) 286-302.
V arious authors, G r e g o r ia n u m 33 (1952), no. 1 (It deals entirely
w ith the progress of dogm a).
V ollert, C ., “ D octrinal D evelopm ent, ” C a th o lic T h e o lo g ic a l S o c ie ty
o f A m er ic a 12 (1957) 45-74.
W algrave, J. H ., U n fo ld in g R e ve la tio n . N a tu r e o f D o c tr in a l D e v e lo p ­
m e n t, L ondon 1972.
48 N ote, how ever, that the M agisterium actually proposes in a
general w ay the w hole B ible to our belief, and hence w e are obliged
to believe w hatever is clear and explicit in S cripture. B ut for things
and truths that are not clearly show n in it, or about w hich som e rea ­
sonable doubt m ay be raised, w e need an additional and particular
40
 D ogm a

W h atev er has been rev ealed by G od an d in fallib ly proposed

by th e M agisterium becom es a dogm a to be believed w ith su p ­
ern atu ral faith , w h eth er it be a su p ern atu ral tru th (as th e
T rin ity ), o r a n atu ral tru th (as th e ex isten ce of G od, w hich
can also be know n by th e n atu ral reaso n , b u t at an y rate has
been also rev ealed ), o r a th in g to be done (m o ral acts), or a
p articu lar h isto rical fact ( such as all those th at m ake u p th e
life of C h rist). F o r all th ese o b jects h av e a close connection
w ith th e p rin cip al o b ject of rev elatio n (D eity ) and w ith its
proper purpose (o u r salvation and b eatific vision).

2. T h e im m u ta b ility o f d o g m a .
D ogm a, once estab lish ed th ro u g h th e rev elatio n of G od and
th e d efin itio n of th e M agisterium , becom es a b s o lu te ly im m u t ­
a b le . both o b jectiv ely and su b jectiv ely . It is o b je c tiv e ly and
essen tially im m u tab le in itself, because on th e one hand G od ’ s
affirm ation cannot change or proved to be false, and on th e
o th er h an d th e M agisterium can no lo n g er rev o k e its d efin i ­
tion, since it is a m ere tem p o rary condition req u ired for elicit ­
ing th e assen t of faith w hich is irrevocable. It is also im m u t ­
a b le s u b je c tiv e ly on th e p art of th e faith fu l, w ho can n ot
change o r co rru p t it in th eir know ledge, because of th e in fall ­
ibility of th e b eliev in g and th e teach in g C h u rch u n d er th e as ­
sistance of th e H oly S p irit, prom ised b y C hrist.
T his absolute im m u tab ility has been ex p licitly d eclared on
several occasions by th e M agisterium , ag ain st L ib e r a l P r o ­
te sta n ts a n d M o d e rn is ts, d en y in g th e v ery o b jectiv e im m u t ­
ab ility of dogm a, on th e basis of th e su b jectiv e n atu re of re ­
ligion, and ag ain st O r th o d o x P r o te s ta n ts a n d J a n s e n ists , d en y ­
ing only th e su b jectiv e im m u tab ility of dogm a, on th e basis
of th eir d en ial of th e in fallib ility of th e C hurch. * 46 V a tic a n

declaration of the infallible M agisterium in order to be obliged to

believe.
46 L iberal P r o te s ta n ts a n d M o d e rn ists , based on agnostic R ation ­
alism (see our treatise on R e ve la tio n , p. 5), deny the first clem ent
of dogm a, that is the o b je c tiv ity o f th e r e v e a le d tr u th . A ccording to
them religion itself and its revelation is som ething m erely subjective
and hum an, that is, a sense of the conscience, w hich changes and de ­
velops w ith the evolution of the consciousness of hum anity, under
the influence of various circum stances and cultures. D ogm a is a
41
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

C o u n c il I defined: “ If anyone sh all say th at, in view of th e

p ro g ress of science, th e dogm as proposed b y th e C hurch could
at tim es be understood in a sense o th er th an th at in w hich
th e C hurch has u n d ersto o d and u n d erstan d s th em : let him be
an ath em a “ (sess. 3, can. 3 on faith and reason, D enz. 3043;
cf. chap. 4, D enz. 3020).

T his im m u tab ility belongs only to dogm a itself, n o t to its ex ­

pression o r d o g m a tic fo r m u la , w hich can v ary or change as
long as it does not alter o r ren d er am biguous th e concept it ­
self, carried by th e d efin itio n of th e M agisterium . H ow ever,
such a ch an g e depends exclusively on th e M agisterium itself. 47

definite form ulation, in an objective form , of this subjective religious

sense, and consequently it is bound to change w ith it, having each
tim e only a norm ative and practical value, w ithout any objective
foundation. T his m odernistic system is explained at length and
severely censured by P ius X in the E ncyclical “ P ascendi ” (D enz.
3477-3488).
O r th o d o x P r o te s ta n ts deny the second elem ent of dogm a, that is,
th e in fa llib ility o f th e M a g is te r iu m in proposing the objective re ­
vealed truth, and hence they adm it the possibility of at least a part ­
ial and substantial change in things believed by the faithful, under
the influence of hum an causes and circum stances. J a n s e n is ts speak
of the possibility of a general obscuration or darkening of funda ­
m ental truths in the C hurch (cf. a proposition of the Synod of Pis-
toia, condem ned by P ius V I, D enz. 2601). A . G u n th e r, a C atholic
sem irationalist, taught that the definitions of the M agisterium have
only a tem porary validity, and that the progress of science m ay de ­
m and their change (cf. his condem nation by P ius IX , D enz. 2829, and
by V atican I, D enz. 3043). Λ sim ilar opinion is being spread am big ­
uously in recent days by the so-called “ progressive theologians. ”
47 It is evident that, in order to express the revealed truths aptly,
the M agisterium in its definitions has had to use w ords and expres ­
sions, current in the com m on language and culture (even philosoph ­
ical) of each tim e, adapting them to fit an ecclesiastical term inology.
T hus the C ouncil of N icaea adapted the G reek w ord “ hom oousios ”
( “ consubstantial ” - “ of the sam e nature ” ) to signify the num erical
identity of the divine nature in C hrist and in the F ather, although
the w ord can signify also a m erely specific identity, as betw een tw o
m en; likew ise the C ouncil of T rent adopted the w ord “ T ransubstant-
iation, ” already used by the scholastic theologians, to signify the
eucharistie change, declaring it to be “ a very apt expression."
O nly the M agisterium is com petent in using or changing a dog ­

42
 D ogm a

3. D e v e lo p m e n t o r p r o g r e s s o f d o g m a .

T he absolute im m u tab ility of dogm a does n o t necessarily ex ­

clude its d ev elo p m en t o r progress, w ith reg ard to th e finding
and u n d erstan d in g of its full m eaning and of its v irtu al im ­
plications.

T he e x is te n c e o f th e d e v e lo p m e n t, u n d ersto o d at least in a
generic and in d efin ite m an n er, is ev iden t fro m th e fact th at
C h rist en trusted to th e A postles and th eir successors th e of ­
fice of tran sm ittin g th e deposit of rev elatio n , w hich im plies
necessarily som e kind of d ev elo p m en t in th e m an ner of tran s ­
m ission, according to d ifferen t tim es and cu ltu res. T he C hurch
fu rth erm o re, actu ally has accom plished th is office in m any
and ev er m ore p erfect w ays of ex p lain in g , in terp retin g and
defending th e o rig in al rev ealed tru th s. It is also in a m ore
d efin ite m an n er d eclared by th e V a tic a n C o u n c il I q u o tin g th e
fam ous statem en t of V in cen t of L erin s (see above, p. 18 f.):
“ T h erefo re ... let th e u n d erstan d in g , th e know ledge, and w is ­
dom of individuals, as w ell as of all, of one m an as w ell as of
th e w hole C hurch, grow and g reatly p ro g ress th ro ug h ages and
centuries, b u t let such progress be only of its p ro p er k in d [i.e.
h o m o g en eo u s] , th at is w ith in th e sam e dogm a, th e sam e sense,
and th e sam e u n d erstan d in g ” ( sess. 3, chap. 4 on faith and rea ­
son, D enz. 3020). V a tic a n II rep eats th e sam e d eclaratio n ,
pointing o u t also th e tw o causes of th is progress, n am ely , th e

m atic form ula. In future definitions, the M agisterium w ill, as usual,

adapt its new form ulas to the culture of the tim e, as far as such a
culture w ill be able to be used for the right expression of the re ­
vealed truth. A s regards past definitions the M agisterium has never
changed any of the principal form ulas once used, both because they
conform also to com m on sense and understanding, and because they
are a safeguard against alteration of doctrines. A t any rate, if, for
instance, the w orld “ T ransubstantiation ” should com e to be changed
by the M agisterium , it w ould necessarily be replaced by a w ord
w hich w ould m ean that the nature of bread (w hatever it is that
m akes bread to be bread and not m eat or other things) is no longer
existing in the E ucharist, but has been changed into the body of
C hrist.
V atican JI (C onstit. "G audium et spes. ” no. 62) invites theologians
to adapt their teaching to the culture of the present tim e, but does
not give them the right to discard the defined dogm atic form ulas.
43
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

teach in g of th e M agisterium and th e ex p erien ce of th e faith ­

fu l. 48

T h e p r o p e r n a tu r e o f th is d e v e lo p m e n t is n o t so easy to u n ­
d erstan d and d eterm in e, as is ev iden t from th e d ifferen t ex ­
p lan atio n s g iv en by theologians. T he d ifficu lty arises fro m th e
fact th at th ro u g h such d ev elo p m en t w e h av e now arriv ed at
believing sev eral tru th s w hich do not seem to be su fficien tly
co n tain ed in th e d ep o sit of rev elatio n , b u t seem rather derived
th ro u g h an elab o rate process of n atu ral reason, based m o re ­
o v er on philosophical an d p erish ab le system s; such are, for
instance, th e sacram en tal ch aracter, th e sevenfold n u m b er of
th e sacram en ts, tran su b stan tiation , th e sacram en tality of M at ­
rim ony, th e Im m acu late C onception, th e A ssum ption. T o th is
d ifficu lty theologians u su ally an sw er th at in th ese and o th er
sim ilar cases, th e d ev elo p m en t of dogm a is n o t o b je c tiv e b u t
s u b je c tiv e , th at is, it consists not in an addition to a revealed
o b ject b u t in a fu rth er ex p lan atio n and u n d erstan d in g of th e
sam e o b ject; or it is also an objective progress, b u t only fr o m
im p lic it to e x p lic it, th at is, n o t ag ain by th e ad d itio n of a new
o b ject o r tru th , b u t only by ren d erin g ex p licit to us an object
or tru th w hich w as alread y im plicitly contained and so b eliev ­
ed in an o th er object o r tru th w hich w as ex p licitly believed in
previous tim es. T his latter and b etter fo rm u latio n of th e d e ­
velopm ent of dogm a is to be clarified w ith th e follow ing ob ­
servations.

F ir s t. T h ro u g h o u t th e O ld T estam en t u p to and including

C h rist and th e A postles, rev elatio n developed o b je c tiv e ly b y

48 D ogm atic C onstitution on R evelation, no. 8: “ T his T radition,

w hich com es dow n from the apostles, progresses in the C hurch un ­
der the assistance of the H oly S pirit. Indeed, the understanding of
the things and of the w ords, w hich have been handed over, grow s
either by m eans of the contem plation and study of the faithful, w ho
keep and com pare them in their hearts (cf. L uke 2.19,51), as w ell
as by an intim ate understanding of the spiritual things they exper ­
ience, or through the pronouncem ents of those w ho have received,
w ith the episcopal succession, the sure charism of truth. T hus the
C hurch through succeeding centuries, m oves constantly tow ard the
fulness of divine truth, until the w ords of G od reach their com plete
fulfillm ent in her. ”

44
 D ogm a

a d d itio n of new tru th s, not contained, even im plicitly, in th e

fo rm erly rev ealed tru th s, alth o u g h contained in th e sam e re ­
ality. H ence th ere w as a developm ent n o t from reality to reali ­
ty, b u t from one concept to an o th er concept, really d istin ct
from th e first and not contained in it, even im plicitly. T hus
in th e sam e reality of G od th ere w as a passage from th e sim ple
concept of one G od to th e concept of th e T rin ity of P ersons,
and in th e sam e reality of C h rist th ere w as a passage from th e
concept of M essiah to th e concept of G od and th en to th e con ­
cept of S on of G od. It is ev id en t th at th e concept of G od does
not contain, even im plicitly, th e concept of several persons in
G od (o th erw ise w e w ould know th ro u gh n atu ral reason th e
m ystery of th e T rin ity as w e know th e existence of G od).
L ikew ise th e concept of M essiah does not include th e concept
of G od, n o r does th e concept of G od include th e concept of
S on of G od ( as is clear from th e person of th e H oly S p irit, w ho
is not S on of G od ).
S e c o n d . S uch an objective d ev elo p m en t of dogm a by ad d i ­
tion of new tru th s is im possible in th e C hurch, because p u b lic
r e v e la tio n has been com pletely given by C h rist and th e A pos ­
tles and has been c lo s e d a t th e d e a th o f th e la s t a p o s tle (th at
is, of S t. Jo h n w ho died to w ard th e end of th e first cen tu ry , as
C atholic exegetes unanim ously ag ree). 49 T his fact, proposed

49 A fter C hrist ’ s A scension p u b lic r e v e la tio n c o n tin u ed th r o u g h

th e a p o stle s, as founders of the C hurch, and only through them , so
that w hatever revelation m ay have been given to others of the faith ­
ful, at that tim e, even to the coapostolic m inisters of the W ord, docs
not belong to public revelation or to the object of our faith. B ut w ith
regard to the extent of the revelation given to the apostles them ­
selves, w c know very little from S cripture. St. P aul som etim es speaks
of revelations received from the L ord, but their object is som ething
that had already been revealed by C hrist and w as know n by the
other apostles, as the m ystery of the E ucharist (1 C or. 11-23) and
the G ospel in general (G al. 1.11-24). H ow ever, th r e e n e w r e v e la tio n s
seem certain from S cripture, nam ely, the inspiration of the books of
the N ew T estam ent, since they w ere w ritten after the A scension, the
e s ch a to lo g y consigned by St. John in the A pocalypse (cf. 1.1-3), and
the so-called P a u lin e p r iv ile g e (1 C or.7.12-15). for it can hardly be
said that the apostles w ere instructed by C hrist on such things be ­
fore the A scension. It is probable that several other things w ere re ­
vealed to the apostles and transm itted through oral T radition.

45
T h e C h a n n e ls of R e v e la tio n

eq u iv alen tly by th e C ouncil of T ren t (sess. 4, D enz.1501) and

m ore d irectly by P iu s X in th e D ecree “ L am en tab ili ” ag ain st
M odernism (D enz.3421), has been fin ally ex p licitly declared
by V atican II say ing : “ N o fu rth er p u b lic rev elatio n is now to
be expected before th e glorious m an ifestatio n of O u r L ord
Jesus C h rist ” (D ogm . C onstit. on D ivine R evelation, no. 4 ). 50

T h ir d . H ence th ere rem ain only tw o w ays b y w hich dogm a

can develop in th e C hurch. T he first and sim ple w ay is a
m erely s u b je c tiv e p r o c e s s , consisting in a clearer ex p lan atio n
and u n d erstan d in g of a fo rm ally id en tical o b ject w hich is
contained in th e deposit of rev elatio n and w as believed since
th e beginning. H ow ever, this is not a progress of dogm a itself,
b u t only of m an in his know ledge of a dogm a, and it ex p lain s
only th e succession of new and b etter fo rm u las, expressing
th e sam e tru th , such as th e D iv in ity of C h rist, not th e rise and
d efin itio n of new dogm as, w hich, as th e Im m acu late C oncep ­
tion, th e A ssum ption, and th e o th ers m entioned above, seem
en tirely o r fo rm ally d ifferen t from th e ones ex p licitly con ­
tain ed in th e deposit. H ence th ere rem ain s only one w ay of
ex p lain in g a p ro p er developm ent of dogm a, applicable to this
so rt of new dogm as, th at is, a n o b je c tiv e p r o c e ss fr o m im p lic it
to e x p lic it. S uch a process consists in th is, th at a tru th , w hich

so P r iv a te r e v e la tio n s , w hich belong to an undying charism in the

C hurch, have the sam e nature as public revelation and the sam e gen ­
eral purpose of helping the C hurch. T heir object is either the sam e
as the public revelation, that is, an explanation of the revealed
truths, or s o m e th in g n e w by w hich public revelation m ay be ac ­
cidentally extended. It does not, how ever, identify w ith public rev ­
elation and d o e s n o t b e c o m e a n o b je c t o f fa ith for others than the
person to w hom it is given and w ho is bound to believe it by the
sam e supernatural faith, if he is certain of the revelation by a m irac ­
ulous sign of G od (either exterior, or interior in his m ind). If the
M a g is te r iu m a p p r o v e s such revelations (as in the case of S t. M ar ­
garet M ary A lacoque about the Sacred H eart and of St. B ernardette
at L ourdes), one is only obliged to adm it their fittingness as ap ­
proved by the C hurch, but he can also, if he chooses, believe them ,
along w ith the public revelation, w ith the sam e supernatural faith.
Such revelations are also useful for the d e v e lo p m e n t o f d o g m a .
C f. K . R ahner, “ L es révélations privées, ” R evue d ’ a s c é tiq u e e t d e
m y s tiq u e 25 (1949) 506-514; P. D e L etter, “ T he M eaning of L ourdes,”
C le r g y M o n th ly 20 (1958) 3-16.

46
 D ogm a

is actu ally contained in an o th er and hence know n and believed

in an o th er, is not y et know n in itself an d as to its inclusion in
th e o th er, b u t later on, u n d er fav o rab le circum stances and by
m eans of a logical and necessary process of th e m ind o r of a
forceful in tu itio n of th e C h ristian sense, it com es to be know n
as such, passing from im p licit to ex p licit in o u r know ledge
and in o u r faith , as w ell as in th e deposit of T rad itio n itself.
T hus, th ere is no change nor addition of an en tirely new tru th ,
but th e sam e tru th , ex p licitly believed since th e beginning
or at som e tim e, is later know n u n d er a new concept im plicit
in it, or according to its im plicit co n ten t and v irtu ality . F o r in ­
stance, from th e tru th or concept of D ivine M atern ity T rad i ­
tion passed to th e tru th o r concept of th e g reatest san ctity af ­
ter th at of C h rist (in clu d ed in it as a necessary consequence 1
and from th is concept th e sam e T rad itio n later passed to th e
concept of ex em p tio n from o rig in al sin (in clu d ed in it as a
necessary effect).

F o u r th . T his im p licit inclusion of one tru th in an o th er and

its su b seq u en t ex tractio n from th e o th er, can n o t be explained
but b y th e ex isten ce of a necessary and in fallib le connection
betw een th e tw o, b y force of w hich, if one is posited, th e o th er
m ust necessarily follow . T his connection can be th e connec ­
tion of an essen tial p r o p e r ty , w hich is ab so lu tely in sep arab le
from th e essence of a thing, as are, fo r instance, in trin sic ex ­
tension in reg ard to q u an tity , rad ical possibility of d y in g o r of
sinning w hich alw ay s rem ain s in m an in heaven. O r th is con ­
nection can be th at of an effect to its m e ta p h y s ic a l c a u s e , th at
is, to a cause w hich n o t only has th e pow er of p ro d u cing th e
effect, b u t also contains v irtu ally and actu ally th e effect it ­
self. as th e sp iritu ality of th e soul contains its im m o rtality and
G od ’ s im m u tab ility contains his etern ity . 51

51 T here is of course a third w ay of intim ate connection and in ­

clusion, w hich w e m ay call c o n n e c tio n o f e s s e n tia lity , and w hich
exists either betw een a thing defined and its definition (thus rational
anim al is included in m an), or betw een the essence and its essential
parts (thus the body is included in the essence of m an), or betw een
a universal thing and its particular (thus P eter is included in m an ­
kind). or betw een tw o relative things (thus the concept of son is in ­
cluded in the concept of father, and vice versa). H ow ever, by m eans
of this connection, there is no real and objective developm ent of dog ­

47
T h e C h a n n e ls o j R e v e la tio n

E xam ples of developm ent of dogm as, based on th e connec ­

tion of an e s se n tia l p r o p e r ty , are th e follow ing: T he N icene
dogm a of th e n u m erical co n su b stan tiality of C h rist w ith th e
F ath er is a consequent p ro p erty of his divine sonship, because
by being S on he has necessarily th e sam e n atu re as th e F ath er
and b y b ein g G od he h as necessarily th e sam e in d iv id u al n a ­
tu re as th e F ath er. T he dogm a of th e tw o w ills in C hrist, or
th e existence of a hum an w ill in him , defined by th e C ouncil
of C onstantinople III, is deduced from th e tru th th at C h rist
is a tru e and p erfect m an, sim ilar to us, w hose essen tial p ro p ­
erty is th e hum an w ill.

M ore num erous are th e ex am p les of developm ent based on

connection of e ffe c t w ith its m e ta p h y sic a l c a u s e . T h e E phesus
dogm a of D ivine M atern ity is d raw n as a m etap h y sical effect
from th e concept of “ M other of C h rist, ” coupled w ith th e con ­
cepts of C h rist ’ s d iv in ity and of a single person in C hrist.
F rom th e fu lln ess of grace, h ailed in th e gospel (o r at any rate
follow ing from th e D ivine M atern ity ) are d raw n b o th th e
T rid en tine dogm a of th e p riv ileg ed exclusion of v en ial sin in
M ary and th e dogm a of th e p riv ileg e of Im m acu late C oncep ­
tion. L ikew ise th e A ssum ption can be d raw n fro m th e D ivine
M atern ity or from th e Im m acu late C onception. T ran su b stan -
tiatio n is im p licitly contained, like an effect in its cause, in
th e R eal P resence, considered n o t ab stractly b u t as concretely
ex p ressed in th e w ords ' ‘ T his is m y body ” i o th er th an “ H ere
is m y body ” ), w hich are not. tru e if th e b read rem ain s, and
hence th ey req u ire n o t only th e presence of C h rist b u t also th e

m a itself, but only the aforesaid subjective progress of our know ­

ledge, about the sam e truth, by w ay of clearer and m ore definite
form ulas, or of definite equivalent concepts, w hich are obtained by a
m ere analysis of the truth, or the so-called explanatory syllogism s, as
w hen from C hrist ’ s divine sonship w e conclude that one of the other
tw o persons of the H oly T rinity is a F ather.
T o this im proper and subjective progress of dogm a belong the
various declarations of the M agisterium w hich express a truth, al ­
ready believed, w ith other clearer w ords or form ulas (as are the
various sym bols of faith), or w ith m ore polished and authentic
w ords (dogm atic form ulas, of w hich som e are m ore definite and
particular and hence they are called m ore strictly dogm atic form ulas,
as those that are found in the later councils).
48
 D ogm a

absence of th e bread. T h e in fallib ility of th e P ope, as successor

of P eter, is im p licitly contained, as an effect in its cause, in
th e am plitude of his prim acy, ex p licitly rev ealed , because
such am ple p rim acy has been given to P eter and his successors
w ith referen ce to all th e th in g s th at are necessary to confirm
th e b reth ren in th eir faith and to be th e rock o r foundation
on w hich th e C hurch stan d s firm ly , ev en in m atters of faith.

T h e h is to r ic a l m o d e o r w a y of such a d ev elo p m en t is tw o ­
fold. T he first is a r a tio n a l a n d d e d u c tiv e w a y , b y w hich, from
a doctrine alread y d efin itely and ex p licitly know n, an o th er
is deduced w hich is im p licitly and necessarily co ntain ed in th e
form er, as w e h av e ju st explained. T he second is an e m p ir ic a l
o r in d u c tiv e w a y . consisting in th is th at th e sense of th e
C h ristian people, by a sort of co n n atu ral in tu itio n , perceives
th e necessary connection b etw een a tru th , alread y ex p licitly
believed, and an o th er, alth o u g h th e necessity of th is connec ­
tion cannot be proved in a ratio n al and d ed u ctiv e w ay (see
above, pp. 22-24).

In th is second case, th e com m on C h ristian sense does not

create th is connection b etw een th e tw o tru th s, o th erw ise th ere
w ould b e a m ere pious fiction and an arb itrary in v entio n of a
dogm a; b u t it only fin ds it in stin ctiv ely and m ore easily th an
it w ould be found th ro u g h a ratio nal d ed u ctiv e process, w hich
for instance, m ig h t be ap p aren tly blocked or tem p o rarily sto p ­
ped by th e consideration of an o th er dogm a.

T his is p articu larly illu strated b y th e case of th e develop ­

m ent of th e tru th of th e Im m aculate C onception. T his tru th is
im plicity contained in and necessarily deduced fro m th e fu ll ­
ness of grace in M ary, provided h o w ev er th at th is fu lln ess is
understood n o t in an y w ay, b u t in all th e am p litu d e co m p ati ­
ble w ith th e dogm a of th e u n iv ersal red em p tio n of m en
through C hrist. B ut, th rou g h a ratio n al an d d ed u ctiv e process,
it w as not clear th at it should be tak en in such an am p le sense,
w hich even seem ed to be positively excluded by C h rist ’ s u n ­
iversal red em p tio n th at had to include also th e B lessed V irgin;
hence th e m ajo rity of th e g reat theologians in th e M iddle
A ges ( S t. T hom as included I and m an y o th ers afterw ard s w ere
opposed to th e p riv ileg e of th e Im m acu late C onception, u n til
the p ersev erin g conviction of th e C h ristian people, show n

49
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

p articu larly in th eir devotion and in th eir in terp retatio n of

th e ex istin g feast of th e H oly C onception of M ary, obliged th e
theologians th em selv es to rem ove th e aforem entioned ob ­
stacle, ap p aren tly d erivin g from th e tru th of th e u n iv ersal re ­
dem ption, by a ration al d istin ctio n b etw een releasin g red em p ­
tion, com m on to all m en, and m erely p reserv ativ e red em p tio n ,
p ro p er to M ary, an d th u s to arriv e th ro u g h such a forced ra ­
tio n al process to th e p o in t w h ere th e C h ristian sense h ad easily
preceded them .

T h e d ir e c t c a u s e s of such a d ev elo p m en t are included in

th ese sam e tw o w ays, th at is, th e o lo g ic a l s c ie n c e and th e
C h r is tia n s e n s e ; th e th ird and p rin cip al cause is th e M a g is te r ­
iu m itself, as d irectin g th e o th er tw o and closing by its solem n
d efin itio n th e w hole d ev elo p m en t of a dogm a. T he in d ire c t
c a u s e s , o r occasions, of th e d ev elo p m en t are especially th ree.
F irst, th e necessity of refu ting e r ro r s o r h e r e s ie s , w hich
b ro u g h t along th e d eclaratio n of sev eral im p o rtan t dogm as, as
those defined by th e g reat C ouncils of th e first cen turies and
later by th e C ouncils of T ren t and V atican I. S econd, th e fit ­
tingness of settlin g som e g rav e d o u b t o r co n tro v ersy am ong
C atholic doctors, such as th e co n tro v ersy ab o u t reb ap tizin g
h eretics at th e tim e of S t. C y p rian , w hich th e M agisterium
resolved n eg ativ ely , and th e m edieval co n tro v ersy ab o u t th e
ratio n al soul as th e form of th e body, settled in th e affirm a ­
tiv e by th e C ouncil of V ienne. T h ird , th e u tility of stren g th en ­
ing th e c u lt a n d d e v o tio n of th e people, as in th e case of th e
Im m acu late C onception an d th e A ssum ption; in th is reg ard ,
also p riv ate rev elatio n s m ay h av e th eir influence, inasm uch
as th ey w ould im pel th e M ag isteriu m to ex am in e th eir con ­
fo rm ity w ith th e tru th s co n tain ed in th e d ep o sit of public
revelation.

T he d e g r e e s o r s te p s o f d ev elo p m en t m ay be described gen ­

erically as follow s: th ere is first a period of sim ple faith in
som e ex p licit tru th , th en a p erio d of fu rth er ex p lan atio n or
co n tro v ersy ab o u t its p ro p er and fu ll m eaning, fin ally a period
of p recise and d efin ite d eterm in atio n and fo rm u latio n , or, as
th e case m ay be, of th e ex p licit expression of a n ew tru th , im ­
p licitly contained in th e form er. A m ore precise and im p o rtan t
q u estio n is th at of th e c o n tin u ity o f th e d o g m a tic p r o g re s s, th at
is, w h eth er th e know ledge of rev ealed tru th has b een alw ays
50
 D ogm a

progressing, or on th e co n trary th ere h as been o r could be a

regress, n o tw ith stan d in g th e essen tial im m u tab ility of dogm a,
as ex p lain ed above.
W ith reg ard to th e a p o s tle s , it is certain th at th ey h ad a b et ­
ter and d eep er u n d erstan d in g (p ro b ab ly ev en in fu sed ) of th e
tru th s ex p licitly rev ealed ; th is agrees w ith th eir in stru ctio n
received fro m C h rist before th e A scension fo r fo rty days, w ith
C h rist ’ s prom ise to send th e H oly S p irit w ho w ould “ teach
th em all things, all tru th s ” (Jo h n 14.26; 16.3), and also w ith
th e m an n er of th eir d o ctrin e (show n in th e A cts and th e
E pistles, p articu larly of S t. P au l). A s fo r th e im p licitly re ­
vealed tru th s, w hich are now ex p licit to us, it is possible, b u t
it does not seem p ro b ab le th at th ey knew th em clearly and
su fficien tly (alth o u g h som e theologians th ink so, as D orsch,
M arin-S ola, L erch er-S ch lag en h au fen ) ; if th ey had th o u g h t,
for instance, of th e Im m acu late C onception, tran su b stan tia-
tion, th e sacram en tality of M atrim ony, th e sacram en tal ch ar ­
acter, th ey w ould lik ely h av e left som e signs o r h in ts of these
im p o rtan t, though not fu n d am en tal, tru th s, in th eir p reach in g
consigned in th e H oly S crip tu re.

R egarding th e p o s t-a p o s to lic a g e , if w e consider th e tim e

of elab o ratio n of a dogm a, w hich precedes its ex p licit know ­
ledge and its d efin itio n b y th e M agisterium , th ere can su rely
be a k in d of g e n e r a l o s c illa tio n , o r even o b scu ratio n and re ­
gress, co n n atu ral to all developm ent, as h ap p en ed in th e d e ­
velopm ent of th e tru th of th e Im m acu late C onception, w hich
w as denied fo r a long tim e by m any theologians. B u t in th e
tim e follow ing th e ex p licit know ledge and d efin itio n of a dog ­
m a, th ere can n o t b e a real g en eral reg ress, such as to th ro w
back into im plicitness w h at has b een explicit. F o r th is w ould
im ply eith er a negation, o r a ren ew ed co n tro v ersy , o r a com ­
p lete oblivion of th e tru th , w hich w ould b e co n trary to th e
in d efectib ility of th e C hurch. H ow ever, th ere can be a p a r tia l
d im in u tio n o r o b s c u r a tio n of a dogm a, in such m an n er th at a
n o tab le p art of th e faith fu l fall into heresy, at least m aterial,
as happened to th e tru th of th e fu ll d iv in ity of C h rist at th e
tim e of A rianism , or th at som e dogm a m ay b e less clearly
know n o r valued, as happened to th e tru th of th e R om an P ri ­
m acy at th e tim e of W estern schism and of Jansenism and G al-
licanism .

51
V
Theological Conclusion52

1. N o tio n of th e o lo g ic a l c o n c lu s io n .

A theological conclusion is a proposition (or a ju d g m en t or

a tru th ), w hich th ro u g h a discoursive process is derived from
a rev ealed principle. It is called conclusion, because it is not
rev ealed in itself, b u t only deduced from a rev ealed tru th ; it
is called theological, because rev ealed tru th s are th e p rincip les
of theology. S ince ev ery discursive process (u su ally expressed
in th e form of a syllogism ) im plies tw o p rin ciples or prem ises
(m ajo r and m in o r) from w hich a conclusion is deduced, a
theological conclusion m ay be in ferred eith er from tw o re ­
vealed p rin ciples (fo r instance G od know s th e day of th e last
ju d g m en t, b u t C h rist is G od, th erefo re C h rist know s th e day
of th e last ju d g m en t) or from one p rin cip le of faith and one
p rin cip le of reason (fo r instance, a p erfect m an has a hum an
w ill, b u t C h rist is a p erfect m an like all o th er m en, th erefo re
C h rist h as a hum an w ill).

T h ere are tw o kinds of theological conclusions. O ne is a

th e o lo g ic a l c o n c lu sio n im p r o p e rly s o -c a lle d , o r e x p la n a to r y ,
w hich is a m ere ex p lan atio n of th e p rin cip le and does n o t con ­
tain a new concept, d ifferen t from w h at is contained in th e
p rin cip le, b u t expresses th e sam e concept in an o th er m an n er

52 See the bibliography, listed above (p. 39), especially D oronzo,

G ardeil, G randm aison, M arin-Sola, Schultes. C f. also A . G its, L a fo i
a u x fa its d o g m a tiq u e s d a n s la th é o lo g ie m o d e r n e , L ouvain 1940; J.
F. B onnefoy, in M a ria n u m 12 (1950) 194-226; A .M . E lorriaga, several
articles in E s tu d io s e c le sid s tic o s 1926-1929; A . M . L ubik, in A n to n i ­
a n u m 36 (1961) 29-68, 173-198.

52
 T h e o lo g ic a l C o n c lu s io n

or by an aq u ivalen t concept, d raw n im m ed iately from a m ere

analysis of th e first. T his happens w hen one concept is in ­
cluded in th e v ery essence of th e o th er, according to th e fo u r
w ays ex p lain ed above. 53 T h e second is a th e o lo g ic a l c o n c lu s io n
p r o p e r ly s o -c a lle d , in w hich th ree th in g s are req u ired ; first, it
m ust be tr u ly illa tiv e , th at is, b ring in g fo rth a new concept,
form ally d istin ct from th e concept ex p ressed in th e principle;
second, it m u st be also a n e c e s s a r y and scientific conclusion
(fo r if it is only p ro b ab le, it does not p ro p erly belong to th e
science of theology); th ird , it m u st be an a b s o lu te ly n e c e ss a r y
conclusion, causing an absolute certitu d e, because a conclu ­
sion sh ares in th e sam e certitu d e of its principles, and th e
p rin cip le of a theological conclusion is a revealed tru th of faith
w hich is ab so lu tely certain . 54

T his absolute n ecessity and certitu d e in a theological con ­

clusion can be o b tain ed only in tw o cases, nam ely, w hen th e
concept ex p ressed in th e conclusion is eith er an e s se n tia l p r o p ­
e r ty , o r a m e ta p h y sic a l e ffe c t of th e concept ex p ressed in th e
principle, as h as been ex p lain ed above w ith p ertin en t ex am ­
ples ( p. 47 ).

3 3 See footnote 51. T hese fo u r w a y s of essential inclusion can be

exem plified in theological conclusions im properly so-called, as fosl-
low s: either the d e fin itio n is inferred from the thing defined (as:
C hrist is m an, therefore he is a rational anim al); or an essential p a r t
is inferred from the w hole essence (as: C hrist is a m an, therefore he
has a soul); or a p a r tic u la r is inferred from the universal (as: C hrist
is m an, but all m en belong to the sam e genus or fam ily of A dam ,
therefore C hrist belongs to the fam ily of A dam ): or one r e la tiv e con ­
cept is inferred from its correlative (as: C hrist is a divine Son. there ­
fore he has a divine F ather).
54 A s w e noted in the treatise on R e v e la tio n (p. 17). absolute cer ­
titude is founded on m etaphysical (and m athem atical) law s, that is,
in the very essence of things, w hich adm it no exception, w hile the
conditional certitude is founded on physical and m oral law s, w hich
allow exceptions, and it is sufficient in physical and m oral sciences.
T he certitude required in a true theological conclusion is absolute
and of the m etaphysical order: hence, certain conclusions, w hich
are derived from revealed principles w ith only a physical or m oral
necessity, are not truly theological conclusions, but have to be con ­
sidered as m ere probable theological opinions.
53
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

2. D e fin a b ility o f a th e o lo g ic a l c o n c lu s io n .

T he question is w h eth er th e M agisterium can in fa llib ly d e ­

fin e , a s to b e h e ld w ith d iv in e fa ith , not only a rev ealed tru th ,
b u t also so m eth in g logically d eriv ed from a rev ealed tru th ,
th at is, a th e o lo g ic a l c o n c lu sio n p ro perly so called /

A bout th is question th ere is a v ariety of ju d g m en t and a

real co n tro v ersy am ong theologians, d ep en d in g m ain ly on
w h at is to be called a theological conclusion. H ence w e sh all
first in d icate th e th ree th in g s on w hich th ey all agree, and
th en show and try to resolve th e p ro p er p o in t of controversy.

A ll th e theologians ag ree th at th e M agisterium can in fallib ly

define as to be held w ith divine faith th e follow ing th ree
things. F irst, th e theological conclusions im p r o p e rly s o c a lle d ,
since th ey are m ere ex p lanatio n s of a rev ealed tru th and hence
th ey are eq u iv alen t to it. S econd, those theological conclusions
w h ic h w e c a lle d p r o p e r a n d tr u ly illa tiv e , as in all th e ex am ­
p les given above (see pp. 48, 53), and w hich how ever, som e
o th er theologians consider as im p ro p er conclusions; in eith er
consideration, th e reason of th eir d efin ab ility is th eir in tim ate
an d essen tial connection w ith th e rev ealed tru th . T hird, also
those p r o p e r theological conclusions w hich are d eriv ed fr o m
tw o p r in c ip le s o r p r e m is e s o f fa ith , as ex p lain ed above; th e
reason of th eir d efin ab ility is ag ain th eir in tim ate and to tal
connection w ith th e revealed tru th , since no principle of rea ­
son in terv en es in th e process of deduction.
T h e p o in t o f c o n tr o v e r s y is w h eth er th e M agisterium can
in fallib ly define, as to be held w ith divine faith , also o th er
things, no m atter how w e call them . S uch o th er th in g s w ould
be eith er p ro p er th e o lo g ic a l c o n c lu s io n s (ab stractin g fro m th e
ab o v e-m en tio n ed ), th at is, those th at everyone considers as
ex p ressin g a concept tru ly d istin ct from th e one ex p ressed in
th e rev ealed p rin cip le and at th e sam e tim e proceed fr o m o n e
p r in c ip le o f fa ith a n d o n e p r in c ip le o f r a is o n , o r th e so-called
d o g m a tic fa c ts, th at is, facts in tim ately connected w ith rev eal ­
ed tru th (w hich, at least in o u r opinion, h av e to be reduced
to theological conclusions).55

55 T hese d o g m a tic fa c ts are usually divided into m ere h is to ric a l

fa c ts , on w hich the authority of a Pope or a C ouncil depends (for

54
 T h e o lo g ic a l C o n c lu s io n

B ecause th is question is so m ew h at am biguous, on account

of th e v ario u s senses in w hich a p ro p er theological conclusion
is u n d ersto o d by theologians, w e shall p u t it in th e follow ing
g en eral and u n m istak able form : W h e th e r th e M a g is te r iu m c a n
in fa llib ly d e fin e a s d e fid e a n y c o n c lu s io n w h ic h fo lio ta s w ith
a b s o lu te n e c e s s ity a n d c e r titu d e fr o m a r e v e a le d tr u th . T h ere
is a tw ofold opinion, one denying and th e o th er affirm ing.
T h e fir s t a n d n e g a tiv e o p in io n , held by sev eral m odern th e ­
ologians an d p articu larly em phasized b y R . M . S chultes, O .P ., 36
teaches th at theological conclusions, ex p ressin g a tru ly new
concept and derived from one p rin cip le of faith and one p rin ­
ciple of raison, cannot be in fallibly defined as of divine faith,
because th eir object, b ein g deduced p artially from reason, ex ­
tends beyond th e rev ealed tru th and is not hom ogeneous w ith
it; th e sam e reason holds for th e so-called dogm atic facts. O f
course, th e M agisterium in fallib ly defines such things, w hich,
though n o t revealed, are in tim ately connected w ith rev ela ­
tion, b u t it defines th em as to be believed not w ith divine faith,
as th e rev ealed tru th s, but w ith an e c c le s ia s tic a l fa ith . T his
faith is n eith er divine n o r sim ply hum an, b u t is found as it
w ere in b etw een th e tw o, th at is, restin g solely on th e au th o ri ­
ty of th e in fallib le teach in g of th e M agisterium ; th u s, w hile
th e m otive of th e assen t of divine faith is: “ I believe th is be ­
cause G od has rev ealed it, ” th e m otive of th e assen t of eccles ­
iastical faith is: “ I believe th is because th e M ag isteriu m teach ­
57
es it in fallib ly . ” *

instance, w hether the A nglican O rders are valid), and d o c tr in a l fa c ts

o r d o g m a tic te x ts , that is. the sense of signs by w hich revelation is
expressed (for instance, the true m eaning of a w ord, expression, or
book of an author).
58 A r t. c it. (footnote 44). S upporters of this opinion are, am ong
others, B illot, H ugon, G arrigou-Lagrange, L ennerz, Z apelena, D e
A ldam a, E lorriaga.
57 T he nam e of e c c le sia stic a l fa ith w as explicitly brought forw ard
for the first tim e around the m iddle of the 17th century during the
controversy w ith Jansenists about the definitions of dogm atic facts
(see footnote 62). B ut the concept itself had already been inculcated
by L . M olina (4-1600), N . B ecanus (4-1624), and J. G ranados
(-{-1632), and w as urged in the 18th century under the very nam e
of ecclessiastical faith by A ntoine. T ournely, and K ilber, until it be ­
cam e quite com m on in the 19th and 20th centuries.

55
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

T h e s e c o n d a n d a ffir m a tiv e o p in io n , held b y an increasing

n u m b er of recen t theologians and p articu larly em phasized by
F . M arin-S ola, 58 teaches th at all tru e and necessary theological
conclusions, as w ell as dogm atic facts, because of th eir in ti ­
m ate and necessary connection w ith rev ealed tru th s, can be
defined in fallib ly as of d iv in e fa ith by th e M agisterium .

T he reasons for th is m o r e p r o b a b le o p in io n are th e follow ­

ing:

F irs t. T h e M agisterium h a s in fa c t d e fin e d , as dogm as of

d iv in e faith , several tru e and illativ e theological conclusions,
th at is, w hich ex p ress a concept tru ly new and d istin ct from
th e one ex p ressed in th e rev ealed tru th , and w hich are derived
from one p rin cip le of faith and one p rin cip le of raison.

T his fact is, of course, denied by th e d efen ders of th e first

opinion, w ho say th at all such conclusions, defined by th e M ag ­
isteriu m as dogm as of d iv in e faith , are not p ro p er an d illativ e
conclusions, b u t only im p ro per and ex p lan ato ry conclusions,
an d th ey contain n o th in g tru ly new and d istin ct from th e re ­
vealed tru th . H ow ever, if th is can possibly be said of som e of
those tru th s w hich w e listed above as p ro p er and illativ e con ­
clusions (p. 4 8 ), such as th e co n su b stan tiality of C h rist w ith
th e F ath er and th e D ivine M atern ity , w hich are v ery close to
rev ealed tru th s, it can n ot be reaso n ab ly said of o th er v ery
p articu lar an d d istin ct tru th s, defined as d e fid e by th e M agis ­
teriu m . S uch are, fo r instance, am ong th e m an y th in g s d efin ­
ed b y th e C ouncil of T ren t, th e p erm an en ce of concupiscence
after th e rem ission of o rig in al sin, th e necessity of th e in ten ­
tion of doing w h at th e C hurch does in th e m in ister of a sacra ­
m en t, and th e necessity of n atu ral w ater in B aptism . W ho
w ould reaso n ab ly say, or try to ex p lain , th at all th ese and
m an y o th er sim ilar tru th s are ex p licitly rev ealed and n o t
m erely in ferred from o th er rev ealed tru th s th ro u g h a p ro p er

58 O p. c it. (footnote 44). S upporters of this opinion are especially

D e G randm aison, G ardeil, Journet, B alic, R ondet, S auras, B onnefoy,
R oschini, D hanis, G arcia M artinez. T here are a few discrepancies
am ong these authors (for instance, som e of them extend the infallible
definition of the M agisterium even to probable theological conclus ­
ions); but they all agree in the essential positive doctrine.

56
 T h e o lo g ic a l C o n c lu s io n

and illativ e process? 59

S e c o n d . A conclusion w hich b rin g s o u t a fo rm ally new con ­

cept and follow s w ith absolute necessity and certitu d e from
a revealed p rin cip le, even w ith th e concourse of a p rin cip le of
reason, is im p licitly revealed and tru ly hom ogeneous w ith th e
ex p licit rev ealed tru th . T his is so because it is n o th in g else
th an th e p ro p er and in trin sic v irtu ality of th e rev ealed tru th
itself, a c tu a lly a lth o u g h im p lic ity c o n ta in e d in it, in th e m an ­
n er of an essen tial p ro p erty o r effect, and d istin g u ish ed from
it not b y a real distinction, b u t by th e so-called d istin ctio n of
reason having its foundation in th e reality of th in g s (see a-
bove, p. 4 7 ). T h erefo re such a conclusion can be defined in th e
sam e w ay as th e ex p licitly rev ealed tru th s.

A gain it is not reaso n ab le to o b ject th at such conclusions

are not p ro p er but im p rop er conclusions; for th ey b rin g fo rth
a new and fo rm ally d istinct concept, as in th e ex am p les ju st
m entioned. N or can one oppose th at such conclusions go b e ­
yond th e rev ealed truth and are not hom ogeneous w ith it,
since th ey m ingle w ith n atu ral reason; for, n atu ral reason is
involved only in th e process of concluding, n o t in th e o b ject
of th e conclusion itself, w hich is d irectly d raw n from th e re ­
vealed tru th , alth o u g h w ith th e help of th e n atu ral p rin cip le
and of th e n atu ral reasoning. T h e sam e th in g happens, es ­
sen tially and p ro p o rtio n ally , w hen a theological conclusion is
d raw n from tw o prem ises of faith ( in w hich case all theolog ­
ians ad m it th at it can be defined as of divine faith) ; fo r in both
cases a new d istinct concept is d raw n from a rev ealed tru th
by m eans of a process of n atu ral reasoning, and th e d ifferen ce
of th e tw o prem ises of faith is accid en tal to th is m atter.

T h ird . A ny in fallib le d efin itio n of th e M agisterium carries

w ith it th e obligation of assen tin g b y divine faith to th e p ro ­
posed doctrine. T h e reason is because a n in fa llib le d e fin itio n
obliges to an in fallib le assen t of faith ( th at is, an assen t th at
cannot be d eceiv ed ), and only th e assen t of d iv in e faith is in ­
fallible, because only G od is infallible. H ence, an assen t w hich
w ould be based d irectly on th e sole au th o rity of th e M ag ister ­
ium , even u n d er G od ’ s assistance, is only an assen t of fallible

59 C f. G ardeil, o p ..c il. (footnote 44) 171.

57
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

faith based on a fallib le hum an au th o rity . H ence th e so-called

e c c le sia s tic a l fa ith involves a contradiction, b y being at once
in fallib le an d n o t divine, th at is, in fallib le and n o t infallible.
T h ere is no m iddle term b etw een divine faith and p u rely h u ­
m an faith . 60

W h at has been said ab o u t th e d efin itio n of theological con ­

clusions ap p lies likew ise to th e d efin itio ns of d o g m a tic fa c ts ,
pronounced in fallibly by th e M agisterium ; nam ely, these
d efin itio ns also carry th e obligation, not of th e so-called ec ­
clesiastical faith (as th e afo rem en tio n ed theologians claim ),
b u t of th e sam e d iv in e faith by w hich th e rev ealed tru th s
th em selv es are believed. T his how ever, cannot be explained
b u t b y r e d u c in g th e d o g m a tic fa c ts to th e o lo g ic a l c o n c lu sio n s ,
th at is, by considering th em as im p licitly contained in th e re ­
vealed tru th s and b ro u g h t o u t into ex p licit know ledge by th e
in fallib le d eclaratio n of th e M agisterium . T he inclusion of
these facts in th e rev ealed tru th s can be understood as th at
of a p a r tic u la r in th e u n iv e rs a l, not h o w ev er sim ply an d ab ­
so lu tely (as P eter is included in th e h u m an race), b u t h y p o ­
th etically and conditionally, th at is, on th e supposition th at
som e condition is verified.

T hus, th e d o g m a tic h is to r ic a l fa c t th at th e C ouncil of T ren t

is in fallib le, is im plicitly contained in th e g en eral revealed
tru th th at all ecum enical C ouncils are in fallib le, provided th ey
are leg itim ate. S uch a fact can be b ro u g h t into ex p licit know ­
ledge by m erely and n atu rally v erify in g T ren t ’ s legitim acy
th ro u g h a reaso n ing process, w hich leads to th e follow ing
p ro p er theological conclusion: “ E v ery ecum enical C ouncil is
in fallib le in its d efin itio ns, if it is leg itm ate in its convocation
an d acts; th erefo re, th e C ouncil of T ren t is in fallib le. ” T his
sam e process applies to o th er dogm atic facts, both historical
an d d o ctrin al. 61 T h u s th e d o g m a tic d o c trin a l fa c t of th e

60 M arin-Sola: “ T he ecclesiastical faith is a useless invention ”

(o p .c it. [footnote 44] I 454). G ardeil: “ T he so called ecclesiastical
faith [is] a w ord and a thing entirely new , unknow n to thom istic the ­
ology, a kind of fourth theological virtue, invented to designate the
assent given to theological conclusions . . . supported by an act of
the ecclesiastical authority ” (op. cit. [footnote 441 183).
e * See their distinction above, footnote 55.

58
 T h e o lo g ic a l C o n c lu s io n

orthodox y or h etero d o x y of a w ord o r proposition o r tex t or

book of an au th o r, is contained im p licitly in th e rev ealed tru th
and b ro u gh t o u t from it th rou g h th e follow ing conclusion: “ A ll
tex ts, w hich b ear a sense co n trad icto ry to rev ealed tru th , are
heretical; b u t th is p articu lar tex t b ears a sense co n trad icto ry
to rev ealed tru th ; th erefo re this p articu lar tex t is h eretical. ” 62

62 Such w as the case of the condem nation o f J a n se n iu s ’ w o rk

“ A u g u s tin u s." T he Jansenists tried to w eaken the strength and
sense of that condem nation, distinguishing betw een the question of
right (that is, w hether a proposition taken in itself is heretical) and
the question of fact (that is, w hether a proposition, as contained in
this particular book and as pertaining to this particular author, is
heretical), and they granted the condem nation only in the first
sense. B ut A lexander V II rejected this interpretation, declaring that
“ the propositions of Jansenius had been condem ned in the sense in ­
tended by Jansenius him self ” (D enz. 2012).

59
VI
Theological Notes and Censures83

T h i s q u e s t i o n is logically and m ethodologically connected

w ith th e tw o preceding questions, because th e note o r critical
ju d g m en t ab o u t a doctrine, as to its ag reem en t w ith revealed
tru th , show s its g reater o r lesser v alu e as a p rin cip le of th eo ­
logical arg u m en tatio n , according to w h eth er it is a d o ctrin e of
faith , or only theologically certain , o r m erely probable.

1. N o tio n o f th e o lo g ic a l n o te a n d c e n s u re .

“ N o te ” or “ m ark ” m eans g en erically a d istin ctiv e sign, w hile

“ cen su re ” (fro m th e R om an office of censor) m eans an act of
rebuke. In ecclesiastical science, “ n o te ” is tak en in tw o senses,
nam ely, a p o lo g e tic a lly , as a d istin ctiv e sign of th e C h u rch (th e
fo u r notes of th e C hurch, called u n ity , san ctity , catholicity,
an d ap o sto licity ), and d o g m a tic a lly , as a fav o rab le ju d g m en t
on th e theological v alu e of a d o ctrin e ( w h eth er it is d e fid e , o r
certain , o r p ro b ab le). L ikew ise “ cen su re ” is tak en both in th e
canonical sense of p en alty (canonical cen su re) an d in th e
dogm atic sense of u n fav o rab le ju d g m en t (theological cen sure).
T heogical note and theological cen su re are o ften tak en in ter ­
changeably, and they are also called theological v alu e or q u ali ­
fication.
T hey are p ro p erly d e fin e d : a ju d g m e n t a b o u t th e d o g m a tic *6 3

63 C f. C . C ahill, T h e D e v e lo p m e n t of th e T h e o lo g ic a l C e n s u r e s A f ­
te r th e C o u n c il o f T r e n t (1 5 6 3 -1 7 0 9 ), F ribourg, S w itzerland 1955;
S. C artechini D e v a lo r e n o ta r u m th e o lo g ic a r u m e t d e c r ite riis a d
e a s d ig n o s ce n d a s , R otna 1951; D a ll ’ o p ln io n e a l d o g m a . V a lo r e d e lle
n o te th e o lo g ic h e , R om a 1953; E. D oronzo, T h e o lo g ia d o g m a tic a 1
(W ashington, 1966) 526-542.

60
 T h e o lo g ic a l N o te s a n d C e n s u re s

v a lu e o f a p r o p o s itio n , or m ore d istin ctly : a ju d g m en t ab o u t

th e ag reem en t o r d isag reem ent of a proposition w ith a doc ­
trin e proposed b y th e M agisterium . If th e ju d g m en t is of a-
greem ent, it is called m ore p ro p erly ‘ n o te; ” if it is of dis ­
agreem ent, it is called m ore p ro p erly “ cen su re. ”

2. H is to r y o f th e o lo g ic a l n o te s a n d c e n su r e s.

P ronouncing such ju d g m en ts is a p art of th e teach in g office

of th e C hurch, w hich h as exercised it since th e b eg in n in g in
various m anners. S t. P au l condem ns as “ an ath em a ” an y one
w ho w ould sp read false d o ctrin es (G al. 1.9; cf. 1.6-8; 1 Jo h n
2.22; 4.1-3; 2 Jo h n 7 and 10). In th e first cen tu ries, th e M ag ­
isteriu m condem ned schism atics an d h eretics w ith th e sam e
censure of “ an athem a,” w hich in th e canons of an cien t C oun ­
cils m ean t a solem n excom m unication, im p ly in g also a d e ­
claratio n of h eresy in th e case of a d o ctrin e (see in D enzinger
th e v ario u s canons an d decisions of th e C ouncils of R om e, C ar ­
thage, E phesus, O range, C o n stan tin o p le II and IV , N icaea II).
O nly in th e 14th cen tu ry th e M ag isteriu m began to use those
p articu lar ex p ressio n s an d distinctions, w hich h av e becom e
trad itio n al and classical in theology. Jo h n X X II (+ 1 3 3 4 ) con ­
dem ned v ario u s erro rs, using fo r th e first tim e fo u r o u t of th e
five p rin cip al cen su res, m ore com m only listed b y theologians,
nam ely, h e r e tic a l, e r r o n e o u s , te m e r a r io u s , and ill-s o u n d in g
(D enz. 916, 924, 946, 979); th e C ouncil of C onstance in 1418
added th e fifth censure, “ o ffe n s iv e to p io u s e a r s ” (D enz. 1251 ).
F rom th en on th e sam e cen su res w ere freq u en tly repeated,
along w ith o th er nam es; sev eral of th em w ere p articu larly and
d istin ctly used b y In n o cen t X ag ain st Jan sen iu s (D enz. 2006),
by A lex an d er V III ag ain st certain m o ral opinions (D enz.
2269), and by P iu s V I ag ainst th e Jan sen ist S ynod of P istoia
(D enz. 2601-2700). T h e C ouncils of T ren t an d V atican I in
th eir canons used co n sisten tly th e w ord “ an ath em a,” also in
the sense of h eretical. R ecen t docum ents g en erally ab stain
from ap p ly in g p articu lar cen su res u n d er th e aforem entioned
nam es and sim ply condem n o r p ro scrib e erro rs (cf. th e con ­
dem nation of B o n n etty , G u n th er, th e R atio n alists, th e O ntolo-
gists, R osm ini, an d th e M odernists, D enz. 2811 ff., 2828 ff.,
2841 ff., 2901 ff., 3241, 3466).

3. A u th o r o f n o te s o r c e n su r e s , a n d m a n n e r o f th e ir a p p lic a -

61
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

tio n .

T h e p rin cip al a u th o r is n aturally th e M agisterium , as th e

au th entic g u ard ian and d efen d er of revelation. H ence th is task
belongs to th e R om an P o n tiff (actin g d irectly o r th ro u g h th e
R om an C o n g reg atio n s) an d to th e bishops (in C ouncils o r in ­
d iv id ually ), and it is u su ally exercised by w ay of cen su re
rather th an b y positive theological notes. H ow ever, also p ri ­
v ate doctors o r theologians, as specialists in th eir field and
q u alified w itnesses of rev elatio n , can assign a theological cen ­
su re o r note; such a rig ht w as often p u t in to p ractice b y g reat
u n iv ersities, as those of P aris and L ouvain, and is u su ally ap ­
plied b y v ario u s theologians in th eir w ritin g s, w ho try in this
m an n er to in terp ret th e p ro u n cem en ts of th e M agisterium .

T he m a n n e r in w hich cen su res are ap p lied b y th e M agister ­

ium is various. O ften an in d iv id u a l proposition is d irectly con ­
dem ned, eith er w ith a sim ple cen su re o r w ith sev eral (fo r in ­
stance, as h eretical, erroneous, and tem erario u s). S om etim es
sev eral propositions are condem ned to g e th e r a n d “ in g lo b o , ”
eith er eq u ally w ith one o r sev eral cen su res o r u n eq u ally and
respectively, so th at one o r an o th er of th e assigned censures
reg ard s each proposition, w ith o u t an y fu rth er d eterm in atio n
(cf. D enz. 1251, th e first global censure, issued b y th e C oun ­
cil of C onstance ag ain st W yclif and H us; D enz. 1592, ag ain st
L u th er; D enz. 1980, ag ainst B aius; D enz. 2332, ag ain st Jan ­
senists, etc.).
4. D iv is io n o f n o te s a n d c e n su r e s.

A s th ere are m an y w ays of v alu atin g a proposition, th e n u m ­

b er and th e n am es of notes an d cen su res v ary in th e docu ­
m en ts of th e M agisterium , and in th e w riting s of theologians.
H ow ever, am ong th e cen su res issued b y th e M agisterium ,
th ere are fiv e w hich show a m ore d efin ite and d istin ctiv e
ch aracter, and are b ro u g h t to p articu lar atten tio n b y theolo ­
gians, nam ely, h e r e tic a l, e r r o n e o u s , te m e r a r io u s , ill-s o u n d in g ,
an d o ffe n siv e to p io u s e a r s. T hese and m an y o th ers used by
th e M agisterium ® 4 can be reduced to tw o g en eral headings;
som e involve a d o ctrin al defect, eith er in th e concept itself

64 See especially the C onstitution “ A uctorem fidei, ” issued in 1794

by P ius V I against the Jansenist Synod of P istoia (D enz. 2601-2693).
62
 T h e o lo g ic a l N o te s a n d C e n s u re s

(h eretical, erro n eo u s, tem erario u s), o r in its expression (ill-

so u n d in g ), o th ers involve d irectly only a m oral d efect (o ffen ­
sive to pious ears; u n d er th e sam e h ead in g w ould com e m ore
serious censures, w hich easily involve also a g rav e d o ctrin al
defect, as scandalous, blasphem ous, an d sch ism atic).
H e r e tic a l p r o p o s itio n (opposed to th e n o te: d e fid e ) is th e
g ravest censure, involving a d irect opposition to a proposition
defined b y th e M agisterium as d e fid e . S uch opposition can be
eith er a d irect co n trad ictio n (b y saying, fo r in stan ce: C h rist
is n o t a m an ) o r a sim ple co n trariety (C h rist is an an g el); in
both cases th ere is h eresy , because tw o co n trad icto ry , as w ell
as tw o co n trary propositions, can n o t b e tru e at once.65 W ith
this censure are connected th ree lo w er and in term ediate cen ­
sures, w hich have a p ecu liar and u n d eterm in ed opposition to
faith, nam ely, p r o x im a te to h e r e s y (opposite n o te: p ro x im ate
to faith ), ta s tin g h e r e s y (resem b lin g h eresy ), and s u sp e c te d
o f h e r e s y ; th ese last tw o im ply only a p ro b ab ility of heresy.

E r ro n e o u s p r o p o s itio n (opposed to th e n o te: th e o lo g ic a lly

c e rta in , o r C a th o lic d o c tr in e ), w hich is th e p rin cip al d efin ite
censure after th at of h eresy , im plies an opposition not im m ed ­
iately to faith itself, b u t to a proposition d irectly and neces ­
sarily connected w ith faith , so th at if th is is denied, faith also
w ould be denied, at least logically if not actu ally . S uch a prop-

e 5 T he opposite note “ de fide ” is distinguished by som e theolog ­

ians into that “ of divine faith ” (w hich w ould correspond to truths
as m erely found in the deposit of S cripture and T radition) and that
“ of C a th o lic fa ith ” (w hich is attributed to truths defined by the M ag ­
isterium ). B ut it w ould be better to abstain from such a distinction,
since there is only one faith and one object of faith, that w hich fol ­
low s the definition of the M agisterium . H ence the expression “ T his
is a truth of divine and C atholic faith, ” occurring in som e docum ents
of the M agisterium , is a m ere pleonasm w hich brings forth the tw o
elem ents necessary to constitute the object of faith, nam ely the rev ­
elation of G od and the proposition of the M agisterium .
A s show n above (p. 58), there is no such thing as an ecclesiastical
faith, distinct from divine faith; consequently w e discard the cor ­
responding note and censure (truth of ecclesiastical faith, error or
heresy in ecclesiastical faith), listed by the supporters of this “ faith. ”
H ence, the triple division, divine faith, C atholic faith, and eccles ­
iastical faith, is to be avoided, as a cause of confusion.

63
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

osition, n ecessarily connected w ith faith , is eith er a strict

th e o lo g ic a l c o n c lu sio n (see above, p. 53) o r th e so-called C a th ­
o lic d o c trin e , th at is, a d o ctrin e so in tim ately connected w ith
faith th at it is com m only believed to be certain ly revealed,
an d hence p ro x im ately definable, alth o u g h it h as not y et been
d efin ed by th e M agisterium as d e fid e : also such a p o in t of
C ath o lic d o ctrin e is to be o b jectiv ely red u ced to a theological
conclusion, alth o u g h its in tim ate connection w ith faith is not
know n th ro u g h a logical and a p rio ri process, b u t th ro u g h an
ev id en t sign, th at is, from th e fact th at it is com m only th o u g h t
to be a rev ealed tru th and as such is proposed also by th e M ag ­
isteriu m , b efo re d efin in g it infallibly.® ®
T e m e ra r io u s p r o p o s itio n ( opposed to th e n o te : h ig h ly p r o b ­
a b le , or m o r a lly c e r ta in ) is a less d efin ite cen su re and m ore
d ifficu lt to describe. A tem erariou s proposition is opposed to
a p ro po sition n o t en tirely certain b u t h ig h ly p ro b ab le and in
th is sense m o rally certain , as b ein g solidly founded and com ­
m only accepted am ong theologians. It is called tem erariou s,
precisely because it affirm s o r denies so m eth in g eith er w ith ­
out su fficien t fo u n d atio n o r ag ainst th e com m on opinion of
theologians. * 67
Ill-s o u n d in g p r o p o s itio n (opposed to th e n o te: c o r r e c t-
s o u n d in g ) im plies a d efect reg ard in g not th e tru th itself b u t
its e x p r e s s io n . S uch a d efect consists in th e in accu racy o r th e
am b ig u ity of th e ex p ressio n ( d u e to th e w ords th em selv es or
to h isto rical circu m stan ces) w hich m ay lead to erro r about
th e tru th ; for, as S t. T hom as rem ark s after S t. Jerom e, *'a
h eresy m ay arise fro m w ords w rongly used ” ( S u m m a T h e o l.,

Such are the chapters of T rent and V atican I, the tw o dog ­

m atic C onstitutions of V atican II (on the C hurch and on R evelation),
the E ncyclical “ Q uanta cura ” and the S yllabus of P ius IX , the E n ­
cyclical “ P ascendi ” and the D ecree “ L am entabili ” of P ius X , the
E ncyclical “ C asti C onnubii ” of P ius X I, the E ncyclical “ H um ani
generis ” of P ius X II. H ow ever, som e of these docum ents m ay be in ­
fallible definitions d e fid e , as w e noted above (footnote 43).
67 Such w ould be, for instance, the affirm ation of an im m aculate
conception for St. John the B aptist; the negation of the necessity of
interior intention in the m inister of a sacram ent, or of the objective
gravity of sexual intercourse outside m arriage.

64
 T h e o lo g ic a l N o te s a n d C e n s u re s

p. 1, q. 31, a.2 ). 6a

O ffe n siv e to p io u s e a r s p r o p o s itio n (opposed to th e n o te:

fittin g fo r p ie ty ) im plies a d efect not of d o ctrin al o rd er (re ­
g ard ing th e tru th o r its ex p ressio n ) b u t only o f m o r a l o r d e r .
S uch a d efect consists in say in g a tru th , w hich should be k ep t
unsaid o u t of rev eren ce for holy th in g s, o r in saying it in a
m an n er w hich w ould cause co n tem p t for holy th in g s; both of
these things offend th e sense of p iety an d are opposed to th e
v irtu e of religion. 68
69 H ow ever, such a theological offense to
pious ears m ust not be valued and m easu red according to th e
ears of an y v u lg ar crow d, w ho easily tak e childish offense or
P harisaic scandal, b u t according to sound an d C h ristian com ­
m on sense.

5. In te rp r e ta tio n a n d u s e o f n o te s a n d c e n su r e s .

W ith reg ard to th e in te rp r e ta tio n of these qualifications,

careful atten tio n should be paid to th eir au th o r (w h eth er th ey
procede from th e M agisterium itself o r from th e p riv ate ju d g ­
m ent of theologians ), to th eir p ro p er and h isto rical sense, and
especially to th eir p ro p er force, as to th e ag reem en t o r disa ­
greem ent of a proposition w ith revealed tru th . F o r, w h ile th e
tw o first censures of h eretical and erro n eo u s propositions ( and
th eir opposite n o tes) arc ab so lu tely im m utable, on account of
th e evident opposition of th ese propositions to rev ealed tru th ,
the last th ree cen su res are refo rm ab le w ith th e change of cir ­
cum stances, w hich are th e cause of th e afo rm en tio n ed p er ­
nicious ch aracter.

T hus, w h at is a tem erario u s proposition at one tim e m ay

68 Such w ould be, for instance, the follow ing propositions: “ In

G od there are three relative essences ” (in w hich essence is incor ­
rectly taken for person and m ay induce one to believe that in G od
there are sim ply three essences, and hence three gods); “ In the
T rinity the F ather is the cause of the S on" (w hich in the strict sense
of causality, as the w ord “ cause ” is understood in the L atin C hurch,
w ould im ply subordination and inferiority on the part of the Son).
69 Such w ould be, for instance, an em phasis on som e m oral de ­
fects or sins of the apostles or other saints (w ho should be highly
revered), as in the follow ing prayer: “ O M agdalen prostitute, M at ­
thew usurer, P eter perjurer, P aul persecutor, pray for us!"

65
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

not be tem erario us at an o th er tim e, if such a proposition be ­

com es solidly p ro b ab le, after su fficien t reasons fo r it have
b een advanced ( fo r instance, th e affirm atio n of an im m aculate
conception fo r S t. Jo sep h is no longer tem erario u s, as it used
to b e b rand ed ). A fo r tio r i an ill-sounding proposition m ay lose
such ch aracter, w h en w ords an d fo rm u las change th eir m ean ­
ing th ro u g h h isto rical o r d o ctrin al evolution, as h ap p en ed to
those used to ex p ress th e m y steries of T rin ity and In carn atio n .
T h e sam e holds a fo r tio r i fo r a proposition offensive to pious
ears, w hose offensive ch aracter has only a relativ e basis, so
th at w h at is offensive at one tim e and in som e circum stances
m ay not be such in o th er tim es o r circum stances.

W ith regard to th e u s e o f notes and cen su res b y theologians,

th e follow ing o b serv atio n s m ay be su itab le. T hese q u alifica ­
tio n s should be based on and derived fro m th e docum ents of
th e M agisterium , w h en th e M agisterium itself has not assign ­
ed an y ex p licit qualification. T hey should be sim plified as to
th eir n u m b er and th eir nam es, as w e did above; th e fiv e q u ali ­
fications, ju st ex p lain ed , seem to b e sufficient, at least g en er ­
ally, an d in p articu lar in theological m an uals for th e schools;
th e note “ d e fid e ” should not be sub-divided in to those of
“ divine faith ” an d ‘ ‘C atholic faith, ” m uch less w ith th e ad d it ­
ion of “ ecclesiastical faith ; ” and th e note “ C atholic d o ctrin e,”
if used, should be accom panied by a clear ex planation , on ac ­
co u n t of its broad and so m ew h at am biguous sense.

R eg ard in g th e m o r a l v a lu e of th ese qualifications, it should

be n o ted th at only th e first cen su re (h eretical) im plies a sin
ag ain st faith an d th e loss of th is v irtue, w h ile all th e o th ers
im ply only a sin ag ain st th e v irtu e of religion, an d th e last
th ree (tem erario u s, ill-sounding, and offensive to pious ears)
involve also a sin ag ain st prudence.

66
Glossary of Technical Words
Occurring In This Treatise

A n alo g y o f faith is a theological expression w hich adopts

th e philosophical term of analogy, m ean in g a sim ilarity be ­
tw een tw o concepts. H ence analogy of faith m eans a sim ilarity
betw een tw o rev ealed tru th s, o r m ore p ro perly th e ag reem en t
w hich is necessarily found b etw een th e v ario u s tru th s of faith ,
so th at from one w e can rig h tly ju d g e ab o u t th e o th er: th u s
from th e p erp etu al v irg in ity of M ary w e u n d erstan d th at those
w ho are called b ro th ers and sisters of C h rist in th e G ospel are
only close relativ es to him .

A rg u m en t-C on clu sio n . A rg um en t o r d em o n stratio n is a

process by w hich w e d raw a conclusion from principles. T his
is done in an y science. H ence it is p ro p er to theology as a
science to use arg u m en ts, th at is, to d raw conclusions fro m th e
principles of rev elatio n , w hich are th e v ario u s tru th s rev ealed
by G od. T hese theological conclusions, if th ey follow n o t m ere ­
ly probably b u t necessarily from th e rev ealed p rin ciples, can
be in fallib ly defined by th e C hurch M agisterium , ju st as th e
revealed p rin ciples them selves, an d hence th ey becom e also
th e o b ject of o u r faith . T hus, from th e rev ealed tru th th at
C h rist is also a tru e m an sim ilar to us, it is n ecessarily con ­
cluded th at C h rist has also a h u m an w ill besides his divine
w ill, and th e M ag isteriu m ex p licitly defined th is as an article
of divine faith in th e C ouncil of C o n stan tin o p le III in 681.

F aith can be tak en in tw o w ays. F irst in a su b jectiv e sense,

th at is, fo r th e v irtue of faith resid in g in o u r m ind an d th e
consequent act of faith b y w hich w e ex p ress o u r belief in th e
w ord of G od; in th is sense C h ristian s are called “ T he F aith ­
fu l. ” S econdly, faith is often tak en in an o b je c tiv e s e n s e , th at

67
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

is, fo r th e objects o r tru th s w e believe, b riefly th e w ord of

G od. It is in th is second sense th at faith is taken in th e follow ­
in g ex p ressio n s com m only used in theology:

P r e a m b le s o f fa ith are those tru th s ab o u t G od w hich can

be know n th ro u g h n atu ral reason (su ch as his ex isten ce and
P ro v id en ce) and w hich th erefo re are presupposed to, and
p rep are th e u n d erstan d in g of, th e su p ern atu ral tru th s. F o u n ­
d a tio n s o f fa ith are th e rev ealed tru th s them selves, b riefly
rev elatio n , w hich is th e o b ject and hence th e fo u n d atio n of
faith . T his is th e reaso n w hy th e theological treatise on rev ­
elatio n is called fu nd am en tal theology. P rin c ip le s o f fa ith are
th e sam e rev ealed tru th s inasm uch as th ey becom e th e p rin ­
ciples of all theological reasoning and conclusions. T r u th s o f
fa ith are th e sam e rev ealed tru th s considered in them selves.
A r tic le s o f fa ith are m o re strictly th e p rin cip al o r fu n d am en ­
tal tru th s of faith , as those contained in th e C reeds o r S ym ­
bols of faith . F o r m u la o f fa ith is a d efin ite expression of
rev ealed tru th , such as th e v ariou s sym bols of faith or th e
d efin itio ns of th e M agisterium . S y m b o ls o f fa ith (th e C reeds)
are th e fo rm u las ex p ressin g th e p rin cip al rev ealed tru th s. R u le
o f fa ith is th e au th o ritativ e facto r w hich d eterm in es fo r us th e
o b ject to b e believed; it is divided into th e r e m o te r u le (S crip ­
tu re an d T rad itio n ) and th e p r o x im a te r u le (th e C h u rch M ag ­
isteriu m ). D o g m a o f fa ith (o r sim ply dogm a) is revealed
tru th , contained in th e deposit of S criptu re an d T rad itio n , as
p resen ted to us for b elief b y th e in fallib le M agisterium ; dog ­
m atic fo rm u las are th e v ario u s ex p ressio n s of th e sam e dogm a
in th e docum ents of th e M agisterium . A n a lo g y o f fa ith is th e
n ecessary ag reem en t ex istin g b etw een v ario u s rev ealed tru th s.

M ag isteriu m g enerically m eans teach in g fu n ctio n o r office,

w h eth er freely accepted b y o th ers o r im posed upon th em by
social rules. It im plies alw ay s a d o c trin a l a u th o rity in th e
sense th at a m aster o r teach er as such know s m ore th an th e
disciples o r listen ers, and hence im presses th em w ith his su p ­
erio rity and has an in flu en ce on th eir m ind w ith his know ­
ledge. B u t a m erely h u m an M agisterium has no p ractical au ­
th o rity , th at is, it can n ot force an y o n e ’ s m ind to accept w h at it
says o r teaches, fo r th e h u m an in tellect is an in terio r facu lty
an d h en ce ontologically and socially free from coercion.
68
 G lo s sa r y

G o d 's M a g iste r iu m on th e co n trary has also a p r a c tic a l

a u th o r ity , th at is, it can com m and to th e m ind of m an to ac ­
cept his w ords and his teaching, not only by v irtue of his in ­
finite and in fallib le know ledge (w h ich im plies a su p rem e
doctrinal au th o rity ), b u t by his dom inion over o u r in tellect
as w ell as over o u r w hole being. M oreover, nothing p rev en ts
G od from com m unicating th is p ractical au th o rity of his to a
m an w ith reg ard to o th ers, to be exercised b y him in G od ’ s
nam e and as it w ere in stru m en tally , in th e m an n er of a com ­
m issioned office. S uch is p recisely th e M a g is te r iu m of th e
C h u r c h , w hich can oblige th e faith fu l to b eliev e its p ro n o u n ce ­
m ents or p resen tatio ns of th e w ord of G od. F o r th is reason it
is called th e au th en tic or au th o ritativ e M agisterium .

R eason. W hen w e speak of n atu ral reason, o r light, or p rin ­

ciples, in opposition to su p ern atu ral rev elatio n , or light, or
principles, w e point o u t th e p ro p er and specific p o w er of o u r
intellect, w o rk in g o ut its know ledge from its ow n in n ate
principles in th e lig h t of th at p ro p er p erfectio n th at m akes
m an a ratio nal anim al. F o r th is p ro p er w ork o u r in tellect does
not strictly and p h y sically need an y ad d ition al su p ern atu ral
help from G od, alth o u g h in th e p resen t condition of fallen n a ­
tu re after th e o rig in al sin, w e m o rally need such help only to
prom ptly and d efin itely u n d erstan d , as w e should, m o ral and
religious tru th s ( such as G od ’ s existence, creatio n , P rovidence,
and o u r fu n d am en tal obligations to him and to o u r n eig h b o r).

B ut w ith reg ard to th e know ledge of tru th s concerning

su p ern atu ral religion ( such as th e T rin ity , In carn atio n , san cti ­
fying grace, faith , hope of b eatific vision, love of friend sh ip
for G od) o u r n atu ral in tellect is pow erless and b lin d , and
hence it needs a p ro p o rtio n ate s u p e r n a tu r a l h e lp , th a t is , a
h ig h e r lig h t (of rev elatio n , faith, o r b eatific v isio n ). T his sup ­
ern atu ral lig ht blends, as it w ere, w ith th e n atu ral lig ht of
reason itself and m akes it ab le to elicit a su p ern atu ral act ( of
know ledge, of faith , or b eatific v isio n). T h u s reaso n is elev at ­
ed to a h ig h er o rd er and th e ratio n al an im al becom es a p ar ­
tak er of th e p ro p er lig h t of G od.

R ev elatio n is g en erically th e m an ifestatio n of a hidden

tru th , eith er in th e n atu ral o r in th e su p ern atu ral order.

69
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

S u p ern atu ral rev elatio n , tak en s u b je c tiv e ly on th e p art of the

act of know ledge, can signify in a b ro ad er sense an y su p ern a ­
tu ral help in th e line of th e in tellect, ju st as grace can signify
an y su p ern atu ral h elp in th e line of w ill, o r in both lines. H ow ­
ev er, strictly speaking, rev elatio n is such a su p ern atu ral help
w hich m akes us u n d erstan d d irectly a su p ern atu ral tru th and
th u s it is eq u iv alen t to speech of G od to m an. In th is strict
sense r e v e la tio n is d istin g u ish ed from tw o o th er su p ern atu ral
lig h ts o r helps. T hese are, first in s p ir a tio n , th at is, a su p ern a ­
tu ral m ovem ent of G od for w ritin g w ith o u t erro r w h at G od
w ills a m an to w rite, g iv en in such a m an n er th at G od becom es
th e p rin cip al au th o r of th e w ritin g . T his took place w ith th e
v ariou s m en w ho w ro te th e B ible, called th erefo re th e in sp ir ­
ed books. S econd, a s s is ta n c e o f th e H o ly S p ir it, by w hich G od
disposes an d arran g es th in g s and h u m an actions in such a m an ­
n er as to p rev en t a hum an w riter o r sp eak er from any erro r
in a p articu lar w ork o r speech ( as in th e case of th e P o p e or
an ecum enical council w h en d efin in g in fallibly a revealed
tru th ).

T aken o b je c tiv e ly , rev elatio n is th e tru th m an ifested to us

by G od th rou g h th e afo rem en tio n ed su p ern atu ral light, th at
is, th e rev ealed truth . T o th is concept of rev elatio n are refer ­
red th e theological term s of source, channel, deposit and organ
of rev elatio n , of w hich w e are ab o u t to speak in th e follow ing
en try .

S ource, ch an n el, d ep o sit, o rg an o f rev elatio n . A ll these

term s carry th e sam e g en eral concept of m eans of tran sm is ­
sion of G od ’ s rev elatio n to m an. H ow ever, th ere is a shade of
m eaning b etw een them , b y reason of w hich th ey are n o t used
in terch an g eab ly in theology. U p u n til th e S econd V atican
C ouncil, S criptu re and T rad itio n w ere called sources of rev e ­
lation; th e term ch an nel has alw ay s k ep t an in d efin ite m ean ­
in g and attrib u tio n . V atican II suggested a ch an g e in th eo ­
logical term inology by using th e term source of rev elatio n
only to signify th e G ospel itself, and th e term deposit to signi ­
fy S criptu re and T rad itio n . H ence th e term inology, as it stan ds
now , is th e follow ing. T he s o u r c e of rev elatio n is th e G ospel
p reach ed by C h rist; S criptu re and T rad itio n are th e d e p o s its
(o r rather one to tal d ep o sit) of rev elatio n (o r th e channels

70
 G lo s sa r y

containing rev elatio n ); th e M agisterium is th e o r g a n o f rev ­

elatio n (o r th e ch an n el im m ed iately tran sm ittin g rev elatio n to
u s). T o use a com m on im age, th e living w ater of rev elatio n
com es dow n from th e G ospel as its o rig in al source; it is g ath er ­
ed into th e w ater to w er of S criptu re an d T rad itio n ; fro m th is
it is fin ally ch an n elled to us, for o u r im m ediate needs and
obligations, th ro u g h th e p ip elin e of th e M agisterium . O f course
it is up to o u r good w ill and sav o ir-faire to tu rn th e fau cet th e
rig h t w ay in o rd er to get fro m th e in d efectib le p ip elin e of th e
M agisterium th e lim pid w ater, g ath ered into th e unbroken
reserv o ir of S criptu re and T rad itio n from th e in ex h au stab le
source of th e G ospel.

T h eo log ical “ L oci ” are called th e places in w hich theolog ­

ians fin d th e p ro p er p rincip les of th eir in v estig atio n and
dem onstrations. T he ten theological “ loci ” u su ally listed after
M elchior C ano (+ 1 5 60 ), th eir first illu strato r (n am ely , S crip ­
ture, T radition, B elieving C hurch, th e M agisterium of th e
P ope, th e M agisterium of th e E cum enical C ouncils, th e F a ­
th ers, th e theologians, n atu ral reason, th e au th o rity of philo ­
sophers, and h isto ry ), can be red u ced to th ree (o m ittin g th e
last th ree w hich are m erely ex trin sic and co n firm in g “ loci ” ),
nam ely, S c r ip tu r e , T r a d itio n , a n d th e M a g iste riu m , w hich arc
also channels of rev elatio n an d ru les of faith.

71
Analytical Index

A n alo g y o f faith , an expression used by theologians and in ­

sisted upon by th e M agisterium , is th e m u tu al ag reem en t
w hich necessarily ex ists betw een th e v ario u s tru th s of faith,
8.

A p o stles. A fter C h rist ’ s A scension th e apostles received sev ­

eral public revelations, footnote 49, b u t w ith th e d eath of th e
last ap o stle ( S t. Jo h n w ho died ab o u t 100) public rev elatio n
w as closed forever, 45. T h e apostles had a d eeper u n d er ­
stan d of th e rev ealed tru th s, at least of those w hich are ex ­
p licitly rev ealed , 51.

B elieveing C h u rch . T he sense of all th e faith fu l ab o u t a doc ­

trin e of faith , o r a d o ctrin e connected w ith it, is w itness to
T raditio n, 19, 22- 24. It carries also in fallib ility in m atters
of faith , 22. It can be com pared to th e n atu ral com m on sense
w ith reg ard to th e first p rin ciples of reason, 23, 49. It is an
in flu ential cause of th e developm ent of dogm a, 49 f.

C en su res (th eo lo g ical). S e e N o te s (th e o lo g ic a l)

C h an n els (o f rev elatio n ) are divided into deposits of rev ela ­

tio n (S crip tu re and T raditio n , w hich can be considered as
one to tal d ep o sit) and organ of rev elatio n (th e M agister ­
iu m ), footnote 3, 15. S e e S o u r c e (o f r e v e la tio n )

C onclusions (th eo lo g ical). In th e strict sense a theological

conclusion is a proposition n ecessarily d eriv ed fro m a rev eal ­
ed tru th by m eans of a discoursive process of o u r n atu ral
reason, 52 f. It is d istin g u ish ed fro m a m ere ex p lan atio n of
th e rev ealed tru th and also from a proposition w hich follow s
only p ro b ab ly from a rev ealed tru th , 52 f. V arious exam ples

72
 A n a ly tic a l I n d e x

of theological conclusions 48, 56. T o theological conclusions

are to be reduced th e so-called dogm atic facts, th at is, those
historical or d o ctrin al facts th at arc necessarily connected
w ith th e rev ealed tru th , 54; s e e D o g m a tic fa c ts. T he M ag ­
isteriu m can in fallib ly d efin e theological conclusions, b u t it
is disputed w h eth er in th at w ay th ey becom e th e o b ject of
divine faith (as is m ore p ro b ab le) o r of an in ferio r k in d of
ecclesiastical faith , 54-59; s e e F a ith (e c c le s ia stic a l)

D eposit (o f rev elatio n ). S e e C h a n n e ls ( o f r e v e la tio n )

D octors (o f th e C h u rch ). S e e F a th e r s (o f th e C h u r c h )

D ogm a. In th e strict sense dogm a is a rev ealed tru th in fallib ly

defined by th e M agisterium as to be believed of divine faith,
40 f. It is objectively im m u tab le w ith reg ard to th e defined
tru th itself, 41 f., b u t it undergoes d ev elo p m en t an d progress
w ith reg ard to th e fo rm ulatio n and th e logical im plications
of th e rev ealed tru th , 43-51. T his p ro g ress is both su b jectiv e,
as to a clearer u n d erstan d in g of th e tru th , and also objective,
consisting in th e passage of a tru th from im p licit to explicit,
44-50. N atu re of th is passage an d v ario u s exam ples, 46-49.
H istorical w ays and causes of th e developm ent of dogm a,
49-51. T h ere can be in th e h isto ry of th e C hurch an obscu ­
ratio n o r reg ress ab o u t a rev ealed tru th , to tally so before
its solem n d efin itio n by th e M agisterium , and only p artially
afterw ard s, 51. S e e C o n c lu s io n (th e o lo g ic a l). F a ith { d iv in e ) .
R e v e la tio n

D ogm atic facts are those h isto rical o r d o ctrin al facts th at arc
necessarily connected w ith a rev ealed tru th , such as th e o r ­
thodoxy o r etero d o x y of a d o ctrin e o r w ritin g of an au th o r,
and th e legitim acy of a P ope or C ouncil, 54, 58 f. T h ey are
to be reduced to theological conclusions; s e e th is e n tr y . T hey
can be in fallib ly defined b y th e M agisterium , b u t it is dis ­
p u ted w h eth er th ey becom e th e o b ject of d iv in e faith ( as is
m ore p ro b ab le) o r of an in ferio r kind of ecclesiastical faith,
54-59; s e e F a ith (e c c le s ia stic a l)

F aith (d iv in e). S criptu re and T rad itio n are only th e rem o te

ru le of faith , w hile th e M agisterium is its p ro x im ate rule,

73
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

in fallibly d eterm in in g for us th e o b ject to be believed, w hich

th u s becom es dogm a of faith : s e e D o g m a M a g is te r iu m S c r ip ­
tu r e s T r a d itio n . A “ de fid e ” proposition is th e first th eo ­
logical note, to w hich a h eretical proposition is d irectly op ­
posed, 63; s e e N o te s (th e o lo g ic a l)

F aith (ecclesiastical), as to its origin, its su p p orters, and its

w eakness, 55, 58, 66, footnote 65. S e e C o n c lu s io n s (th e o lo g ­
ic a l). D o g m a tic fa c ts

F aith fu l. S e e B e lie v in g C h u r c h

F ath ers (o f th e C h u rch ). T h ey can be considered in tw o

w ays, th at is, as w itnesses to T rad itio n , 7, 11, 19. 20, 24, and
as p riv ate doctors, 24, 27. C onsidered as w itnesses to T rad i ­
tion, th eir d o ctrin e is th e p rin cip al p art of w h at is called ar ­
g u m en t of T rad itio n , 20: in th is arg u m en t th e d o ctrin e of th e
F ath ers should be carefu lly v alu ated , 20; s e e T r a d itio n .
C onsidered as p riv ate doctors, th eir d o ctrin e is th e basis of
a secon d ary an d m ere p ro b ab le arg u m en t in theology, 27.
T h e fo u r q u alificatio n s req u ired to be a F ath er of th e
C hurch, 24 f. D istinction b etw een F ath ers and b o th eccles ­
iastical w riters and D octors of th e C h u rch , 25 f. L ist of th e
D octors of th e C h u rch , 26

In sp iratio n . Its notion and ex ten sio n , 2 f. It gives to S criptu re

its im p o rtan ce and its relativ e ex cellen ce o v er T rad itio n , 15,
footnote 24. H ow ever, w e know only from T rad itio n itself
th at S crip tu re, as a w hole, is in sp ired , 14, 15

M ag isteriu m (o f th e C h u rch ). N otion an d division into o rd i ­

n ary and ex trao rd in ary 33 f. T h e o rd in ary M agisterium has
th e sam e v alu e as th e ex trao rd in ary , 7, 35. T h e M agisterium
is th e ch an n el and th e organ of rev elatio n as w ell as th e
p ro x im ate ru le of faith , and u n d er th is co n sid eratio n it is
for us m ore im p o rtan t th an S criptu re and T rad itio n , foot ­
note 3, 34 f. T he M ag isteriu m d eclares th e sense of S crip ­
tu re, 7, 35, and of T rad itio n , 19, 35. It is, how ever, in ferio r
to S criptu re an d T rad itio n inasm uch as th ese are th e deposit
of rev elatio n from w hich th e M agisterium d eriv es its doc ­
trin e, 6. T h e M agisterium is also p art of T rad itio n , tak en in ­
74
 A n a ly tic a l I n d e x

teg rally , 11, 19. It is th e basis of th e stron g est arg u m en t in

theology, 35; for th is p u rp o se th e v ario u s p ron ou ncem en ts
of th e M agisterium should be carefu lly v alu ated , 35-37. T he
M agisterium is one of th e causes of th e d ev elo p m en t of dog ­
m a in v ario u s w ays, 43, 50. O nce in fallib ly d efin ed b y th e
M agisterium , a tru th becom es fo rm ally a dogm a of faith ,
40 f., o b jectiv ely im m u tab le, 41, and su b jectiv ely free from
a general o b scu ratio n o r reg ress in th e C h u rch , 50 f.

M o d ern ists d en y th e o b jectiv e v alu e and im m u tab ility of dog ­

m a, footnote 46

N otes (th eo lo g ical). T h eir notion and d istin ctio n from theo ­
logical censures, 60 f., th eir h isto ry , 61, au th o r, 61 f., div ­
ision, 62-65, in terp retatio n an d use. 65 f. T h e principal notes
are th ree, nam ely, a proposition of faith, a proposition th eo ­
logically certain , and a proposition g reatly p ro b ab le, to
w hich th ree cen su res are opposed, th at is, h eretical, erro n e ­
ous, and tem erario u s propositions, 63 f.

P rescrip tion (th eo lo g ical), as to its v alu e and th e m an n er in

w hich it should m ak e up a theological arg u m en t. 21 f.

P ro testan ts d iscard T rad itio n as a ru le of faith , holding firm ly

to th eir ap h orism “ S criptu re alone,” footnote 18; th ey deny
also th e in fallib ility of th e M agisterium an d th e im m u tab il ­
ity of dogm as d efin ed by it. footnote 46

R evelation. Its o b ject; s e e C o n c lu s io n s (th e o lo g ic a l). D o g m a .

T he m eans of its tran sm issio n o r ch an n els ( w hich com e
dow n to us fro m th e G ospel, its source» are S criptu re and
T rad itio n , as deposits of rev elatio n , and th e M agisterium , as
its o rgan; s e e th e se th r e e e n trie s. P u b lic rev elatio n , given
by C h rist and p artially continued th ro u g h th e ap o stles after
his A scension, h as been d efin itely closed at th e d eath of th e
last apostle ( S t. Jo h n w ho died ab o u t 100), 45 f. P riv ate
rev elatio n s are not an o b ject of faith , even after th eir ap ­
p ro b atio n by th e M ag isteriu m w hich only d eclares th em to
be in h arm o n y w ith faith and C hristian life, footnote 50
75
T h e C h a n n e ls o f R e v e la tio n

S crip tu re. R eg ard in g th e senses of biblical tex ts. S e e S e n s e

(b ib lic a l). C hronology of th e v ario u s biblical w ritin g s, foot ­
n o te 19. S criptu re is not p ro p erly th e source of rev elatio n ,
b u t its ch an n el and deposit, footnote 3, 6. C om parison be ­
tw een S criptu re and T rad itio n as to th eir v alu e u n d er th e
asp ect of deposit of rev elatio n . 12-18. T h e in terp retatio n of
biblical tex ts d ep end s on T rad itio n and on th e M agisterium ,
6 f. S e e In s p ir a tio n . M a g is te riu m . T r a d itio n . V u lg a te

S ense (b ib lical) is u su ally divided into literal, typical, and

am p ler, 3-5. T h e th ird sense, introduced by som e m odern
scholars u n d er th e n am e of “ sensus p len io r,” seem s d ifficu lt
to adm it, 5. T he literal sense is p ractically th e m ost im p o rt ­
an t, 8 f. T h e ty p ical sense should not be easily asserted be ­
cause it is know n only th ro u g h G od ’ s rev elatio n , 9

S ource (o f rev elatio n ), according to th e new term inology in ­

tro du ced by V atican II, is th e G ospel itself and not S crip ­
tu re and T raditio n , w hich are only th e deposit of rev elatio n ,
footnote 3. S e e C h a n n e ls (o f r e v e la tio n )

T h eo lo g ian s, as d istin ct from th e F ath ers of th e C hurch, 27 f.

N ot ev ery o n e w ho teaches theology o r ev en holds a doctor ­
ate in theology is p ro p erly a theologian in th e theological
sense, b u t to be q u alified as such tw o th in g s are req u ired ,
nam ely, em in en t d o ctrin e and ap p rob atio n (at least im plicit)
of th e M agisterium , 28 f. T heologians, considered as p riv ate
doctors, are th e basis of a p ro b ab le arg u m en t in theology,
especially in th e case of g en eral ag reem en t, 29 f. T heolog ­
ians h av e no M agisterium of th eir ow n b u t th ey are only
com m issioned to teach by th e au th en tic M agisterium , foot ­
n ote 38. T heological reasoning is an in flu en tial cause of th e
d ev elo p m en t of dogm a, 46-49

T h o m as A q u in as. H is d o ctrin e can be considered as th e basis

of a stro ng p ro b ab le arg u m en t in theology by reaso n of its
v ery special ap p rob atio n by th e M agisterium , w hich con ­
siders S t. T hom as as th e “ D octor C om m unis, ” 30-32. V ati ­
can II points him o u t as th e guide to be follow ed in C atholic
schools and theological faculties, 31. H e w as th e first am ong
theologians to be d eclared D octor of th e C hurch, 26
76
 A n a ly tic a l I n d e x

T ertu llian , w ho introduced and effectiv ely used th e so-called

arg u m en t of p rescrip tio n , footnote 27, is not p ro p erly sp eak ­
ing a F ath er of th e C hurch because of som e im p o rtan t erro rs
in m atters of faith , 25

T rad itio n is a ch an n el and a deposit, of rev elatio n , footnote 3,

12-14, 19. T ak en in teg rally , it im plies all th e m eans
th ro u g h w hich th e rev ealed tru th is tran sm itted , including
S crip ture and th e M agisterium , 11, 19, 23. T he restrictiv e
sense, w hich opposes and d istin g u ish es T rad itio n from S crip ­
tu re, has been in tro d u ced by th e theologians only after th e
C ouncil of T ren t, 11. C om parison b etw een T rad itio n and
S crip tu re in th eir v alu e as deposited of rev elatio n , 12-15.
A m biguous co n tro v ersy am ong recen t au th o rs ab o u t th e
v ery ex isten ce of th e so-called co n stitu tiv e T rad itio n w hich
w ould contain som e tru th s n o t su fficien tly contained in
S crip tu re, 15-18. T rad itio n depends on th e M agisterium as
to its in terp retatio n, 18, 35. T h e arg u m en t of T rad itio n
should be carefu lly v alu ated , 19-21. S e e F a th e rs ( o f th e
C hurch)

V atican C ouncil II introduced a new term inology, calling th e

G ospel alone source of rev elatio n , an d S criptu re w ith T rad i ­
tion only deposit of rev elatio n , footnote 3. It considers also
S crip tu re and T rad itio n as one to tal deposit rath er th an tw o
deposits of rev elatio n , 15, 18. T h e M agisterium is not above
th e w ord of G od b u t m erely its ch an n el an d organ, footnote
12. T he m ind of th e C ouncil ab o u t th e so-called co n stitu tiv e
T rad itio n , footnote 24. T he sense of all th e faith fu l in m at ­
ters of faith is infallible, 23. O n th e d ev elo p m en t of dogm a,
43 f. P u b lic rev elatio n has been closed fo rev er at th e d eath
of th e last apostle, 46. T his C ouncil issued no d efin itio ns of
faith , ev en in th e tw o dogm atic co n stitu tio n s on rev elatio n
and th e C hurch, footnote 66

V u lg ate, or th e L atin version of th e B ible, as to its au th o rity

and theological use, 3, 6

77