418

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

medic and myself went to him. We were pinned down to the
bottom of the ditch by crossfire. I laid down beside the boy and
heard his confession and anointed him. Not a word of complaint
did he say. He said “Thanks” and that he felt everything was
going to be all right now, and that he hoped nobody thought that
he was yellow because he yelled for a priest. The medic told me
that he didn’t have a chance, but we carried him back to the line,
and some other men took him to the aid station. I never heard
whether he lived or not—he was not out of our Regiment.
On the 19th of December, I was sitting around after dinner
with a group of Service and Reg. Hq. Co. men just shooting the
breeze, when Mr. Sheen, the Communication Warrant Officer
came in. “You should see what I have just seen," he said, "A
bunch of paratroopers machine gunned on this road.” He didn't
know whether they were 501st men or not. I asked him where
the place was, but he couldn’t explain very well. I told the Med­
ical Executive Officer that I would be right back soon. My driver
and I piled into the jeep and away we went. We couldn’t find
the bodies Sheen had spoken about, so I decided to keep going a
couple of miles farther on to where our Division medical company
had been captured by the Germans the night before. A few Ger­
man vehicles, armored cars, etc., had come up from a side road,
shot up several American trucks bringing in supplies, and captured
our whole medical co. at the same time. Our own Regimental
supply trucks for the medics were captured there, and Doc Wald­
man had told me that we were getting very short of medical
supplies. So I decided to salvage some of the stuff that the
Germans left from our captured medical company. I loaded my
jeep with a couple of chests of much-needed equipment, and was
ready to head back for the Reg. aid station. A soldier there told
me, however, that there had been quite a skirmish last night on
the other side of the hill. He thought there were still some
wounded left there. We drove over the hill to see, and just over
the crest of the hill we ran into Germans—hundreds of them.
They jumped out from behind trees yelling something, and a
couple of reconnaissance vehicles levelled their guns at us from
about forty feet. I told the driver to stop, and that I was sorry
to have gotten him into this mess. We were captured.
(To be continued}
Des Moines, Iowa
Francis Sampson

THE FRAMEWORK OF DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT

As we develop and grow mentally we find ourselves the posses­
sors of an ever increasing body of ideas, ideals, and convictions.
We find that these ideas have become the living tissue of our
s
minds. Yet were we called upon to trace the course by which any
■
one of these ideas became a part of the living whole we would find
i
ourselves faced with a most difficult task. We would have to go
back over our reading in any number of fields. Experience of
many kinds would have to be conjured up again. It would be
necessary to recall numbers of casual meditations, periods of
I
intense concentration, moments of spiritual insight. Requisite,
'
too, would be a list of conferences attended, talks heard and de­
livered, conversations participated in, notes taken, and people
with whom we had had contact. And even after we had done all
this we could not be sure that we had arrived at the full history
of that idea and its life story in our mind.
The preceding paragraph might be termed a parable showing
how easy it is to overlook all the elements that enter into the
development of any doctrine. For it is easy enough to say that
the development of a doctrine is only its passage from the imI
plicit to the explicit, or that true doctrinal development is only
?
subjective and implies no more than growth in understanding.
î
But such expressions, while true, do tend to glibness. In fact one
I
might call such expressions misleading because in themselves
I
they do not give a full appreciation of all the elements that enter
i
into the development of doctrine, nor do they convey all that
J
growth in understanding necessarily implies. We must, of course,
J
begin with an unchangeable body of supernatural truths and con•
stant care must be exercised that their objective character is not
i
lost sight of. On the other hand the effort and work of the minds to
J
which these truths are committed must also be given due coni
sideration. Over-emphasis or over-simplification are equally dej
structive of full appreciation.
I
The framework of every doctrinal development may be reduced
ί
to three essential factors: (a) the deposit of revelation: (b) the
j
work of the Fathers and theologians; (c) the action of the inJ
fallible magisterium. The first of these, the deposit of revelation,
I
is the body of revealed truth which is the sole foundation of all
\

419

420

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

doctrinal development. Nothing may be added to it, nothing
may be jettisoned. Any valid doctrinal development can be no
more than a growth in the understanding of those truths it con­
tains. The second element, the work of the Fathers and theolo­
gians, is the vital contact that takes place between the objective
realities of revelation and the reflective intelligence of these men.
Illumined and guided by faith, these teachers relate, compare,
weigh, scrutinize, and organize these truths and their conse­
quences, thus laying the foundation and groundwork for the
development of a doctrine. The third element, the action of the
infallible magisterium, is the constitutive factor in all doctrinal
development. For this magisterium is the one authentic voice
that can declare and expound doctrine. The work of the Fathers
and theologians has weight, value, and importance but only the
judgment of the magisterium can authentically decide whether
their contribution is a valid development, and has rendered ex­
plicit what was implicit. Each of these factors, therefore, plays
a real part in doctrinal development and hence it will be the
concern of this article to analyze each of them in a somewhat
detailed fashion.
THE DEPOSIT OF REVELATION

Catholic Christianity is a revealed religion. The body of truths
which it preserves and teaches is from God. These truths are not
preserved and taught by the consent of mankind or because his­
tory attests to their value. The Catholic Church teaches what it
does teach because it is the will of God. It is God speaking in
these last days through His Son Jesus Christ who has given to
Catholic Christianity the body of truth which it makes known to
men. When it calls for the full acceptance of its teaching it is
calling for faith in the gospel it has received from Jesus Christ so
that if an angel from heaven preach any other gospel let him be
anathema.1 Thus when the Church defines that the Immaculate
Conception of Mary is of faith it is stating that this truth is con­
tained in the original deposit of revelation. The Vatican Council
affirms this when it states: "All those things must be believed as
of divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the word, of
God either written or handed down and which either by solemnl
«

?

i»|

lGal. 1-8.

FRAMEWORK OF DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT

I

I

s
I
I
!
I
!
I
I
!
I

421

judgment or by its ordinary and universal teaching office the
Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed.”* The object of
divine and Catholic faith therefore is the revealed word of God.
Until this is clearly realized neither the struggle with heresy nor
the importance and place of a definition can be appreciated. For
the first note of the deposit of revelation is that it is a divine
deposit. It is the word of God given to men through Jesus Christ.
Now these truths that it has pleased God to reveal are of two
kinds. Some could be attained by the use of reason but only with
difficulty and as far as the majority of men are concerned their
attainment would be a moral impossibility. None the less, such
truths are still divine because they have been revealed ; they are,
in the technical theological phrase, supernaturale quoad modum.
There are other truths, though, that are mysteries hidden in God
which, unless divinely revealed, cannot be known.3 They so ex­
ceed the created intellect that even when delivered by revelation
and received by faith they remain covered by the veil of faith as
long as we walk in this mortal life.4 Such truths fall under the
technical heading supernaturale quoad substantiam. In either case,
however, these truths are divine because of their source.
The second decisive characteristic of the deposit of revelation,
and one of its specific notes, is that it is apostolic. The whole of
this divine revelation was committed to the apostles. They and
they alone were authorized to teach all things that Christ had
commanded.5 Their position is exclusive and unique for, in the
words of the Council of Trent, they “are the fount of all saving
truth and moral discipline.”5 The whole of the deposit of revelation was to be promulgated by them or, as in the case of St. Paul,
was to be confirmed by them as authentic. From the death of the
last apostle nothing is added to or taken away from that divine
treasure. In view of this it is completely accurate to say that if a
doctrine is revealed it is also apostolic.
Lest there be any danger of misapprehension here, the exact
character of the apostolic office should be taken into account.
They are the authorized witnesses of the revelation made through
Jesus Christ. They are such by the commission of Christ Him­
self; “you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you
’DB, 1792.

Cf. DB. 1795.

‘Cf.

DB,

1796.

‘ Matt. 28:20.

•DB, 17 S3.

422

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

and you shall be witnesses for me in J erusalem and in all J udea and
Samaria and even to the very ends of the earth.”7 The apostles
are the first and the authorized teachers of the revelation of Christ
Whatever truth Christ revealed for men has been committed to
them. All things that Christ has heard from His Father He has
made known to the apostles.8 As the Father has sent Jesus Christ
so He sends the apostles.8 Who hears the apostles hears Christ
Himself.10 It is in this sense that we can speak of the apostles as
being a source of revelation in contradistinction to all other tra­
dition which is an organ or channel of revelation.
Because they are a source or font of revelation the apostles are
guarded by a personal infallibility. The Spirit of Truth, the
Advocate, was to dwell with them and be in them.111 This same
Spirit of Truth was to teach them all things and to bring to their
minds all that Christ had said to them,12 making known to them
all truth and the things that were to come.13 This gives to their
personal preaching its unique character, so that “when you heard
and received from us the word of God you welcomed it not as the
word of men but, as it truly is, the word of God.”14 In consequence,
it is not their word or their doctrine they proclaim but God’s.
Obedience and faith are demanded but not for themselves. Men
must accept because they are the envoys, the witnesses, the apos­
tles of the word of God and appointed so by Christ. Once this
notion of apostolicity is recognized, it becomes clear that the
Catholic Church’s insistence on the apostolic character of her
doctrine is no mere cherishing of the antique but is absolutely
essential to its status as the revealed religion of Jesus Christ, the
Son of God.
Up to this point the apostolic character of the deposit of revela­
tion has been treated from a passive aspect, i.e. the committment
of divine truth to the apostles. But there is another and equally
important facet of this apostolicity which is implicit in all we
have seen. The apostles are also the primary promulgators of this
revelation. They are the sole authentic preachers of this word of
God. And it is their preaching that is the true and valid source of
all doctrine. It is their preaching that the Church looks to as the
1 Acts 1:8.

« Luke 10:16.

a John 16:14.

*John 15:15.

11 John 14:17.

141 Thess. 2:18.

•John 20:22: 17:18.

a John 14:16.

«***»□
£ fi, ün it ii —*

FRAMEWORK OF DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT

423

source of its rule of faith. The Church’s role is to transmit and
to interpret, it was the apostolic office to promulgate. This they
did by their preaching and it is their preaching that the Church
proclaims and interprets infallibly. Tertullian makes this very
dear when he writes that all heretics are self-condemned because
they do not submit to the divine authority, whereas the true
Christian attitude is this:
It is not lawful for us to introduce anything simply because it suits
as, nor may we choose what someone else has preferred. For we have
as our authorities the Apostles of the Lord and not even they sought
to introduce anything because of their personal preference but faithfully delivered to the nations the doctrine they had received from
Christ15

1
1
I
l

?

J

I
I
i
J
!
I
I

i
■i
I

iI

I
I

This promulgation of the doctrine of Christ is by preaching,
since the gospel faith is ex auditu.™ And the apostles are the
preachers and divinely commissioned as such. As Tertullian also
points out, the apostles are sent by Jesus Christ to preach, and
no Christian may accept any others save those whom Christ has
authorized as preachers, "for no one knows the Father but the
Son and him to whom the Son reveals Him and as we see the Son
revealed Him to the apostles whom He sent to preach what he
had revealed to them.”17 It is this fact of preaching that is of
cardinal importance to the whole notion of the rule of faith and it
marks a fundamental division between the Catholic and Protestant conception of the role of scripture in the transmission of
faith. For we find that first in the order of time and importance
» the oral promulgation of revelation by the apostles. Theteaching office is, therefore, a living thing because it resides in living
men appointed by Christ for that very office. And the original
source of all tradition of the divine doctrine transmitted to us is
the oral tradition and promulgation of the apostolic preaching.
This is the point of Père Huby’s remark that the gospels might
disappear and the Church would still remain the. Church.18 The
apostles are specifically authorities rather than authors. They
” Tertullian. De -praescriptione, 6 (FLP, IV, 7).
9 Rm. 10:17.

$

“Tertullian, op. cit., 21.

I

aTieChurch and the Gospels (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1938).

lieetiiiSl* ? ssls 11 i «»Is ΟΛΙΙΙβΙΙΙΟββί®
SO8SS;''iSSSSSS.SSa;SwSBÎSSSftSiSïSSSSïïS’;t<i'BSSS<i;SSï
sSioOs Io ” l'sl -.-;' IlliOofl

424

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

witness authoritatively to Christ and His teaching. By their
authentic preaching the apostles bring men to belief and so
actualize the Church of Christ “built on the foundation of the
apostles with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.’’1’

;

St Peter and the apostolic college had to be the sole depositaries
and interpreters of this doctrine ; they had to be able to say : “We and
we alone possess the true and authentic Christ.” People had to feel that
without them one would not reach Christ, that to depart from them
was to lose Christ. Once the Church had been organized under a
universally accepted hierarchy, once the principle of authority had not
only been proclaimed but made integral in morality, a part of the
practice of the Christian life then they could write, for the Church
coming before the scriptures would have the right to judge them .. .M
Without the recognition of the primacy of this apostolic and
oral preaching, it is impossible to understand the Catholic conception of the deposit of revelation. Without such recognition it
is equally impossible to give scripture its proper and its logical
place in the deposit of revelation. Only when it is realized that
by divine intention (as well as historically) the apostolic preach­
ing precedes and embraces the written word as its offspring, only
then can the written gospel be properly evaluated. It is only
gradually that memory notes, instructions for missionaries, partial
accounts of the teachings and acts of Christ come into existence.
11 is only towards the end of this process that the synoptic gospels
result from the apostolic catechesis. Thus Clement of Alexandria
records that St. Peter preached in Rome and his hearers besought
Mark to put into writing what they had received by hearing. It
is to their persistence that we owe the gospel according to St
Mark.*1 In fact, as even a cursory reading of the gospels indicates, they are writings of circumstance and do not attempt to
encompass the whole of the deposit of revelation given to the
apostles. St. John explicitly witnesses to this fact when he writes
that "there are many other things that Jesus did but if all these
should be written not even the world itself could hold the books
that would have to be written.”®* The whole point may be
"Ephes. 2:20.

1 ·'

ii

M Huby, op. di., p. 9.
“ Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, II, 15, 2 (Loeb Classics 143).
» John 21:25.

j
j

j
!
i
i

|
j
j
I
|
|
I
I
j
|

i
|
|
|
j
|J
I
I

j

FRAMEWORK OF DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT

425

sammed up in the words of the Council of the Vatican: "As the
Council of Trent declared in harmony with the universal faith of
the Church this supernatural revelation is contained in the writ­
ten books and the unwritten tradition which being received from
àe mouth of Christ or from the apostles under the dictation of
the Holy Spirit have come down even to us being transmitted as
it were from hand to hand.”**
This apostolic doctrine therefore is what the Church guards and
hands down to men in every age. It is protected by her indefectiHity. It is interpreted without error by her infallibility. It is
to this apostolic deposit that the Fathers and theologians stand as
witnesses through the centuries. It is this deposit that the Church
proclaims through the living magisterium of Pope and bishops in
whom that apostolic authority resides. And it is this oral tradi­
tion given to men that is preserved in the creeds and definitions,
in the acts of Popes and councils, in liturgical books and acts of
martyrs, in the writings of the Fathers and theologians, in his­
torical documents and the monuments of Christian art.*4 AH
these are subordinate and subsidiary to the living magisterium,
J W ariæ and have their natural and even necessary place in the
I Ke of a visible, historical, and living society.
I

I

the work of the fathers and theologians

; , The work of the Fathers and theologians is one of the most
toscinating aspects of doctrinal development. For it involves
; historical, intellectual, and psychological factors that have played
ί eo small part in the development of a specifically Christian cul: tat Indeed, the interest of the modem mind in the phenomena
j “e toner life of man could find a rich supply of material in the
; /Ory of this vital contact between the reflective intelligence of
illumined by faith, and the objective realities of God’s re­
ed truth. One need only cite St. Augustine’s magnificent
toatributions to theology as evidence for this. At the root of
his contribution lies his penetrating psychological inJ Truth for him was absolute and knowledge valid, but much
Η, -Γ frd’tfrtlness and life stemmed from the fact that he saw
to relation to himself and the life of his own spirit. In this
connection one might also note how the pressure of heretics
' ·'

I

t':
i

!< Cf. Van Noort De for.tibus rmelalionzs, p. 126.
Ϊ

s?
*'

426

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

has caused the Fathers and theologians to clarify and make pre­
cise terms, concepts, and ideas. Very often, too, the religious
principles of these heretics have been fraught with destruction
for the social order and the natural order, and in combatting them
there has been produced those natural, ethical, and social prin­
ciples that are the foundation of a good society. Any number of
kindred things might be elaborated upon, but our interest here is
the actual contributions that the Fathers and theologians make
to the development of a doctrine. Hence our first step will be the
delineation of their exact status and function in the Church and
its teaching work.
It is the connection of the Fathers and theologians with the
Ecdesia docens that gives them a share in the development of a
doctrine. They stand as witnesses to revelation and play a part
only in view of this fact. They are also private doctors or teachers.
As such they possess a great deal of human authority that rests
on their knowledge and zeal for the truth, but their authority as
far as doctrine is concerned lies in the fact that they are witnesses
of the truth committed to the Apostles by Christ. To understand
this we must first of all understand exactly what makes a Father
or theologian and makes his witness of importance to the teaching
Church.
For a man to be considered a Father of the Church he must
possess four distinctive qualities: eminent orthodoxy; sanctity of
life; antiquity; approval of the Church. The first two look directly
to the personal character of the Father as a witness, i.e. his knowl­
edge and veracity. The third, antiquity, is the note that distin­
guishes the Father from the theologian. The last testifies to his
public character as a witness in the divinely guarded society of
salvation established by Christ.
Since he is a witness to revelation, orthodoxy is of the essence
of the Father’s status. Genius, scholarship, zeal, and erudition
have their part; but here it is a matter of witnessing to the Word
of God which alone is the norm of truth in revelation. Neither
piety nor brilliance may supply for orthodoxy or conformity
with revealed truth. Material errors are, of course, possible, but
no formal heresy may infect or taint his teaching because it is not
his word but Christ’s revelation that he must know and affirm.
Sanctity of life is another immediate criterion of the Father’s
character as witness to revealed truth. A witness is acceptable

!

I
j
I
i

I
I

FRAMEWORK OF DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT

427

and accepted because of his veracity. Personal holiness is elo­
quent testimony to the veracity of one who speaks of what con­
cerns the revealed will of the All Holy. Also it might be remarked
that in matters divine there is no surer path to understanding
than the way of holiness. Vincent of Lerins testifies to this when
he writes: “We ought likewise consult the teachings of those
Fathers who lived, taught and persevered in the faith and Cath­
olic communion with sanctity wisdom and constancy and who
merited to die faithfully in Christ or happily to be slain for
him.”24
In the matter of antiquity the elements are not so clearly de­
terminable. First of all, this note makes clear that the Fathers
by their witness to revelation are the progenitors of the faith of
the infant Church. They are, in contradistinction to the theologians, the immediate and direct witnesses of the apostolic tradition, i.e. by reason of their historical position they stand in an
immediate relation to the apostles and can bear witness directly
to the apostolic faith. In fact,, since most of them are bishops,
they are the very depositaries of that oral tradition. The theolo­
gian, on the other hand, takes the doctrine they hand down and
formulate, and explains and defends it methodically. The real
problem, however, is where this patristic line ends. Commonly it
is held that St. John Damascene (f749) is the last of the Fathers,
but some would end the line with St. Bernard of Clairvaux.
Without derogating from St. Bernard’s importance it would seem
that if he is to be counted among the Fathers then there is no
hard and fast reason for excluding many of his disciples and
successors. In any case, the authority of a Father would remain
intact as Jong as his antiquity were recognized in terms of his
direct and immediate witness to the apostolic tradition.
The last distinctive characteristic of a Father, approbation by
the Church, is necessitated by the very nature of the Church, as a
divinely instituted teaching society. Only the voice of the Church
can determine authentically the content of revelation and what is ....
in conformity with it. Likewise only the Church can judge
whether or not a man is an acceptable witness to this revealed
truth because only the Church is able to guarantee that fact
infallibly. This approbation, however, may be general or special.
■F Commonitorium 28 [liPL 50, 675).

Λ

7

έ
r

I
.ϊ.

428

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

It is a general approbation when the Church gives to a particular
Father and his works an honored place in her teaching or litur­
gical life, or explicitly commends him in the decrees of a general
council or of a Pope. Special approbation is conferred when some
specific teaching is singled out for commendation, such as Pope
St. Celestine’s approbation of St. Augustine’s teaching on grace*
or the acclamation of St. Leo’s tome by the Council of Chalcedon.®
The primary work of the Fathers in the development of doc­
trine, then, is their witness to the apostolic teaching. But this
witness is authoritative only when they unanimously agree that
a certain doctrine is of faith. This unanimity need not be mathe­
matical but only moral, possessing universality as to time, place
or a particular era. Moreover, the requirements of unanimity are
satisfied if the more learned preach it or if a few of the more im­
portant teach it during the course of the centuries. Lastly, the
doctrine concerned must pertain to the deposit of faith or to
truths necessarily connected with revelation and be affirmed as
belonging to revealed truth and Catholic doctrine. It is in this
sense that the consent of the Fathers is a witness to revealed
truth, for, as the Council of Constantinople states: "We confess
that we hold and preach the faith given to the apostles in the
beginning by our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ and preached
by them in the whole world and which the holy Fathers also
affirmed and explained and delivered to the holy churches."**
Playing a somewhat similar role in the life of the Church, after
the patristic age, are the theologians. They differ from the
i
Fathers in that their witness is mediate and indirect. It is their
I
function to take the sacred doctrine handed down by the Fathers
i
and organize, analyze, and defend it scientifically. Hence the
|
mediate character of their witness. One might say that the specific
j
note of the theologian is the scientific character of his work, which
j
takes what has been handed down as the starting point for
I
scientific development. The other note is the approbation of the
[
Church. Once again it is because they are taking a part in the
|
©©3: ■

l· V'©f33© i'Λ : ‘ · 33KSf;332y" '2 ■ ' y 32 ΰϊ3©2353ÿj©©S©3Ê S

“ DB, 128, 173.

” Ch Schwartz Acta conciliorum occumenicorum. II, 1‘, 276.
"DB.212.

i
|
J

ISSlB©

!

,

!
I
'
J
I
I
i
'

FRAMEWORK OF DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT

429

teaching work of the Church that this approbation is essential.
This approbation may be explicit or tacit.23
With regard to the theologians, it is the common opinion that
their morally unanimous agreement concerning a particular doctrine as a part of the original deposit of revelation is a certain sign
of its revealed character. This opinion rests on the connection
between the theologians and the infallible magisterium of the
Church. If the unanimous consent of theologians approved by
the Church should be erroneous then the Church itself would be
open to error. It would mean that the doctrines taught by the
pastors to their faithful would be derived from an erroneous
source and thus the integral deposit of revelation would not be
transmitted by the Church.
The Manner in which the Fathers and Theologians Work

The actual work of the Fathers and theologians falls under three
main headings: heresy; theological controversy; and special stud*
ies on particular subjects. This is not to say that these three
form an absolutely necessary part of doctrinal development but
only that they are the ordinary courses by which the Fathers and
theologians make their contribution to development.
Heresy. As has already been noted, heresy as such does not make
any direct contribution to development. It serves as a catalyst
which brings the witnesses of revelation into reaction against it.
For heresy sacrifices the whole to the part. Its ordinary force lies
in the fact that it concentrates its efforts upon some immediate
problem. To this difficulty it gives what, at first appearance,
seems a simple and prarrirai solution. Concentrating on one
point of revelation, the heresy so distorts it that it becomes the
sole norm of all the rest and what does not conform to it is
changed, discarded, or destroyed. So for example Lu ther’s simple
and “practical” solution of the relation between the merits of
Christ and their reception by the individual is ‘‘faith alone justi*
fies.” Luther’s understanding of this principle is wrong since it
ignores all the rest of revelation on the nature and place of faith.
Like all heresy it moves with its own inexorable logic. Thus by
” For the statements of the Popes oa this see DB. 609, 1620, 1652; also

1576 ft. and 1690.

430

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

the Lutheran principle the actual, historical society founded by
Christ has no right to exist; the sacraments are reduced to “acted
sermons stirring up faith”; the nature of man must be totally
corrupt; dogma is divorced from intelligence; faith in turn cancels
dogma; and at last “religion loses its contact with absolute truth
and becomes merely an emotional justification for a certain
standard of behaviour.”30
It is the above picture of heresy that gives rise to a whole set
of reactions on the part of the Fathers and theologians. Faced
with a novelty that very often springs from a specious and pro­
foundly emotional judgment they, as Catholic minded teachers,
must meet it from the central point of all Catholic thinking. Their
first question must be: is this teaching contained in the deposit of
revelation preserved and preached by the Church? Their concern
is not with its attractiveness, nor its simplicity nor the enthusi­
asm which it generates. As the servants of the divine society of
Christ they have but one major principle: is this teaching in con­
formity with the apostolic teaching committed to the infallible
Church and taught by her through the centuries? Because of this
fundamental concern these witnesses to the truth must go back
over what they have received and what has been taught by the
Church. They must investigate and weigh relationships and im­
plications in the light of that teaching. They must review, scru­
tinize, and analyze scripture and tradition carefully, accurately,
and even minutely. And when they have done all this then they
are in a position to criticize and pass judgment on the new opin­
ions. Discussion, polemics, controversy may all enter into this
arena and may well serve to crystallize and direct the tenor of
their investigations. Sometimes the power of the state may be
behind these innovations and thus impede and hamper their work,
but, throughout, their rule and guide is the dictum of Pope St.
Stephen: nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est.31
So much then for the general relationship between heresy and
development. But specifically, because the very novelty of heresy
causes the Fathers and theologians to re-study the deposit of

"Christopher Dawson, "Christianity and the New Age,” Essays in Order
(New York: Sheed and Ward, 1940), p. 211.
”DB, 46.

j
J

I

llllfllllllllw
OISOIOIWWWW'WWWIIS

S

I (ii ill Ιι

FRAMEWORK OF DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT

1

431

faith, implications in it become clear to them for the first time.**
St. Augustine’s struggle with the Donatists is a case in point One
of the major points at issue was the repetition of baptism. Two
centuries before, Pope St. Stephen had given voice to the im­
memorial practice of the Church that a valid baptism was not to
be repeated.3* Correlative with this had been the development of
the teaching on the σφρα.'γίς or seal imprinted by the sacrament
of baptism, a teaching which appears to have its echo in St. Paul’s
epistles.34 St. Augustine’s teaching on sacramental character
makes explicit what the fact of non-repetition and the teaching on
the <r0payis had implied. Likewise illustrative is the dogmatic
letter of Pope St. Leo to Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople.
In this case, Eutyches, a not particularly trained or well-informed
monk, had attempted to solve the relation between the two na­
tures of Christ in what he deemed was a simple fashion. His
condemnation by Flavian had served as an excuse for igniting
highly inflammable political tinder in the Eastern empire and had
given to his error a greater currency than it merited. In the midst
of all this, St. Leo carefully reviewed the faith of the Church,
scripture, and the teaching of the Fathers and made explicit
what had been implicit in all the Christological teaching since the
beginning: two natures each complete and perfect in itself and
joined in a single person, the Person of the Word.3* The letter
itself is a perfect illustration of how heresy, with all of its his­
torical implications, serves indirectly to bring about a growth in
understanding.
Theological Controversy. The effect of theological controversy
upon doctrinal development is not so easily isolated as that of
heresy. Such controversy takes place within the Church, and
throughout it both sides remain members and true sons of the
“It should be noted here that the doctors of the Church haws a fes perfect
idea of the content of faith than the apostles. It is the common teaching of
the theologians that the apostles had a divinely infused knowledge of the in­
trinsic sense of all dogmas but did not propose them in all those forms that
would be explicitly opposed to future errors. Cf. Franxelizi, Tradaltu de
imita traditione et Scriptura (Rome: Marietti, 1870).
“ Cf. Cyprian, epist. 74 (CSEL, III, 2, 799 and 522).

“On this whole matter cf. Pouratt,
Herder, 1910), pp. 215-34.
«Cf. DB, 143, 144, 148.

432

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

Church. Moreover much of their divergency is not concerned
with the content of revelation but rather with material deduced
from it through the application of human intelligence to revealed
truth. Hence revelation itself is not immediately concerned. All
the first principles of the theologian are derived from revelation
and Catholic doctrine, however, and so it does have a bearing on
the discussion. For the theologian takes his first principles and
then, illumined by faith, uses intelligence. In doing this, philo­
sophical techniques are employed, metaphysical concepts repre­
senting the highest achievements of the unaided speculative in­
telligence are brought into play. Both are corrected and ampli­
fied in the light of faith. Then, in turn, these are employed as
instruments to arrive at a deeper and fuller understanding of the
content of revelation. It is fides quaerens intellectum. And, in the
light of this understanding, and making use of these same tools,
the theologian goes on to explain or defend the sacred doctrine or
to deduce more specific and detailed applications of the revealed
truths.
Such, then, is the work of theology, but since the tools are
fashioned by human minds and used by human minds, uncer­
tainty is always possible. For the object of this science is divine
truth, the life and truth of the transcendent God. Because it is a
case of a finite human mind grappling with the infinite, then even
with revelation much will elude its grasp and remain obscure.
And it is just this uncertainty that gives rise to difficulties and
controversies. For though the theologian will always accept his
first principles from revealed truth and be guided by it, still, in
using intelligence, diversity of deduction remains possible. If no
expression of the infallible Church has intervened, the exact
understanding may be a matter of debate. Lacking such formal
declaration by the Church (either solemn or ordinary) we can
and do have difference of opinion, divergency of view, contro­
versy, and opposing schools of thought on the same subject It
is precisely this struggle in the intellectual arena that aids, very
often, in laying the groundwork for the development of a doc­
trine; because such controversy means that each opponent must
return again and again to scrutinize and relate the dogmatic facts
and check his conclusions in the light of them. Truth is made to
bear upon truth and in the resulting reflection each becomes
clearer, more explicit, more definitive. Accidental issues are

FRAMEWORK OF DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT

433

sloughed off and the crux of the controversy becomes apparent.
The power of mens’ minds is made to bear upon this central
issue, seeking to resolve it and to show its correct relation to explicity formulated truths. Clarification comes and the whole
process has served as an anvil upon which the explicit formulation
will be hammered out by the Church.
The preceding paragraphs give only a general picture of the
effect of theological controversy upon doctrinal development, but
perhaps a single illustration will specify it sufficiently. During
the period from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries (in the
West) there was much controversy over the doctrine of the Im­
maculate Conception. Discussion and debate had resolved the
difficulty down to three major points: the universality' of original
sin; the universality of redemption; and the exact time when the
human soul is infused into the body (this point rested upon im­
perfect notions of active and passive conception). The universal­
ity of original sin is explicit in revelation; how then except Mary?
At the same time, to set her outside Christ’s redemptive work
obviously detracts from its universality and dignity. Discussion
clarified the points at issue and then Scotus pointed out that the
merits of Christ could be preservative and thus obtain that
Mary be born free of original sin. Once this conception of pre­
servative redemption was accepted the foundation for an ex­
plicit understanding of the truth was laid. And this was the
truth defined by Pius IX.

t-

?■

Special Studies by Individuals or Groups of Individuals. The third
way in which the Fathers and theologians contribute to the
development of doctrine is by means of special studies and works
on Catholic truths. This may entail a carefully organized syn­
thesis of past teaching or some almost inspired insight into a
specific doctrine. Time and again a Father or a theologian has
produced a study or a work that gathered together the teaching
that had preceded him and then in a moment of intellectual in­
tuition has put the finger of his mind on some facet or truth or
deduction that becomes for him a key opening the door to an ex­
plicit understanding of what had been heretofore implicit. Per­
haps the best over-all illustration of this is the Summa of St.
Thomas. This work by its very organization and method opens
a whole series of vistas and in almost every section its author s
genius has seen a relationship or a series of relationships that
'j

434

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

have led to a much fuller and more comprehensive knowledge of
revealed truth. Equally significant but on a much smaller scale
is St.' Anselmn’s Cut Deus Homo? This clearly shows the place
of satisfaction in Christ’s redeeming work and death, and in
doing so furnishes the keystone that brings into their full relation­
ship all the elements of redemption that had been treated by the
Fathers. Not that the idea of a satisfactory death is new to the
Fathers but the full part that it plays in the redemptive death of
Christ is first treated by St. Anselmn.
Besides these individual works there are, as it were, lines of
study involving theologians over a period of centuries, during
which each writer contributes his share to the groundwork of
development. As a type of this we have the theological formu­
lation of the doctrine of transubstantiation. Controversy and
the Berengarian heresy enter in here but the writings themselves
coalesce to furnish an ever cleaner formulation of the dogmatic
fact itself. Paschasius Radbertus begins the work, drawing his
information from scripture and tradition and formulating it. It
is clarified and rendered more exact and precise by Lanfranc and
Guitmond. Alger of Liège enlarges upon their work. The essence
of their teaching is embodied in Peter Lombard’s Liber sententi­
arum. This in turn is developed, clarified, and deepened by the
great scholastics, until, the spade work being done, it was ready
for the action of the infallible magisterium at the Council of
Trent.
The above are but a few of the many illustrations that might be
adduced. Others might be drawn from our own times. Historical
and speculative works, scientific research, critical studies, dis­
sertations and articles all can play a part and make their contri­
bution to the development of doctrine. But however much of
genius, talent, zeal, and insight they may show, their work is only
preparatory. Only the Ecclesia docens, through its official magis­
terium, can formally and authentically establish a true develop­
ment of doctrine. And it is this magisterium that is our next and
fast concern in this article.
THE ACTION OF THE INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM

Throughout this article constant reference has been made to
the magisterium of the Church as the constitutive factor in all

ί

|

i

1

FRAMEWORK OF DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT

435

i
development. The necessity for these references is twofold. On
(the one hand, it is easy to become so interested in the work of the
Fathers and theologians that one forgets that they are witnesses
to the divine tradition and not the official teachers of it. The
second reason is that for the Catholic there can be only one formal
I
principle of development because there can be only one teacher of
J
revealed truth, the infallible Church. Remove or ignore this
Î
essential factor and the very thing that makes possible the true
development of unchangeable divine truth is cast aside. Without
it you do not have doctrinal development or growth in under­
standing but substantial change, distortion, and error that finally
I
do away with the whole deposit. Proof of this may be found in the
s
history of any error or heresy. For the Church was founded by
I
Christ to teach His truth to men, and in order that it might do"
so it was divinely guaranteed against error. The truths the
Church teaches lead to a supernatural end and in themselves
transcend the knowledge and natural powers of men. Without
the Church there is no means whereby men may know these
supernatural truths without fear of error, with absolute security,
in their entirety. The Catholic Church and it alone is the authen­
tic teacher and interpreter of revelation and without it men do
not have the very means set up by Christ to give them in every
age His truth. And it is this right and office to preach the Chris­
tian revelation that is technically described by the term "magis­
terium.”
The authority of this magisterium arises from its connection
with the charism of infallibility bestowed upon the teaching
Church. Hence when it is a question of definings truth as di­
vinely revealed or of giving an irreformahle interpretation of it,
the assistance of the Holy Spirit accompanies each such act and
the magisterium is acting with the immediate "authority of in­
fallibility” whereby the gates of hell will not prevail against her.
On the other hand, in her teaching work the Church may not be .
concerned with an irreformable definition nor intend to use its
infallible authority in its whole intensity. In such cases its con­
cern is only with the security of doctrine rather than a fonnal
and constitutive activity. The authority of the magisterium in
this case, while intimately connected with infallibility, yet is not
definitive; and in this case is auctoritas proeide^ioe doctnnaiis. a
either case this authoritative magisterium is exerased ei er

436

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

solemnly or ordinarily. Solemnly by the solemn judgments of
the Supreme Pontiff or by General Councils in union with the
Pope. Ordinarily by the Pope or the bishops. Thus the deposi­
taries of this magisterial authority are the Pope and the bishops.

The Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff
As already indicated, the Roman Pontiff exercises his magis­
terial authority either solemnly or ordinarily. It is exercised
solemnly when the Pope as the chief pastor of the Church pro­
nounces an ex cathedra definition of revealed truth, £uch an
exercise of his authority is always infallible.’® The ordinary
magisterium of the Holy Father is exercised either explicitly or
implicitly. It is found explicitly in allocutions and encyclicals.
Implicitly it appears when the Pope, as legislator for the universal
Church, deals with matters of liturgy and discipline. In general
it may be said that this ordinary papal magisterium means that
while he does not pass solemn judgement in these cases yet he is
speaking as the supreme teacher of the faithful about what is
contained in the preaching of the Church. Hence it is certain
that some of these acts are infallible but many will fall under the
auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis. Under this last heading are
also found the acts of the various congregations of Cardinals.
These congregations do not possess infallibility nor can it be com­
municated to them, but their dependence on the Holy Father is
of such kind that their decisions call for a religious obedience.
This obedience, however, is not the assent of faith (unless per­
sonally made so by the Pope) but an assent to the opinion of the
Congregation that a doctrine or an opinion is Tula vel non tula.

The Magisterium of the Bishop
The individual bishop is also an official part of the magisterium
of the Church. In himself the bishop is not infallible, but in his
own diocese he is the authentic voice of the magisterium. In his own
jurisdiction the bishop is the official spokesman for the teaching
Church and therefore is the reliable public authority on faith
and morals. He exercises this office through his care for the
preservation of the purity of faith and morals in his clergy and
”DB, 1339.

j
j
|
|
i
|
|

'

FRAMEWORK OF DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT

437

people; by supplying the food of Christian doctrine for the
faithful; by insuring that education according to Catholic prin­
ciples is given to children and to the young in the schools.57 These
he may accomplish by preaching, pastoral letters, periodicals and
publications, by diocesan synods, and the condemnation of errors
in and for his diocese. He may also work by authorizing others
to carry out some of these tasks.

The Organs of the Magisterium
The Pope and bishops form the official magisterium of the
Church. They are the authoritative and authentic spokesmen
for the Ecclesia docens. How then do they transmit revealed
truth which is the source and foundation of all development of
doctrine? To put it in a more technical way, what are the organs
by which the magisterium, either solemn or ordinaiy, transmits
and preserves the tradition committed to the Church by the
apostles? In answer to this the theologians” teach that there are
organs for the transmission of the teaching of the solemn magis­
terium and still other organs which contain the teaching of the
ordinary magisterium.
With regard to the organs through which the solemn magis­
terium expresses itself there are three: dogmatic definitions;
creeds; professions of faith. Dogmatic definitions explicitly pro­
claim some truth as divinely revealed and therefore call for the
assent of divine and Catholic faith. These may be made by the
Pope speaking ex cathedra, by ecumenical councils, or by particu­
lar councils whose teaching has been accepted by the universal
Church or approved by the Pope in solemn form.” Creeds are
those general statements of faith edited and approved by the
Church, such as that of Nicea-Constantinople. Professions of
faith represent more detailed and more lengthy expositions of
doctrine in view of a particular heresy or heresies.”
The organs of the ordinary magisterium are also threefold: the
57 Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 336, §2.
“ E.g. Biilot, De sacra traditione: Murray, De ecclesia: Bainvel, De magisteria
two el Iraditione: Fenton, Tke Concept of Sacred Tkeotogf.
n Cf. DB, 200a for an example of thia where Boniface II confirms the Second
Council of Orange.
M E.g. the profession of faith signed at the Council of Chalcedon in 450, r,

438

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

acts of the Roman Pontiff; the universal consent of bishops
united with the Pope; liturgy and liturgical practice. The ads of
the Roman Pontiff appear in encyclicals, allocutions and letters or
in the work of those congregations whose chief office is the pro­
tection of revealed truth and whose acts the Holy Father has
made his own. The universal consent of the bishops may he found
in a number of ways: their acceptance of the teaching of a par­
ticular council; their responses to the Pope when he calls for them
on some matter of faith; or their preaching of a determined doc­
trine when some heresy or error comes to the fore. Tacitly this
consent may be given when, knowingly and willingly, they do not
oppose the spread of a particular doctrine in their dioceses.
Throughout, though, this consent, in order to be guarded by in­
fallibility, must be morally unanimous and must concern material
that is witnessed to as a part of the deposit of revelation. The
liturgy and liturgical practice constitutes the last of these organs
of ordinary teaching. Two things are required here. First, that
the practice be necessarily connected with a dogmatic truth.
Second, that the practice must be universal or at least tacitly ap­
proved by infallible authority. Only under these conditions does
the axiom hold: lex supplicandi statuit legem credendi.
This completes our study of the elements and instruments of
doctrinal development. Much of this might be elaborated upon
but since the aim here is only to set down the principles that will
guide the study of the development of the doctrine of the As­
sumption, this will suffice. Forthcoming articles will take each of
these elements and in their light review the dogmatic material
concerning the Assumption. For, it seems to the writer, that
only if one is completely clear concerning the technical side
of any development, is it possible to understand and appreciate
the definability of the Assumption.
Eugene M. Burke, C.S.P.

The Catholic University of America,
Washington, D. C.

Mission Intention

“Frequent Public Prayer, for the Missions” is the Mission Intention
for the month of December, 1946.

j
|

Ü iii'i ii'.M j SSOSf'ÉSâMSsiM

..

THE NECESSITY FOR THE DEFINITION OF PAPAL
INFALLIBILITY BY THE VATICAN COUNCIL

“There are two reasons,” wrote the great Cardinal Manning,
"for which the Church from the beginning has defined the doc­
trines of faith: the one to make them clear, definite and precise;
the other to defend them and to put them beyond doubt when they
have been called in question.”1 The definition by Pope Pius IX of
Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception was obviously motivated by
the first of these two reasons. The second influenced the Vatican
Council to utter its solemn judgment on papal infallibility. Fur­
thermore, the Council considered this definition necessary. Since
contemporary interest in the doctrine of Our Lady's Assumption
has focused the attention of Catholics upon the process of an
infallible doctrinal definition, and since some recent writings have
contrived to misrepresent the effects of the Vatican formula, it
should be useful for us to look into the background and the nature
of that necessity which the Council claimed for its pronounce­
ment on the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.
THE NATURE OF AN INFALLIBLE DOGMATIC DEFINITION

An ex cathedra definition by the Roman Pontiff or a solemn
judgment of an Oecumenical Council is always essentially the
infallible proposition of a definite statement as the expression of
a truth communicated by God as a part of supernatural divine
public revelation. Thus, in the Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX
says of tlie doctrine of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception that
it "has been revealed by God and is therefore something which
all of the faithful must believe firmlyand constantly.’’* In pro­
claiming the divine truth of papal infallibility, the Vatican Coun­
cil used the words "we teach and we define it to be a divinely
revealed dogma.”’
The defined dogma is a statement of the actual reality, an ob­
jective tru th. The pronouncement on the Immaculate Conception
meant that Our Lady had really been privileged above her fellow
1 The True Story of the Vatican Council (London, 1877), ρ. 1&9.
1 Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum (hereafter cited as ΰβ), J64L
<

*DB,IS39.

439