4

Ube American
jeccksiaslical IReview
;__X; < ?

If

·'

■

' '

A MONTHLY PUBLICATION FOR THE CLERGY
Cum Approbatione Superiorum

VOL. CXXIV
JANLARY-JINE. 1951

’Ey Μ τνάμα,η, μι$ ψνΧΌ
C
αυναθλουττν: τη ~ίστίΐ του «ιαγγ«\ίου
Fh’l. 1 -27

f'

-->,··<'

ff

_______ .

THli CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS

.

f

HUMANI GENERIS AND THE FATHERS
OF THE CHURCH

In his recent Encyclical, Humani generis, our Holy Father cau­
tions Catholic theologians against the danger of ignoring, or at
least of not giving proper attention to, the teaching authority of
the Church as exercised in the person of the Roman Pontiff. Xot
only must Catholic theologians, he warns, shun those errors in
faith or morals which the Supreme Pontiff has pronounced hereti­
cal, but they must also show a greater respect for his authority
when he treats of errors that approach heresy.
And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and
morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all
theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the
whole deposit of faith—Sacred Scripture and Divine Tradition—to be
preserved, guarded, and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on
the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy,
and accordingly “to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which
such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See" [Can.
1324], is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist.1

In developing this point His Holiness insists that greater author­
ity must be attached to the Papal Encyclical Letters. Such docu­
ments must be heeded even if in them the Popes do not exercise
the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. ‘‘For these mat­
ters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is
true to say : ‘He who heareth you. heareth Me' : and generally
what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already
for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.”-’
1 Humani licueris, par. 18: “Et quamquam hoc sacrum Magisterium, in
rebus fidei et morum, cuilibet theologo proxima et universalis veritatis twnna
esse debet, utpote cui Christus Dominus totum depositum fidei—Sacras
nempe Litteras ac divinam ‘traditionem’—et custodiendum et tuendum et
interpretandum concredidit, attamen officium, quo fideles tenentur illos fugere
errores, qui ad haeresitn plus minusve accedant, ideoque ‘etiam constitutiones
et decreta servare, quibus pravae huiusniodi opiniones a Sancta Sede pro­
scriptae et prohibitae sunt,' Miumquam ita ignoratur ac si noti habeatur."
- Hwim acr.cris, par. 20: “Magisterio enim ordinario haec docentur, de
quo illud etiam valet : 'Qui vos audit, me audit’ t Luc. 10, 161 ; ac plerumque
quae in Encyclicis Litteris proponuntur et inculcantur, iam aliunde ad doc­
trinam catholicam pertinent”
262

HL'MAXI GEXERIS AND THE FATHERS

263

Consequently, when the Popes, in their official writings, pass
judgment on disputed questions, those questions are no longer to
be considered open to discussion among theologians. “But if the
Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judg­
ment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that
that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs,
cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion
among theologians.”8
The Holy Father then gives a specific example of what he means
by this lack of proper respect for Papal Encyclicals when he con­
demns those theologians who. in matters concerning the constitu­
tion of the Church, give less credence to the precise words of the
Encyclicals than they do to the obscure expressions they claim to
have found in the writings of some ancient Church Fathers. These
same theologians further err when they assume that the modern
Papal decrees must be explained from, and in accordance with,
the teachings found in early patristic writings. J
What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs
concerning the nature and constitution of the Church is deliberately
and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a
certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient
Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish
to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so
recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions
and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writ­
ings of the ancients.4

These words of the Holy Father bring up the interesting ques­
tion of the relative value of the writings of the Church Fathers.
What authority, for example, do the patristic writings enjoy when
3Η«»ιοκί generis, par. 20: “Quodsi Summi Pontifices in actis suis de re
hactenus controversa data opera sententiam ferunt, omnibus patet rem illam,
secundum mentem ac voluntatem eorumdem Pontificum quaestionem liberae
inter theologos disceptationis iam haberi non posse.”

* Humani generis, par. 18: “Quae in Romanorum Pontificum Encyclicis
Litteris de indole et constitutione Ecclesiae exponuntur, a quibusdam con­
sulto neglegi solent, ea quidem de causa ut praevaleat notio quaedam vaga,
quam ex antiquis Patribus, praesertim graecis, haustam esse profitentur.
Pontifices enim, ut ipsi dictitant, de his quae inter theologos disputantur
Judicare nolunt, itaque ad pristinos fontes redeundum est et ex antiquorum
scriptis recentiora Magisterii constitutiones ac decreta explicanda sunt.”

lllIiSïiilHïHlï 5 ί ! I 8
ii®··

"

!

; · : i i j i I i i1

Li ®Wii: v
..

264

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

compared with Sacred Scripture, or with the decrees of the Popes
and General Councils ? What is the authority of one Church Father
in relation to another, or of one Father who teaches a doctrine
denied by many other Fathers? In a word, what position do the
Church Fathers hold in the order of Divine Tradition?
The word Traditio, like the Latin res and ratio, is a term of
multiple meaning, and consequently is often used vaguely in one
or other of its various senses. In the terminology of theologians the
word Traditio is used to indicate both whatever is delivered or
transmitted, and the means by which it is transmitted. In the first
rense, Tradition is the revealed word of God; in the second sense,
it is the living Magirterium of the Church. Used in a very genera!
way in the first sense, Tradition would include both the written
and the unwritten word of God. Thus even Sacred Scripture, the
written word of God, could be called a part of Divine Tradition.
Theologians, however, distinguish between Sacred Scripture and
Tradition, by restricting the meaning of Tradition in its objective
sense to embrace only the unwritten word of God. Unwritten, how­
ever, in the sense that it was not written by the man to whom God
revealed it, but was eventually put down in writing after it had
been handed down orally for some time. There are, therefore, t»">
sources of Divine Revelation, namely. Sacred Scripture and Tradi­
tion, with the Teaching Authority of the Church faithfully iurikius:
the office of preserving, transmitting and interpreting both of them.
Those non-Catholics who accuse the Catholic Church of making
accretions to revealed truth either fail to grasp or refuse to admit
that the truth, revealed to His Church by Christ, was transmitted tcsucceeding generations both by written and unwritten traditions.
Besides what was written (Sacred Scripture.'·, there were many
unwritten doctrines and customs (many of the “accretions" men­
tioned by the Protestants) communicated by Christ to His Apos­
tles and by them transmitted orally to their successors, until finally
they were put into writing.

These unwritten traditions eventually found expression both in
the official documents of the Roman Pontiffs and the General Coun­
cils, and in the unofficial (for the most part) writings of the Church
Fathers. It is true that not a few of the patristic writings may be
considered official Church documents because they were composed
by Fathers who were Roman Pontiffs, and, as su < . '.·.·!·' : ’ r ■' ■'

HUM.4XI GEXERIS AND THE FATHERS

265

person» the sacred Teaching Office of the Church. Besides, many
of the Fathers were bishops, and thereby shared, as a group, in
the authority of the Teaching Church. Their writings, too, could
have an official character, especially if they had been written for
discussions in General Councils. The majority of the patristic
writings, however, are considered unofficial documents.
By Tradition, then, is meant, first of all, the unwritten traditions
handed down by Christ to His Church ; traditions which found ex­
pression in the Papal and conciliar decrees, and in the writings of
the Fathers. An essential and vital part of Tradition is the living
magistracy of the Church functioning as the guardian and inter­
preter of the unwritten traditions. It is, of course, natural that
kth the official and the unofficial documents of Tradition contain
also the written word of God, for in the writings of Tradition
appeal is always made to the inspired word of God as contained in
Sacred Scripture.
In speaking of the authority of the Fathers another clarification
> needed. Just what writers are included under the term “Fathers
the Church" ? Aligne, in his Patroiogiae cursus completus, the
tut comprehensive collection of patristic texts we have, included
a the Latin series of Fathers the Latin writers from Tertullian
t, Pepe Innocent III (-r 1216), and in his Greek series, the Fath­
er·; who wrote in Greek, from Pope Clement I to the Greek bishops
'·. nie Council of Florence (14391. Modern Patrologists, on the
thet hand, are much more strict in their use of the term “Father
of the Church." They’ limit this title to those holy champions of
the Christian faith who lived within the first eight centuries of our
era. who defended and explained the deposit of faith with their
orthodox writings, and who were approved, at least implicitly, by
t?.u Church. These men have left behind them a vast literature in
Greek and Latin : a literature that not only contains unwritten tra<lit:- r.s riven by Christ to His Apostles, but also remains the frun'lati·-;' <ore upon which Christian civilization was built from the
rains of the old pagan Graeco-Roman culture.

Xow the Fathers of the Church, understood in the stricter sense
of the phrase, have ever been held in high esteem by Christians
down through the centuries. The Summa of St. Thomas, for in-tance. is literally studded with patristic quotations, and his Cates:?.
:?-?a is n-'t: « g ι .·γ<· ·'.a r -"ecrion of patristic interpretations

1«
ikjiii
266

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

of the Gospels. Evidently the Scholastics attached great authority
to the writings of the Fathers. But just how great is that authority?
When speaking of authority, as attributed to writers, we mean
the moral power they have to elicit intellectual assent from their
readers. This authority may be greater or less, or it may even be
absolute, according to its power to produce in the mind of the
reader a more or less probable agreement, or even a certain assent.
The question now to be examined is whether the writings of the
Fathers always produce certainty in the minds of the readers, or
sometimes merely a state of probability.
Many non-Catholics attribute to the Church Fathers no greater
authority than they do to other writers of early times. Their in­
terest in the patristic writings is that of an antiquarian, who sees
in these old documents no more than mere literary testimonials of
an ancient age. Conversely, some Catholic theologians® have erred
in the past by ascribing to the writings of the Fathers an authority
equal to that of Sacred Scripture, while still others went to the
Jansenistic extreme of preferring a single Father (St. Augustine)
to the living Magisterium of the Church. It is precisely against this
latter erroneous attitude that our Holy Father warns Catholic theo­
logians when he says:
What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs
concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately
and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a
certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient
Fathers, especially the Greeks.®

To avoid such errors and to evaluate properly the authority that
should be given to the writings of the Fathers, there are certain
practical rules a theologian may follow.
First of all, one should remember that when the patristic writ­
ings deal solely with matters of natural sciences (e.g., history·, phi­
losophy. biology’, etc.) the convincing power of the Fathers is in
direct proportion to their argumentative powers. In other words,
the authority of the Fathers is no greater than the reasons they
give for their assertions, according to the dictum: Tantum valent.
ii|W4jairiO; 'priMM, t « « litIIIôiii: tittl|)itçftfltïSlSSsJlfllii tit · T F
On the other hand, when the Fathers treat of matters concern3 Eg., Abbot Fredegis of the ninth century.

Î1 iililiiitBieillt*» 1 * F. i
•
'··· ·
.

ill

HUMANI GENERIS AND THE FATHERS

267

ing faith or morals, the above-mentioned rule cannot be applied.
In this case a distinction must be made between the more or less
individual opinions of the Fathers and their unanimous agreement
on a point of doctrine. The individual testimony of only one or a
few of the Fathers is not sufficient in itself to produce certainty
in the mind of the reader ; it can and should produce a greater or
less degree of probability according to the intellectual or ecclesias­
tical standing of the individual Father. The same must be said
of the case where many Fathers give testimony on matters of faith
or morals, while other Fathers hold a contrary or contradictory
opinion. In all such cases the rules for the respective authority of
individual Fathers, as will be given below, must be applied.
But when there is an agreement of the Fathers in matters of
faith or morals, the well-known consensus Patrum, then their au­
thority is greatest, and their testimony is enough to command in­
tellectual assent and sufficient to produce a state of certainty in our
minds." This is so because, as a body in unanimous agreement,
the Fathers bear witness to the teaching of the infallible Church.
It should also be remembered that -‘so far as the Fathers of a cer­
tain period are all. or mostly, bishops, their consentient testimony
in matters of faith or morals, is not only indirectly, but directly and
in itself infallible, because they are the divinely appointed witnesses
and the divinely instituted organ and channel of Tradition.*’8 St.
Augustine, the greatest of the Fathers, had this consensus Patrum
in mind when he opposed the teaching of the earlier Fathers to
that of Julianus, the Pelagian. By attacking the Fathers, he claimed,
Julianus attacked the whole Church.®
In determining the consensus of the Fathers one cannot count
heads and expect even- single Father to be accounted for in the
total summation of witnesses to a doctrine. Merely a moral agree‘Ci. St. Vincent of Lerins, CammoHitorinm, 28: “Quae tamen antiqua
sanctorum Patrum cotisensio. non in omnibus divinae Legis quaestiunculis,
sed solum vel certe praecipue in Fidei Regula magno nobis studio et investi­
ganda est, et sequenda.”
s Schmid, Manual c-i Patrology (St. Louis: Herder, 1925). ρ. 35.
fl Contra luüanum Pclagianunt, II. 37: “Ubi tot sanctos doctores egregios
atque memorabiles catholicae veritatis accuses, Irenaeum, Cyprianum. Retirium. Olympium, Hilarium, Gregorium. Rasilium. Ambrosium. Toannem. In­
nocentium. Hieronymum, caeterosque socios ac participes eorum, insuper et
universam Christi Ecclesiam.”

1*1

glB**br* ::

ii **

268

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

meat is sufficient, as for example, when the more illustrious Fathers
expound a doctrine, and the other Fathers, for one reason or an­
other, simply did not write about that specific doctrine, though
they could have been aware of it. Their silence does not militate
against the consensus Patrum.
While the consensus Patrum represents the mind of the Church
in matters of faith and morals, it is particularly in the interpreta­
tion of Sacred Scripture that the authority of the consensus is most
keenly felt. Popes and Councils have stated this fact most em­
phatically. St. Leo I, for instance, said : “It is not lawful to under­
stand Scripture otherwise than the blessed Apostles and our
Fathers have learned and taught.”10 The Council of Trent solemnly
decreed :
Let no one. trusting in his own wisdom, in matters appertaining tn
faith or morals, and the building up of Christian doctrine, dare, bj
twisting the Sacred Scripture to his own sense, to interpret them
against the sense which our Holy Mother Church has held and holds,
whose office it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Holy
Scriptures, nor to interpret them against the unanimous consent of the

Fathers.1112
The Vatican Council later repeated this Tridentine decree:
In matters of faith or morals appertaining to the building up of
Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Scripture
which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whore office it is to
judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures: and
therefore, no one is allowed to interpret that same Sacred Scriptarc

against this sense, ar against the unanimous consent of the Fathers.13

"iV- Ç A - v y :A UΛ ν

' A ■ < y: L L v,

A re: V

y·^

10 Epistola 82, 1 : ‘"Et cum ab evangelica apostolicaque doctrina ne uno
quidem verbo liceat dissidere, aut de Scripturis divinis sapere, quam beati
Apostoli et Patres nostri didicerunt atque docuerunt.”
11 Concilium Tridentinmn, Sess. IV, Decretum de Editione et Usu Sacro·
rum Librorum: "Praeterea, ad coercenda petulantia ingenia, decernit ut aeno,
suae prudentiae innixus, in rebus fidei et morum, ad aedificationem doctrinae
Christianae pertinentium, sacram Scripturam ad suos sensas contorquens,
contra eum sensum, quem tenuit et tenet sancta Mater Ecclesia, cujus est judi­
care de vero sensu et interpretatione Scripturarum sanctarum, aut etiam
contra unanimem consensum Patrum ipsam Scripturam sacram interpretari
audeat.
12 Concilium Faticanum, Sess. ΠΙ. c. 2, De Revelatione : “Nos, idem de­
cretum
Tridentinum) renovantes, hanc illius mentem esse declarantes
-j: in rebus fida: et morum, ad aedificationem doctrinae christianae pertine»-

HUMAXI GEXERIS AND THE FATHERS

269

It should be noted that the binding authority of the Fathers, in
their agreement on the interpretation of a Scriptural text, is limited
to questions dealing with faith or morals.
So much for the consensus Patrum. Now what is to be said of
the Fathers, considered individually and without reference to their
unanimous agreement? Although the single Fathers (excepting
tho5e who were Roman Pontiffs), as individuals, were not infalli­
ble. and consequently their authority in matters of faith and morals
is not in itself absolute, yet, in many instances, their authority is
ven· great, and one would be rash to reject their opinions without
·:·: cause. This is particularly so if the Father presents the doc;-;.e not merely as his own personal opinion, but as the general
t-ic'ting of the whole Church. He very often does this by prefacg his words with such time-honored phrases as Christus dixit.
.Postai tradiderunt, credimus and Ecclesia tenet.
It goes without saying that the individual Fathers are not all of
equal authority, for Holy Mother Church herself has honored some
of them more than others, for instance, by conferring on some the
added title of Doctor of the Church, To determine the various de­
grees of authority of the individual Fathers the following norms
may be of some service :

■ i ■ T'-e greater the holiness and learning of the Father, the
isits, authority (e.g.. Saints Basil. Ambrose, and John
Chrysostom).
■ 2 î The nearer a Father lived to Apostolic times, the greater is
hi- authority (e.g.. Saints Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch,
wd Pi dycarp of Smyrna).

< 3~> The greater the number of bishops with whom a Father came
into contact, the higher is that Father's authority (e.g.. Samts
Irenaeus, Jerome, and Cyprian).

14) Of very high authority are those Fathers who successfully

tiutn. if pro vero sensu sacrae Scripturae habendus sit. quem tenuit et tenet
Sancta Mater Ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione
Scripturarum .«anctarum, atque ideo nemini licere c-.mtra hunc sensum, aut
Miam contra
ou-wiumMi Patrum ipsar:
S-JKCtom Xl<rrpretari"

270

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

defended and expertly expounded doctrines of the Church attacked
by heretics (e.g., Saints Augustine, Athanasius, and Hilary) ; and
those who were officially praised by the Church, or whose writings
were publicly read and approved by the bishops in general council
(e.g., Saints Augustine, Athanasius, and Leo I).

(5) Of the highest authority are those Fathers who were the
bishops of Sees founded by the Apostles themselves (e.g.. Saints
Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna).
Especially is this so of the Fathers who were the successors oi
Peter in the See of Rome, tor to their c.r cathedra utterances was
attached the personal attribute of infallibility (e.g., Saints Leo I,
Gregory I, and Damasus).
Because the authority of the individual Fathers varies, and be­
cause under the title oi Church Fathers certain ecclesiastical writer
are often quoted whose doctrine is sometimes far from reliable
(e.g., Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius oi Caesarea), theologians
should be cautious in their use of the Fathers.
On the other hand, Catholic theologians, by keeping in mind this
admonition, have a ready answer for those opponents of the Church
who, to disprove certain Catholic doctrines, seek out the writings
of the lesser known Fathers (or even of unreliable ancient ec­
clesiastical writers) and quote as favoring their teaching vague and
obscure passages from such patristic writings. St. Vincent oi
Lerins warned the Christians of fifteen centuries ago of this deceit
when he complained of those who “often seize upon some oi the
more involved writings of an ancient author, which, merely be­
cause of their obscurity, seem to stand in agreement with the new
dogma these men propose."13 The obscure passage of all patristic
writings are to be explained in accordance with the clear state­
ments found in the writings of Fathers of high authority, especially
in the writings of those Fathers who form part of the ccwrss®>
Patntm ; and more especially must they be interpreted in accord- \ >
lance with the official pronouncements of the Teaching Church.
)

To sum up this evaluation of the Fathers, may it be said tlxat the
writings of the Fathers, since they were not inspired, are not t®
la CoM-nwnitmum^ 7: ‘ Captant plerumque veteris cuj uspiam viri sc
paulo involutius edite, quae pro ipsa sui obscuritate dogmati suo

■
HUMANI GENERIS AND THE FATHERS

271

the same level as the inspired Sacred Writings, but they are (when
the consensus Patrum is had in matters oi faith or morals) the
surest guide for the proper interpretation of the Sacred Text. In
their relationship to the living magistracy of the Church, the Fath­
ers, in unanimous agreement, reflect the mind of the Church, but,
as individuals, they are subject to the Teaching Authority. The
Church has always shown a great respect for the Fathers, but. as
someone has expressed it, "she judges them more than she is
judged by them.” It is precisely this truth that the Holy Father
wishes to emphasize when, in the Humani generis, he warns
theologians against setting up obscure statements from ancient
patristic writings in opposition to the authoritative words of the
Papal Encyclicals.

Thomas B. Falls
St. Charles Seminary
Overbrook, Philadelphia, Pa.

Detachment
Detachment, as we know from spiritual books, is a rare and high
Christian virtue; a great Saint, St. Philip Neri, said that, if he had a
dozen really detached men. he should be able to convert the world. To
be detached is to be loosened from every tie which binds the soul to
the earth, to be dependent on nothing sublunary, to lean on nothing
temporal ; it is to care simply nothing what other men choose to think
w say of us. or do to us ; to go about our own work, because it is our
duty, as soldiers go to battle, without a care for the consequences; to
account credit, honour, name, easy circumstances, comfort, human af­
fections, just nothing at all, when any religious obligation involves the
'.icrifice of them. It is to be as reckless of all these goods of life on such
occasions, as under ordinary circumstances we are lavish and wanton.
>; I must take an example, in our use ot water.—or as we make a
prewnt of our tvords without grudging to friend or stranger.—or as
■>-e may get rid of wasps or flies or gnats, which trouble us. without
•-.m sort of compunction. without hesitation before the act, and without
t -econo’ thought after it.

—Jr.hn Henry Cardinal Newman, in Vol. ΙΠ of the Hisl’ricut Sketches
i Endon; Longmans. Green, and Ca. 1903>, p. 1Λ,