XTbe American
lÊccksiasticat IReviçw
A MONTHLY PUBLICATION FOR THE CLERGY
Cum Approbatione Superiorum

VOL. CXIX
JULY—DECEMBER, 1948

Έν ίνΐ πνάματι, μις. ψυχί}

συναθΧουντκ rfi ττΐστα του evayyéKiov
Phil. 1:27

Published by

'

,

’ »,

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA- PRESS’

’ ’

g
ί
1
NEW CONCEPTS IN THEOLOGY

NEW CONCEPTS IN THEOLOGY
Any study of the history or the development of sacred theology
necessarily looks towards the present and the future as well as
towards the past. Basically, of course, such a study considers the
elaboration of the proofs and expositions of Christian teaching
in the past. It indicates the time when and the circumstances under
which the various technical terms and expressions now current
in theological literature first made their appearance.

Inevitably, however, a study of the history of sacred theology
leads to some sort of theory about the function and the value
of these technical terms and expressions in present-day literature
and even, to a certain very limited extent, in the various dogmatic
formulae into which they haye entered over the course of years.
Some have imagined that these technical terms are completely
extraneous to the original deposit of Christian revelation. Others
have taught that such terms represent concepts fundamentally
and originally foreign to the genuine Christian message while, at
the same time, they hold that these concepts have been appropriated
by or assimilated into the body of Catholic doctrine as instruments
useful for a time at least in expressing the truth and in con­
founding heresy. A third view of technical theological terminology
describes it as introduced into the lexicon of Christian doctrine
only because each one of these words has been found accurately and
to some extent readily to set forth a meaning really contained in
the message we accept with the assent of divine Catholic faith.

s
:
i

<

?
j
i

The notion that theological or even dogmatic developments are
merely accretions to, rather than clear and accurate statements
of, the doctrine God has revealed through Jesus Christ Our Lord
is far too extravagant and unscientific to deserve the considera­
tion of Catholic theologians. It would mean that when we teach,
for instance, that the sacramental character is reductive a quality
of the second species, a potency, that we would be making a statement entirely foreign to the original deposit of Christian revelation.
It would mean that practically the entire content of scholastic
theology is devoid of any Christian value. Finally, it would imply

j
|
p
j

that, since a good number of these technical theological terms
have become integrated into the various dogmatic formulae of the

έ
|

56

j

t

57

Church, that these dogmatic formulae could not be considered as
statements of truth revealed by God through Our Lord.
An application of this teaching to Catholic dogma constitutes
one of the crasser aspects of the Modernist heresy. In the AntiModemist Oath we find a reprobation of the “error of those who
affirm that the faith proposed by the Church can run counter to
history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are
now understood, cannot be reconciled with the truer origins of
the Christian religion.”1 The statement that the technical theo­
logical phraseology which has been incorporated into the dogmatic
formulae has no relation to the original deposit of divine revelation
is merely the assertion of an error long since condemned by the
Catholic Church.
The belief that technical theological terms, while not entirely un­
related to the original deposit of revelation, are primarily
expressions of concepts assimilated into the body of Chris­
tian . doctrine to serve as “contingent” instruments in pro­
posing and defending that doctrine has attracted a certain
amount of notoriety in our own day. Historians of dogma and of
sacred theology have ascertained that certain technical terms and
phrases have appeared in the exposition of Christian doctrine at
definite times during the lifetime of the Church. Thus, for example,
during the twelfth century the theologians as a group came to
describe grace as a form. In this, as well as in similar instances,
it is supposed that they took a distinctively Aristotelian concept,
and employed this concept as a means for explaining the revealed
message. According to this theory, the concepts thus introduced
were “vital,” and hence effective instruments for teaching at the
time they were first introduced. The proponents of this viewpoint
hold that these philosophical concepts remain “contingent,” even
after they have been integrated into the dogmatic formulae of the
Church itself. Hence they believe that progress in sacred theology
in our own time must involve the abandonment of those concepts
which have ceased to be “vital,” and the replacement of these notions
by others more in line with modem thought.
This second theory is more cleverly conceived and more respect­
fully expressed than the one which considers all technical termin­
ology as introducing completely extraneous elements into Christian
*DB,2U6.

58

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

doctrine. Nevertheless, it too is manifestly unacceptable. If the
technical terms incorporated into sacred theology and into the
various dogmatic formulae really designate ideas or concepts which
serve only as “contingent” instruments for the teaching of Christian
doctrine, then the propositions in which these terms are predicated
of theological and dogmatic subjects are not properly true at all.
If the concept expressed by the technical phrase “the sole formal
cause of justification” were not objectively identical with that de­
signated by the term “sanctifying grace,” then the statement of the
Council of Trent and of scholastic theology to the effect that sanc­
tifying grace is the sole formal cause of justification would not and

1

i

i
i

could not be properly true.2
If the concept of a formal cause were thus a merely contingent
pedagogical instrument in the teaching of Christian doctrine, the
term designating this concept could have no more than a metaphor­
ical or symbolic function· in the theological thesis or the dogmatic
formula.3 In such a case, the teaching of Trent would actually mean
that the concept of a formal cause could serve to help men under­
stand how sanctifying grace functions in the process of justification,
or that, with reference to justification, sanctifying grace holds a
position something like that which a formal cause occupies in rela­
tion to the entity it determines.
Actually, however, neither dogma nor theology contain any such
teaching. Both assert that sanctifying grace is the only formal
cause of justification. Such a statement cannot, of course, be dis­
missed as merely metaphorical in character, since the object used
in a metaphorical proposition must necessarily be so manifestly
different from the subject it serves to explain that the figurative
nature of the attribution is self-evident. St. Paul spoke of the
Church as the Body (râpa) of Christ. This metaphor is instructive
2 CL Sess. VI, cap. 7. DB, 799.

® which Pope Pius X describes the teaching
the Modernistas a theologian with reference to what was called symbolism.
■smce symbols are but symbols in regard to their objects and only instru» vm
^e believer, it is necessary, first of all, according to the
,, ί”81 ?
t
*i®t the believer do not lay too much stress on
but avril himself of it only for the purpose of
.. . .
absolute truth winch the formula at once reveals and
in doing so” (DB, 2087) endtaTors to express but without ever succeeding

à
η

<

NEW CONCEPTS IN THEOLOGY

59 .

precisely because a body (σώμα) is a kind of thing manifestly dif­
ferent from a society. Thus the figure serves to show the ineffable
intimacy of Our Lord’s association with the company of His
disciples. In the same way, the liturgy speaks of Christ as the Lion
of the tribe of Juda. The diversity between a brute beast and the
Incarnate Word is such as to prevent any misconception that this
designation is proper rather than figurative. Thus the metaphor
can serve to teach the strength and the triumphant character of
Our Lord. In both of these cases the concept of one object is used
as an instrument in teaching about the properties of another.
These conditions obviously cannot be verified in the case of the
technical terms employed in theology and in the dogmatic formulae.
There is and there can be no prima facie evidence of diversity be­
tween the concepts of sanctifying grace and the sole formal cause
of justification. Hence a proposition which predicates one of the
other can only be interpreted as meaning that these concepts are
objectively identical. In the event that they are not thus objectively
identical, then the proposition which predicates one of the other
can never be explained as merely metaphorical. It must be rejected
as false.

Those who hold that technical terms in theology stand for new
concepts introduced into the fabric of Christian doctrine have
blundered, not only in expounding the faith, but in explaining the
facts of history. They have drawn a conclusion to which the evidence
at their command gives no support whatever. The history of
sacred doctrine shows many an instance of new terms being intro­
duced. It does not and it cannot present evidence that these new
terms, as used in the content of sacred theology or in the dogmatic
formulae of the Catholic Church, designate concepts which are
objectively distinct from those contained in the original deposit
of divine public revelation.

Indeed, the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction.
The Catholic Church is commissioned and divinely empowered
to present the truths of divine public revelation to the men of all
times, of all cultures, and of all places. In order to carry out that
commission, the Church must obviously translate its message into
the various languages and dialects of mankind, and must restate
the same message from generation to generation. Thus, even in
the same language, there have been necessarily new terms and new

60

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

phrases appearing very frequently in the course of history. But,
given the divine commission and power of the Catholic Church, all
of these newly introduced expressions have served only to set forth
the one divine public revelation which Our Lord originally handed
over to the Church through the apostles.

?
;

t
I

Some of the terms introduced into theology and ultimately into
,
the Church’s dogmatic formulae were previously found in the
I
lexicon of Aristotelian philosophy. Obviously the men who first
?
employed these expressions in the teaching of divinely revealed
truth had no intention of teaching that the Aristotelian system itself
was a part of the divine message. But the terms they chose had
definite and recognized meanings, and the old theologians found
that they could, with proper qualification, serve to express quite
j
effectively and succinctly certain concepts inherent in the divine
j
message. The concepts dièse terms manifested were already m
|
existence and had, from the very beginning, been found in Our
s
Lord’s teaching. The technical terms gave the men of Aristotelian
;
culture an effective means for teaching Catholic truth to the faith-

ful of their own day.
>
The assertion that these new technical expressions, as they
stand in the fabric of Christian doctrine, actually express ideas
objectively foreign to the original content of divine public revela­
tion carries with it the wholly unacceptable implication that the
Church’s teaching, at any given point in its history, is not actually
and objectively the body of truth originally confided to the Church
t
by Our Lord. Thus, in the final analysis, the interpretation which
5
sees the concepts expressed by technical terms in dogmatic formulae
merely as “contingent” instruments for the presentation of Christian ·. r
doctrine involves a misunderstanding or at least a highly confused
f
notion of the Church’s own infallibility. And since sacred theology
by its very nature intends to give only a clear, unequivocal, and
certain statement of the Church’s teaching, any idea that technical
terms in this science stand for ideas objectively foreign to the
original Christian message involves a serious misunderstanding
about theology itself.

Progress in sacred theology, now as always, consists primarily
in an adequate and accurate translation of invariable revealed
truth into the vernaculars of the various men to whom the Church
brings its teachings. Obviously the work of translation demands the

ai

NEW CONCEPTS IN THEOLOGY

61

use oi previous statements of the faith. Consequently, positive or
historical theology makes a tremendously important contribution
to this work in bringing forward and evaluating the sources and
the older texts. Invariably a proper theological presentation of revel­
ation for any era involves the statement, in language now under­
standable, of the truths which theology as such has always taught
in the Catholic Church.
Hence this theological progress connotes, not the substitution
of one set of “contingent” concepts for another, but a restatement
in terms understood by men of the present day of those very truths
which were expressed and are still expressed in the technical
language of scholastic theology. Such a restatement or transla­
tion involves something far greater than the mere transfer of terms
from one language into another. The Latin term causa formalis,
for example, is not adequately translated into the American vernacu­
lar by the expression “formal cause.” The Latin expression served
to express a highly complex and profound notion which can only be
conveyed to a modem listener or reader by a great number of words.
It is ultimately important that the explanation be absolutely
accurate and that the terminology employed be readily intelligible
to the men of our day and our culture.

To a certain extent, of course, all theological terminology is
inadequate. But we must not forget that it is inadequate as a
description of the Triune God, the primary Object and the center
of all theology. It is not necessarily inadequate with reference to
the revealed message itself. The Church has been entrusted with a
definite message, originally presented to it in human words. The
terms used in later ages by the Church and its teachers should
express not only accurately but adequately the content of the
Church’s one essential message, presenting in the words of our own
day the teaching which Christ entrusted to His Church in Aramaic
terms.

The growth and progress of theology consist in an ever more
perfect grasp of the same truths of divine public revelation. New
problems' arise, but the only problems with which sacred theology
is directly concerned involve questions about the meaning of the
divine message itself. Theology is equipped to examine and to
answer these questions, but its answers must always be expres­
sions of the truth already contained in the divine teaching, and

HMM

62

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

now better understood because more intensively examined. The
result is not and cannot be an addition of concepts objectively
distinct from those previously contained in Catholic teaching,
but a more perfect grasp of the old concepts and an accurate expres­
sion of these concepts in terms of our own day.

Joseph Clifford Fenton
The Catholic University of America
Washington, D. C.

Fifty Years Ago
In the July, 1898, issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review the
leading article, by Fr. F. P. Siegfried, of Overbrook Seminary, is a
defence of the traditional apologetic method against those who believe
it inadequate for the modern mind, particularly Maurice Blondel, who
upheld the method of immanence. While admitting that the “old method”
shouldbesupplementedby the findings of history, science and philosophy,
Fr. Siegfried contends that it remains substantially sound. . . . The
anonymous series on “American Religious Orders” continues with
an article on the Sisters of Charity of Nazareth, founded in 1812 by
Bishop David... Another instalment of My New Curate is contributed
by Canon Sheehan, still writing under the anonymity of “An Irish
Parish Priest".... Fr. Joseph Bruneau, S.S., in an article on “Biblical
Research,” praises the recent writings of Battifol on the Gospels, par­
ticularly his treatment of the synoptic problem. ... In the Analecta
we find a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, in reference to
a type of tabernacle invented by a certain Fr. Barbara, who apparently
wished to receive explicit approval of his invention. While praising
the intentions of the inventor, the Sacred Congregation refused to give
his tabernacle any special approbation, on the grounds that this matter
pertains to the Ordinaries. . . . A communication in the Conference
section criticizes a method in vogue in the writer’s diocese, whereby a
senior curate receives $600 annually, and a junior curate only $500. The
writer suggests that all receive the same salary.. . .There is an account
of a meeting of seminary presidents, held at St. Joseph’s Seminary,
Dtmwoodie, N. Y., to discuss seminary education in its relation to the
higher training of the clergy at the Universities. Presiding over the
meeting was Msgr. Conaty, Rector of The Catholic University of
America.
"
F. J. C.

s
i,
j
;
i
t;
e

i
f

i
i
s
i;

?
|
f
t
6
i
|
}

1

Answers to Questions
A “PLANNED PARENTHOOD” PROBLEM
Question: Some, doctors attached to the staff of a Catholic
hospital have been attending public meetings in favor of “planned
parenthood.” Should they be admonished that they must stay away
from such gatherings under penalty of dismissal from the staff?
If so, who is supposed to give the admonition ?

Answer: It is difficult to see how a Catholic hospital could retain
on its staff a doctor who openly advocates planned parenthood—which according to present-day terminology means family limi­
tation through contraceptive methods. It would be a source of
grave scandal if a doctor favoring such a program were allowed to
remain a member of the staff of a Catholic hospital. It is possible,
indeed, that a doctor might attend a planned parenthood meeting
on a single occasion, without realizing what such conduct would
involve; and in that event, he should be given instruction and an
admonition. If he promises to sever his connections with the planned
parenthood movement, he could be retained at the hospital. But if he
refuses to make this promise, he should be asked to resign from
the hospital staff. This ruling should be applied to non-Catholic
as well as to Catholic doctors. As is evident, we are speaking of
the case of a doctor whose attendance would be regarded as a mark
of approval. If a doctor is openly opposed to contraception, and
attends meetings of planned parenthood associations merely to
argue against the proponents of this movement, or to learn their
tactics and arguments, he would surely give no scandal.
The answer to the question as to who should give the admonition
and the ultimatum in the case of a doctor who is showing approval
of the planned parenthood movement by his attendance at the
meetings would depend on the particular status of the hospital.
If it is owned and operated by a community of religious, the
superioress or the nun in charge of the hospital would have the
responsibility of performing this task. If the hospital is a diocesan
institution, the priest who has been appointed as its supervisor
would be the proper person to deliver the admonition.
63