THE SCIENCE OE SACRED THEOLOGY FOR TEACHERS

The Channels of Revelation
By Emmanuel Doronzo

Book Three

Notre

Dame

Institute

Press

Middleburg, Virginia

MT. ANGEL ABBEY LIBRARY
ST. BENEDICT, OREGON 97373

ÿT
I ϊ-Ί.λ.

DM3
NIHIL OBSTAT

Rev. Msgr. Eugene Kevane, Ph. D.
Censor deputatus
IMPRIMATUR

Most Rev. John T. Russell, D.D.
February 7, 1973
Richmond, Virginia

Library of Congress catalog card number: 74-76099

Copyright (C) by Institute for Christian Culture, Inc. t 41

Printed in the United Stales of America

ii

Contents

Bibliography

iv

Introduction

v

Part I. The Three Channels of Revelation

1

Chapter One. Scripture, The Written
Deposit of Revelation

2

Chapter Two. Tradition, The Living
Deposit of Revelation

10

Chapter Three. The Magisterium,
Organ of Revelation

33

Part II. The Theological Contents
Of the Channels of Revelation

38

Chapter Four. Dogma

39

Chapter Five. Theological Conclusion

52

Chapter Six. Theological Notes and Censures

GO

Glossary

67

Analytical Index

72

iii

Bibliography

Cano, M., De locis theologicis (posthumous work, first edited
at Salamanca in 1563; the last edition is found in Melchioris
Cani Opera Theologica. 3 vols., Rome 1900).
Casado, F., “En torno a la genesis del ‘De locis thologicis.’ ”
Revista espaûola de teologia 32 ( 1972) 55-82.
Doronzo, E., Theologia dogmatica 1 (Washington, DC. 19G6)
399-544.

Gardeil, A., “La notion du lieu théologique,” Revue des
sciences philosophiques et théologiques 2 ( 1908) 51-73, 246276, 484-505; “Lieux théologiques,” Dictionnaire de théolo­
gie catholique 9-1 (Paris 1926) 712-747.
Lang, A., Die Loci Theologici des Melchior Cano und die
Methode des dogmatischen Bcweises, München 1925.

Lubac, H. de, Sources of Revelation (trans, from the French),
New York 1968.
Marcotte, E., La nature de la théologie d’après Melchior Cano
(Ottawa 1949) 110-162.
».
Mysterium salutis. Dogmatique de l’histoire du salut (trans­
lation of the German collective work), 1/2: La révélation
dans l’Ecriture et la Tradition; 1/3' L’Eglise et la transmis­
sion de la révélation, Paris 1969.

iv

Introduction

In the preceding treatise the fact of revelation has been es­
tablished through evident criteria. The question which now
logically follows is: where do we find this revelation? What
are the channels which bring it to us, so that we may know
surely and exactly what we should believe? These channels
are considered here formally as theological “loci,” that is, as
“places” or bases of theological investigation.
Hence this treatise is a kind of theological dialectics (theo­
logical logic, or theological methodology ) and belongs to fund­
amental theology. But, unlike the preceding tract which is
merely apologetic, it considers the channels of revelation as
the intrinsic foundation of theology and proceeds under the
light of revelation itself. Hence it is a dogmatic fundamental
theology.

This treatise may be defined: A scientific inquiry on the
probative value of the channels of revelation, carried out un­
der the light of revelation itself. The channels of revelation
(or “loci”) are the material object of this treatise, their pro­
bative value is its formal object, and the light of revelation is
its formal reason.1
The channels through which revelation comes to us, and
hence the “loci” or places where theologians find the princi­
ples and bases for their investigation, are essentially three,
namely, Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium,2 with this
1 For the meaning of these three expressions, see our treatise on
Introduction to Theology, pp. 9-13, and its Glossary, under the entry:
Object of a science, p. 52.
2 According to the list given by Melchior Cano (the founder of
this treatise), and commonly followed by later theologians the theo­
logical “loci” would be ten, of which seven are taken on the part of
v

Fundamental Theology

difference, however, that Scripture and Tradition are also de­
posits of revelation, that is, places in which revelation has
been deposited and kept by God, while the Magisterium is
only the organ (guardian, dispenser, interpreter) of revela­
tion.3
This treatise is divided into two parts. The first deals with
the three channels considered in themselves as to their nature
and probative value, i.e., Scripture (chap. 1 ), Tradition (chap.
revelation itself, namely, Scripture. Tradition, the believing Church
(the sense of the faithful), the Magisterium of the Pope, the Magis­
terium of the Councils, the Fathers, the theologians; and three are
derived extrinsically from the natural reason, that is. this reason it­
self according to its natural and scientific principles, the authority
of philosophers, and human history.
Discarding these three extrinsic “loci.” which can only lightly
confirm a theological truth and help a theological investigation, all
the other seven “loci” can be reduced to three, namely Scripture.
Magisterium and Tradition. In fart, the Popes and Councils make up
one general Magisterium, while the believing Church, the Fathers
and the theologians, in as much as they are witnesses of Tradition,
can be reduced to Tradition itself. The Fathers and theologians as
private doctors have only a limited and fallible authority: they will
be considered under this aspect together with the believing Church
in special notes after the treatment of Tradition (pp. 22-32).
3 With regard to terminology, until Vatican Council IT Scripture
and Tradition were usually called the two sources of revelation, both
by theologians and in the documents of the recent Magisterium: thus
the title of the present treatise was “On the Sources of Revelation”
(together with the title “On Theological “Loci”): Pius XT speaks of
the sources of revelation (Encycl. “Mortalium Animos” 1928. A AS
XX 12) and Pius XTT uses the same plural expression five times in
his Encycl. “Humani generis” 1950 (Denz. 3886; he uses even the
expression “both sources”). Vatican JI. however, preferred a slightly
different terminology, according to which the source of revelation
is the Gospel itself (that is Christ’s preaching), while Scripture and
Tradition are the deposit (even the one deposit) of revelation, "en­
trusted” to the Magisterium.
Following this reformed terminology, we call source of revelation,
the gospel itself; channels of revelation. Scripture, Tradition, and
the Magisterium; deposit (or deposits since, at least materially, they
are two) of revelation. Scripture and Tradition; organ of revelation,
the Magisterium.
vi

Introduction

2), Magisterium (chap. 3). The second considers the theologi­
cal content of these channels, particularly of the Magisterium,
that is, dogma (chap. 4), theological conclusions (chap. 5),
theological notes and censures (chap. 6).

vii

Part I
The Three Channels of Revelation

i

I
Scripture, The Written

Deposit of Revelation4

1. The Nature of Scripture.

We shall gather under this heading and briefly explain five
questions which are treated extensively by biblical scholars,
namely, the inspiration, canonicity, authenticity, inerrancy
and interpretation of Holy Scripture. These properties are all
defined or taught by the Council of Trent ( Sess. 4, Denz. 15011508), Vatican I (Sess. 3, Denz. 3029), Leo XIII (Encycl. “Providentissimus,” Denz. 3291-3293). Pius XII (Encycl. “Divino
afflante Spiritu,” Denz. 3925-3831), and Vatican II (Dogmatic
Constitution on Divine Revelation, nos. 11-13).
Inspiration as a fact is defined by Trent and Vatican I. Its
nature is described as a direct action of God into the intellect
* Cf. J. Levie. “Les limites da la preuve d’Ecriture Sainte en théo­
logie, "Nouvelle revue théologique 71 (1949) 1009-1029; Λ. Boa, "11
progresso noli’ interpretazionc della S. Scrittura,” Gregorianum 33
(1952) 85-105: L. Alonso-Schokel. "Argument d’ Ecriture et théo­
logie biblique dans l’enseignement théologique.” Nouvelle revue
théologique 91 (1959) 337-354; Schrift und Tradition (collective
work), Essen 1962: De Scriptura et Traditione (collective work).
Rome 1963; J. Dupont. “Ecriture et Tradition,” Nouvelle revue théo­
logique 85 (1963) 337-356, 449-468; Mysterium salutis. Dogmatique
de l'histoire du salut (collective work translated from the German),
I 2: La révélation dans l’Ecriture et la Tradition, Paris 1969; E.
Hamel, "L’Ecriture, âme de la théologie,” Gregorianum 52 (1971)
511-535.
2

Scripture, The Written Deposit of Revelation
and will of the hagiographers, on account of which their writ­
ings are to be attributed to God himself as their principal
author (Vatican I; Leo XIII; Vatican II). Its extension em­
braces all the canonical books of both Testaments, “in their en­
tirety and in all their parts” (Trent; Vatican I; Vatican II),
“in everything asserted by the inspired authors” (Vatican II)
and not only in “matters of faith and morals” (Leo XIII);
briefly, “everything the hagiographer asserts, enunciates, sug­
gests” (Biblical Commission, June. 18, 1915, Denz. 3629).

Canonicity, that is, the definite canon or list of books which
must be considered as inspired, is proposed as de fide by Trent
and Vatican I.
The authenticity of the text of these books is explicity de­
clared by Trent and confirmed by Vatican I as regards the
Latin version called the “Vulgate,” by reason of its “approba­
tion by the Church through many centuries of usage in public
lectures, sermons, and explanations” (Trent, Denz. 1506; Vati­
can I, Denz. 3006). Two corollaries are drawn from this decla­
ration. One is literary, namely, that the Vulgate is substantial­
ly in conformity with the original, so that it contains all and
only the inspired books, as well as all the dogmatic original
texts, in their sum total ( although there may be a doubt or a
dispute about one or another particular text, especially if it
regards a modal discrepancy with the original text as criti­
cally established I. The other corollary is dogmatic, namely,
that the text of the Vulgate is immune from all error in mat­
ters of faith and morals, and it can be used safely and without
danger of erring.

The inerrancy of the entire biblical text, being a mere con­
sequence of its inspiration, can be considered implicitly de­
fined by Trent and Vatican I, at least as regards matters of
faith and morals. The absolute exclusion of all error, even in
other matters, follows from the same inspiration, which makes
God author of the entire text, and is considered by Leo XIII
as likewise defined by the Magisterium (Denz. 3292 f).
As regards the interpretation, or hermeneutics, of the text,
biblical scholars distinguish a threefold sense, namely, literal,
3

The Channels of Revelation
typical, and ampler.3
*5

The literal sense (or grammatical, historical, logical sensei
is that which the letter or words immediately carry and which
is intended by the writer as such.6 This is the necessary and
primary sense in a biblical text, as in every speech or writing:
the presence of only a typical sense would not be sufficient to
justify the words of Scripture, for the typical sense must be
based on the literal sense, as will be shown below. The literal
sense, intended in a biblical text, is only one, at least accord­
ing to the more common opinion. Otherwise fallacy or equivo­
cation would be attributed to God, as was found in the oracles
of pagan religions. These often carried a double contrary mean­
ing so that the prediction would be true in either event.78
The typical sense (or real, spiritual, mystical sense) is that
which is not attached to the words themselves but to the things
or persons signified by the words, and therefore is not intend­
ed by the biblical writer but only by God inspiring his words.
Hence, it cannot be known but through God’s revelation, that
is, from Scripture or Tradition or the sense of the Church, for
the hagiographer himself under the inspiration and revelation,
or the Church, under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, can
infallibly interpret the sense of the Holy Scripture. Several
typical senses are certainly proposed by the hagiographers
themselves, either explicitly (Matt. 2.15:19.36; Cor. 10.1-11;
Gal. 4.22-31) or implicitly (Matt. 5.5: 26.28: Col. 2.11 f; Heb.
12.22; Apoc. 2.7).

3 The so called accommodated sense., based on some likeness with
what is said and signified in the biblical text, is not a biblical sense.
It can be used and is in fact used by preachers and spiritual writers;
but this should be done with discretion and moderation, lest such
sense be mistaken for the real sense or its use involve disrespect for
the sacred text. See Verbum Domini (1938) 272-278.
8 The literal sense can be cither proner (as if I say: Peter is sly)
or metaphorical (if I say: Peter is a fox). If an entire speech or peri­
cope is metaphorical, its sense is called allegoric, and in the case of a
particular form of allegory it is called parabolic (cf. Summa Theol.,
p. 1, q. 1, a. 10, ad 3).
t CÎ. Problemi scelti di teologia contemporanea (Rome 1954) 251273.
4

Scripture, The Written Deposit of Revelation

The ampler sense (“sensus plenior” called also the ultra­
literal or evangelical sense) would be a sense between the
literal and the typical, introduced and stressed by several mod­
ern exegetes,8 but rejected by others.89 It would be a sense in­
tended by God alone in the very words of the hagiographer,
beyond the sense understood and intended by the latter.10 It
seems difficult to admit such a sense, for it would be at once
literal (on the part of God) and not literal (on the part of the
hagiographer); in such case the words would carry an extra
sense which they do not have, since they are words proceeding
from the mind of the hagiographer, whom God uses as an in­
strument. Hence, this opinion seems to proceed from a false
notion of inspiration, because God inspires only and all that
the hagiographer says, and the biblical text proceeds totally
from two causes, that is, from God as principal author and
from the hagiographer as God’s instrument. There is no point
in appealing to the case of the typical sense, intended by God
and not understood by the hagiographer; for this sense is not
attached to the words themselves, but only to the things signi­
fied by the words. Thus it is extrinsic to the words and is
known only through the extrinsic revelation of God.11
2. The probative value of Scripture, as a theological place.

This value can be expressed with the following norms and
rules.
8 As A. Fernéndez, Institutiones btbltcae, vol. 1, p. 390; D. P. De
Ambroggi, J. Renié, D. Buzy, J. Cerfaux, J. M. Braun, M. Nicolau,
J. Coppens (see Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses [1958J 5-20).
9 As R. Bierberg, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly (1949) 182-185; J.
Daniélou (see Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses [1948] 119-126);
G. Courtade (see Recherches de science religieuse [1950J 481-497).
»0 This sense is used by the aforementioned exegetes, especially
in explaining some of the messianic prophecies, which the prophets
would not have understood in the full messianic meaning intended
by God. Thus, for instance, in the Emmanuel conceived of a young
woman (the Hebrew 'almâh, translated by virgin), Isaias (7.14) may
have understood Ezechias, son of Achaz, while God intended Christ,
the Messias.
11 With regard to the messianic prophecies, those that cannot be
sufficiently explained by the literal sense, are aptly and fully ex­
plained by the typical sense, without recourse to any “ampler sense.”
5

The Channels of Revelation

First norm. Since Scripture is a true deposit of revelation,
enhanced moreover by the charism of inspiration, it is a prop­
er, primary, privileged, and independent theological place,
from which a theologian can confidently proceed in his invesgation, drawing from it certain or probable arguments, accord­
ing to whether the sense of a biblical text is certain or only
probable. It is true that Scripture depends on Tradition and
particularly on the Magisterium with regard to the interpre­
tation of its sense; but, once this sense has been established,
theologians argue directly from Scripture, as from a proper
and primary place, even before arguing either from Tradition,
or from the Magisterium, which, being only the organ and
guardian of the deposit of faith, is inferior to it.12
Second norm. Since the Vulgate version, and this alone, has
been declared authentic by the Magisterium, that is, substan­
tially in conformity with the original text, the theologian can
and must take it into consideration in his labor, giving it pre­
ference to any other version or original text critically estab­
lished. However, since this declaration of the Magisterium re­
gards only the substantial conformity, in case of doubt as to
the conformity of some particular text of the Vulgate with the
original text as critically established, only a probable argu­
ment can be drawn from it, and, in the case of certain discrep­
ancy, no biblical argument can be claimed but only an argu­
ment of Tradition, inasmuch as Tradition de facto used the
text to express its faith in a particular truth. At any rate, the
critical investigation of the original text is very useful to the
theologian, even for the right understanding of the Vulgate
text, and hence he should be aware of the critical conclusion
of the exegetes about a particular text, before introducing it

12 Vatican II emphasizes this inferiority, saying: “The Magister­
ium is not above the Word of God, but rather ministers to it, teach­
ing only what has been handed on. Thus, by divine commission and
under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the Magisterium listens to
the Word of God piously, guards it religiously and exposes it faith­
fully, drawing from this deposit of faith all those things which it
proposes to be believed as divinely revealed” (Dogmatic Constitu­
tion on Divine Revelation, no. 10).
6

Scripture, The Written Deponit of Revelation
into his theological elaboration.13
Third norm. Regarding the interpretation of the sense of a
biblical text, we may distinguish three rules.

The first and supreme rule is the sense given by Tradition
and the Magisterium, as is explicitly and repeatedly stated by
the Magisterium itself. (Trent, Denz. 1507; Vatican I, Denz,
3007; Pius XII in his Encycl. “Humani Generis;” Vatican II,
Dogm. Constitution on Divine Revelation, nos. 10, 12, 23, 26).
In particular note the following. The morally unanimous agreement of the Fathers in interpreting a biblical text, if it
implies a positive and firm assertion about an object consid­
ered as pertaining to faith, makes their interpretation abso­
lutely certain, for this agreement is the voice of Tradition; on
the contrary a similar agreement of mere theologians makes
their interpretation only probable, because they are only falli­
ble witnesses to Tradition. Likewise the authentic interpreta­
tion of a text, given by the solemn Magisterium, is absolutely
certain. This is done in two ways. Either directly with the
manifested intention of interpreting a particular text; such is
the case of Rom. 5.12 on the universality of original sin, child­
ren included; John 3.5, on the necessity of true water in Bap­
tism; Matt.26.26 ff. and parallel texts, on the Eucharist in its
proper sense; John 20.22 f. on the sacrament of Penance; Jas.
5.14 f., on the Anointing of the Sick; Luke 22.19, on the insti­
tution of the priesthood; Matt. 16.16 f. and John 21.15 ff., on
Peter’s primacy (Denz. 1514, 1615, 1637, 1703, 1716, 1752,
3053). Or indirectly, by merely bringing forth a biblical text
with the evident intention of confirming a particular truth;
thus the Council of Trent introduces Rom. 5.12 to confirm the
doctrine of original sin, and 2 Tim. 1.6 f. in confirmation of
the sacrament of Orders (Denz. 1512, 1766). However, such
intention is not always clear, for often the Magisterium quotes
Scriptural texts only as a mere illustration and explanation.
In this case there is no authentic interpretation, but merely a
suitable use of such texts. Also the ordinary Magisterium en­
joys per se the same authoritative interpretation, although the
discernibility of its pronouncements is not so easy, by reason
13 Cf. Pius XII, Encycl. "Divino afflante Spiritu” 1943 (Denz.
3825).
7

The Channels of Revelation
of the manifold elements by which this Magisterium is made
up and carried out.

The second and subsidiary rule is the recourse to the so-call­
ed “analogy of faith,” that is, the mutual agreement which
must exist between the different truths of the same faith, so
that one cannot contradict the others, but rather one can illusrate another similar to it or connected with it. For example,
the Eucharist can be illustrated by the Incarnation and vice
versa, the mystery of the Church by the mystery of Christ and
vice versa, and the power of granting indulgences by the gen­
eral power of remitting sin.14
The third rule ( the only one left if the other two fail) is the
exegetical examination of the text, according to the two bibli­
cal senses, the literal and the typical (since the so-called
“ampler sense” seems hardly useful). Although the typical
sense is truly biblical, being intended by God, and often nob­
ler, on account of a higher object signified, the theologian
should turn his attention primary to the literal sense, for sev­
eral reasons. First, because it is necessary and universal, that
is, found in every word, while the typical sense is only occas­
ionally attached to the text. Secondly, because it is fundament­
al, since the typical sense is based on it and depends on it.
Thirdly, because it is more manifest and certain, since it is
known rationally, while the typical sense is known only
through God’s revelation. Fourthly, because it is scientifically
more efficacious, and hence more suitable to theological in­
vestigation ( it is even the only one which fits an apologetical
or rational purpose).15
14 This expression is found in several documents of the recent
Magisterium. See Leo XIII, Encycl. “Providentissimus” (Denz. 3283) ;
Pius X, Antimodcrnistic Oath (Denz. 3546); Pius XII, Encycl. “Hu­
mani generis” (Denz. 3887); Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on
Divine Revelation (no. 12). About the use of the “analogy of faith”
in theological investigation see our treatise on Introduction to Theo­
logy, p. 22.
w Cf. Pius XII, Encycl. “Divino afflante Spiritu” 1943 (Denz.
3829 f.). Vatican II insists expecially on the observation of the “lit­
erary forms,” in which the various books were written, considered
both generically, whether, for instance, their style is poetical or
8

Scripture, The Written Deposit of Revelation
Having clearly established the literal sense of a text the the­
ologian should turn his attention to its typical sense,16 which
often is the principal sense intended by God and which has a
truly demonstrative force. Thus, for example, from the fact
that Melchisedech as a priest was the typical figure of Christ,
as St. Paul testifies, we rightly and certainly infer that Christ,
like Melchisedech, offered a sacrifice. However, the existence
of the typical sense in a particular text should not be easily
asserted, for it is known only by revelation which is not clear
in many cases. Moreover, even when the existence of the typi­
cal sense is certain, its extension should not be unduly exag­
gerated; thus, from the sure fact that Melchisedech is a typi­
cal figure of Christ by reason of the superiority of his priest­
hood over the priesthood of Aaron, it does not necessarily fol­
low that he is the figure of Christ also under the other char­
acters, by which his excellence is described in Genesis, and
that we can necessarily infer such characters in Christ.

Hence the theologian should use only the more certain types
and take them only within the more certain limits of their
typicality. The apostles (particularly St. Paul) could handle
the typical sense more freely and more surely on account of
their charism of inspiration and revelation, and so could the
Fathers, by reason of a special assistance of the Holy Spirit
and of a connatural intuition, fruit of a deeper spiritual life
and of an intimate familiarity with the truths of faith; but
theologians do not enjoy such spiritual gifts.

prophetical, or historical, and specifically, that is, with regard to
the contemporary style, influenced by circumstances of time and
culture (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 12).
16 Cf. Pius Xll in the same Encyclical (Denz. 3828).
9

π
Tradition, The Living

Deposit of Revelation17

1. The nature of Tradition.
a) General notion

Tradition (in Latin “Traditio,” from “trans-do,” that is, I
hand over; in Greek “Parâdosis” from “parâ-didomai,” I hand
17 Cf. R. Hull, “The Council of Trent and Tradition” American
Ecclesiastical Review 81 (1929) 469-482, 602-615; Ch. Baumgartner,
“Tradition et Magistère,” Recherches de science religieuse 41 (1953)
161-187; G. Dejaifvc, “Bible, Tradition, Magistère dans le théologie
catholique," Nouvelle revue théologique 78 (1956) 133-151. D. Van
den Eynde, “Tradizione e Magistero,” Problemi c orientant enti di
teologia dommatica 1 (Milano 1957) 231-252; Schrift und Tradition
(collective work), Essen 1962; De Scriptura et traditione (collective
work), Roma 1963; J. Dupont, “Ecriture et Tradition,” Nouvelle
revue théologüjue 85 (1963) 337- 356, 449-468; Y. Congar, The Mean­
ing of Tradition (trans. Λ. N. Woodrow), New York 1964; Tradition
and Traditions. New York. 1967; J. Ratzinger and K. Rahner, Reve­
lation and tradition (trans, from the German), Freiburg 1966; Mys­
terium salutis. Dogmatique de l’histoire du salut (trans, from the
German), I 2: La révélation dans VEcriture et la Tradition, Paris
1969; P. Lengsfeld, “La tradition dans le temps constitutif de le
révélation,” Mysterium salutis I 2 (Paris 1969) 13-72; “Tradition et
Ecriture. Leur rapport,"ibid. 270-310; A. Kerrigan, “Doctrina Con­
cilii Vaticani I de ‘sine scripto Traditionibus’,” De doctrina Concilii
Vaticani Primi (Città dei Vaticano 1969) 3-26; A. Meredith, The The­
ology of Tradition, Notre Dame, Indiana 1971; J. Pelikan, The Chris­
tian Tradition, 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600),
Chicago 1971.
10

Tradition, The Living Deposit of Revelation

over) etymologically means the action of handing over some­
thing from one to another (active Tradition), and by logical
extension, it means also the thing, or object handed over (ob­
jective Tradition). In this double meaning of active and ob­
jective Tradition the word was used to signify the handing
over of Christian doctrines and usages, and it became classi­
cal in Christian literature as well as in theology. Scripture
speaks of doctrinal traditions of the Pharisees (Matt. 15.2,3,6;
Mark 7.3, 5,8,9,13), of heretics (Col. 2,8), and of the apostles
themselves (1 Cor. 11.2; 2 Thess. 2.14; 3.6). The Fathers and
the theologians up to the Council of Trent used the word Trad­
ition only in the general and complete sense of the entire
Christian revelation entrusted by Christ and the Apostles to
the Church and by the Church transmitted continuously
through whatever means (either written or oral). After the
Council of Trent, however, by reason of the Protestant claim
that the Christian doctrine is found and transmitted only in
the written Scripture, theologians took Tradition also in the
particular and restricted sense of whatever would be found
and transmitted only orally and not in the Scripture.

Hence the objective Tradition in theology is taken in two
senses. First and more properly, it signifies the integral Tradi­
tion. that is, everything handed over in the Church from
Christ and the apostles down to us, whether through inspired
writings (Scripture) or orally (through other means than
Scripture). Secondly, it signifies the partial Tradition, that is,
only that part of doctrines and usages which is not explicitly
or sufficiently found in Scripture but only in the oral Tradi­
tion.

The active Tradition ( or the action by which Christian doc­
trine is transmitted) in the apostolic times consisted in preachin (Christ, the apostles, their disciples) and in inspired writ­
ings (Scripture). In the following ages it consists in common
preaching, in the declarations of the Magisterium under the
assistance of the Holy Spirit, in the non-inspired writings of
the Fathers and of the other ecclesiastical doctors, and also,
equivalently or implicitly, in various practical means by
which the faith of the Church and of the people manifests it­
self, such as liturgical practices (liturgy), canonical laws (hav­
ing dogmatic foundation), and artistic productions (archaeo­
11

The Channels of Revelation
logical, architectural, sculptural, pictorial).

b) The proper character of Tradition as deposit of revela­
tion.
Tradition, taken as a whole (integral Tradition) is a true
and ever living deposit of revelation, whether it be written
in inspired Scripture or given through other means; hence
Scripture is not the only deposit of revelation or the only rule
of faith.

This has been defined, as de fide, against older and recent
adversaries10 by the Council of Trent, declaring that “the
truth and the discipline [first promulgated by Christ and
preached by the Apostles] is contained in the written books
and in the unwritten traditions, which have been received by
the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or under the18
18 In the second century Irenaeus and Tertullian opposed to the
Gnostics the force of Tradition. In the fourth century Pelagius,
founder of Pelagianism, is quoted by St. Augustine as saying: “Let
us believe what we read [in Scripture], and judge as unlawful to
build up what we do not read" (St. Augustine, On Nature and Grace
39). Not long before the rise of Protestantism, John Wyclif repeated:
“Λ truth, which is not found in Scripture, does not exist” (On Civil
Power 1.44, ed. Poole, pag. 339). The Protestants hold as fundament­
al the aphorism “Scripture is the only rule of faith” (thus Luther,
Melachthon, Calvin, and all the Confessions of Protestant faith, in­
cluding the Anglican).
Regarding the preaching of the apostles themselves, the Protes­
tants teach that it was for the time being a source of revelation, but
after the hagiographers consigned into inspired writing the truths
preached by the apostles, this Scripture succeeded to the preached
word as the only deposit of revelation and the only rule of faith.
Several modern Protestants, particularly among Anglicans and
French-Swiss Calvinists, grant some connatural value to Tradition
in interpreting the sense of Scripture, but they hold that only Scrip­
ture has of itself the force of rule of faith. The various valuations
of modern Protestants are described in the work Scripture and Trad­
ition, London, 1955.
In the Catholic work De Scriptura et Traditione (Roma 1963) 506512, there is a sufficient explanation of the doctrine of both the first
Reformers (Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin) and the mitigated modern
Protestants (I. A. Leuba, O. Cullmann, Fr. Leenhardt, M. Thurian).
12

Tradition, The Living Deposit of Revelation

dictation of the Holy Spirit have been transmitted by the
Apostles and have come down to us as it were from hand to
hand” ( Sess. 4, Denz. 1501 ). This definition has been repeated
verbatim by Vatican I (Sess. 3, chap. 2, Denz 3006) and ex­
plained more at length by Vatican II (Dogm. Constit. on Di­
vine Revelation, nos. 7-10).

The truth of this statement of the Magisterium is also ap­
parent from the following considerations. First, Christ him­
self wrote no books, but only preached his doctrine, and gave
likewise the apostles no command to consign his doctrines to
writings, but commanded them to preach them to all nations
under the continued assistance of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28.18
f.; Mark 16.15; John 14.16,26); hence Christ deposited his
revelation in a living and perpetual Tradition.
Secondly, the apostles constantly claimed for themselves the
office of preaching (1 Cor. 7.17; 11.23; 2 Cor. 1.18; Gal. 1.8;
Col. 2.6; 2 Thess. 2.14), but never the task of writing. Hence
they proposed the living Tradition as the main deposit of rev­
elation. In particular St. Paul entrusted the same office to his
disciple Timothy, saying: “Hold to the form of sound teach­
ing which thou hast heard from me . . . Guard the good trust
through the Holy Spirit . . . The things that thou hast heard
from me through many witnesses, commend to trustworthy
men who shall be competent in turn to teach others” I 2 Tim.
1.13 f.; 2.2) and he reminded the Thessalonians of his teach­
ing given to them through his words and his previous letter:
“Stand firm, and hold the teachings that you have learned,
whether by word or by letter of ours” (2 Thess. 2.14; the let­
ter here is pointed out not as something special and formal,
but as one of the two means by which de facto St. Paul com­
municated his doctrine to the Thessalonians).

Thirdly, the New Testament Scripture does not bear the
character of an official compendium of doctrines and laws,
authoritatively given to the faithful, but it shows only a limit­
ed, or secondary, or occasional character. It is a collection of
historical narratives on the life of Christ and on the acts of the
apostles, of pastoral and instructional letters, and of future
apocalyptical events, written unevenly by few of the apostles
(Matthew, author of one gospel; John, author of another gos-

13

The Channels of Revelation
pci, three short epistles and the Apocalypse; James and Jude,
each author of one epistle; Peter, author of two epistles; Paul,
author of most of the epistles). If the apostles had intended
to leave after them the Scripture to succeed their preaching
as the sole norm of faith, all of them would have cooperated,
at least through a common consultation, to its drafting and
they would have written it in clear and orderly manner, in the
form of a code of doctrines and laws for the Church, as was
done by Moses in the Old Testament for the synagogue.
Fourthly, even after the Holy Scripture, or part of it, had
been written, the apostles kept appealing to the authority of
their preaching; only once or twice they mentioned occasion­
ally the authority of one or another writing of the New Testa­
ment; thus St. Peter, 2nd ep. 3.15 f., mentions the authority of
the epistles of St. Paul, and John in the Apoc. 1.11; 22.7, 9,19,
18 f., testifies to the prophetical character of his own book; St.
Paul himself in his second epistle to the Thessalonians refers
to his first epistle merely as to one of the two means by which
he had exposed his doctrine to them (see above).

If we compare this intearal Tradition with Scripture, it is
manifest that it is an older, ampler and more independent de­
posit of revelation. It is older that Scripture, because the
preaching of the revealed truth had been steadily going on for
about twenty years before the oldest writings of the Holy
Scripture (the two epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians)
came out.19 It is ampler than Scripture, first because it in­
cludes Scripture itself, which is a written Tradition and then
because it contains some truths and customs which were not

19 Christ preached his gospel for about two years before his death,
which took place in the year 30 of our era, and he continued to in­
struct the apostles for forty days after the resurrection. The apostles
after the Pentecost kept on preaching for about twenty years before
the first writings of the Holy Scripture, namely, the two epistles of
St. Paul to the Thessalonians, were issued (about 50-51; a first gos­
pel of St. Matthew, suppositively written in Aramaic between 40 and
50, is lost and is not part of the actual canon of Scripture). The three
Synoptic Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles were written between
the year 62 and the year 70: the Apocalypse about the year 95: and
St. John’s gospel between 90 and 100.
14

Tradition, The Living Deposit of Revelation

consigned or sufficiently expressed in Scripture (see below).
It is a more independent and self-sufficient deposit, because it
does not depend on Scripture for its interpretation, while
Scripture depends on Tradition both for its interpretation (see
above, p. 7) and for its own authority since we know only
from Tradition that Scripture (at least as a whole) is inspired;
besides, Scripture is not absolutely necessary for the Church,
but Tradition with the Magisterium as its interpreter would
have been strictly sufficient.
On the other hand Scripture enjoys a relative excellence
over the unwritten Tradition, first, because it is precisely a
written document, for writings are more definite and more
easily preserved from alteration (according to the aphorism
“Words fly, writings remain”), and secondly and especially
because it is written by God himself through the inspiration of
the hagiographer. Hence we understand why God provided the
Church and its Magisterium with this privileged channel, so
that Christ’s teaching could be handed over more surely and
easily, and the Magisterium itself would be helped in its exam­
ination and finding of the revealed truth by the collation of
both deposits of revelation. By reason of this intimate con­
nection and community of purpose between Scripture and un­
written Tradition, we may say with Vatican II that they make
up together one single and total deposit of revelation.20

We stated above ( p. 11) that Tradition can be taken in two
senses, that is, as integral Tradition, which includes Scripture
itself, and as partial or constitutive Tradition, which is dis­
tinct from Scripture as to its object, because it contains some
doctrines and usages not sufficiently shown in Scripture. Late­
ly some writers have denied the very existence of constitutive
Tradition as regards the revealed truths (not the usages),
claiming that these truths are contained totally in Scripture
and totally in Tradition, and hence there is no constitutive but
only declarative Tradition, which only explains and declares
what is already sufficiently contained in Scripture.21 This

20 Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 9 f.
21 This opinion which gave rise to a sharp controversy, was pro­
posed for the first time, at least explicitly and definitely, in 1956 by
J. R. Geiselmann, "Das Missverstandnis über das Verhaltnis von
15

The Channels of Revelation

opinion was simply rejected and severely criticized by other
theologians of the traditional type, as being opposed to the
declarations of Trent and Vatican I (sec above p. 12).22 How­
ever, other authors have tried to follow a middle opinion, say­
ing that all the revealed truths are in some way truly contain­
ed in Scripture, but only as to their substance, or virtually, or
implicitly, or not simply, so that Tradition accidentally and
truly completes Scripture.23

Discarding the particular features of this debate, there are
four things which seem to be admitted by everyone. First, sev­
eral matters concerning discipline (morals and usages) of
divine origin and connected with revealed truths (for instance
infant Baptism) are found in Tradition and not sufficiently in
Scripture; hence there is a coîtstitutive Tradition regarding
these. Secondly, the canonicity and inspiration of Scripture as
a whole is known only through Tradition and not through
Scripture itself (see above p. 14); hence there is also a con­
stitutive Tradition regarding this important truth. Thirdly,
the knowledge of several truths, as derived from Scripture, is
not certain unless it is completed by the data of Tradition;
Schrift und Tradition und seine Ueberwindung in dor katholischen
Théologie,” Una Sancta 11 (1956) 131-150: Die Heilige Schrift
und the Tradition (“Quaestiones disputatae” 18), Freiburg-BaselWien 1962. He was followed bv several other writers, particular­
ly by G. H. Tavard. Holy Writ or Holy Church. The Crisis of the
Protestant Reformation. London 1959: cf. his two articles in Theo­
logical Studies (1962) 337-405: (1963) 278-290, and H. Holstein. “La
Tradition d'après le concile de Trente,” Recherches de science re­
ligieuse (1959) 367-390; La Tradition dans V Eglise, Paris, 1960.
22 Thus H. Lennerz (who was the first to attack Geiselmann),
“Scriptura sola?”, Gregorianum 40 (1959) 39-53; “Sine scripto tradi­
tiones.” ibid. 42 (1961) 517-522: C. Boyer, "Traditions apostoliques
non écrites.” Doctor Communis 15 (1962) 5-21; cf. ibid. 16 (1963)
51-57; 17 (1964) 5-19; B. Xiberta, La Tradiciôn y su problemâtica
actual. Barcelona 1964; several among the writers in the collective
works Schrift und Tradition. Essen 1962, and De Scriptura et Tradi­
tione, Roma 1963. edited on the occasion of this controversy and of
the opening of Vatican Council II.
23 Thus, among others, J. Beumer in the collective work De
Scriptura et Traditione (Roma 1963) 17-40, and Y. M.-J. Congar, in
Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 48 (1964) 645-657.
16

Tradition, 'Die Living Deposit of Revelation
hence there is a completive Tradition in this regard. Fourthly,
the knowledge of other truths derived from Scripture is fur­
ther illustrated and confirmed by Tradition; and hence there
is a declarative Tradition. These are the four ways in which
Tradition truly completes and perfects Scripture.24
But, furthermore, it seems to us that the constitutive Tradi­
tion must be enlarged with regard to several other truths,
which can hardly be said to be sufficiently expressed or in­
dicated in Scripture, even implicity, so as to be necessarily
drawn from other truths, explicitly related in it. Such are, for
instance, the validity of Baptism administered by a heretic
or a pagan, which St. Augustine claims from Tradition alone
(On Baptism 5.23); the necessity of Baptism for infants, or
their inclusion in John 3.5, which the Council of Trent refers
to the “tradition of the apostles” (sess. 5, can. 4, Denz. 1514);
the non-necessity of Communion for infants, or their non-inclusion in John 6.53, according to the same Council (sess. 21,
chap. 4, Denz. 1730); the sevenfold number of the sacraments;

24 These are also the conclusions briefly indicated by Vatican II
(Dogm. Constit. on Divine Revelation, no. 8 f.). The Council teaches:
“Through Tradition the complete canon of the Sacred Books comes
to be known by the Church”; “through Tradition the Sacred Writ­
ings are more fully understood and become unceasingly active”;
“Tradition transmits integrally the word of God to the successors of
the apostles [that is, to the Magisterium], so that through their
preaching they may faithfully preserve, explain, and spread it”;
“The Church draws its certitude about all the revealed things not
from the Sacred Scripture alone.”
The Council, therefore, attributes four things to Tradition, name­
ly, the knowledge of the canonical books, a fuller understanding of
what is contained in Scripture, the transmission of the entire revela­
tion, and the certitude about all the revealed truths. The first two
things are attributed to Tradition alone, as distinct from Scripture;
of which the very first shows a constitutive Tradition, the second a
completive, or at least a declarative. Tradition.
In one passage the Council says that “the apostolic preaching is
expressed in a special manner in the inspired books.” This refers
both to the character and force of the charism of inspiration, and
to the fullness of particular facts and circumstances about Christ’s
life and the apostolic ministry, known through the Gospels and the
Acts.
17

The Channels of Revelation
the cult of images, which St. John Damascene refers to Tradi­
tion (On the Orthodox Faith 4.16); the Immaculate Concep­
tion and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, truths which
were developed only in later Tradition through the sense of
the faithful.
However, we can say that these and all the other revealed
truths are found also in Scripture in some way, inasmuch as
one can always find in Scripture itself some seed or founda­
tion from which they can be derived by means of the data of
Tradition. Thus we can understand better how Scripture and
Tradition complete each other and make up, as it were, one
single deposit of revelation having two modes of expression,
interrelated and necessary for the full knowledge of a revealed
truth. This seems to be the mind of the Vatican Council IT,
when it prefers to speak of “one deposit of revelation,” as well
as of Pius XII himself who, defining the Assumption of the
Blessed Virgin, declares: “All these arguments and considera­
tions of the Holy Fathers and theologians are based on the
Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation” (Denz. 3900).

c. Discernibility of Tradition.

There are two ways, or criteria, through which we can find
out for certain whether a doctrine or practice belongs to Tradi­
tion.
The first and primary criterion is the declaration of the
Magisterium, especially the infallible and solemn. Hence, if
the Magisterium explicitly declares that a doctrine is found
in Tradition, it is certainly so; if the Magisterium merely de­
fines or teaches a doctrine, such a doctrine is necessarily found
in the deposit of revelation, and hence either in Scripture or
Tradition or both.
The second criterion (open both to the theologian and to the
Magisterium itself which, before defining a truth must inquire
whether it is really contained in the deposit of revelation) is
the examination of the various means through which the ob­
jective Tradition is transmitted, or in which the active Tradi­
tion consists ( see above p. 11). This criterion is generically ex­
pressed in the famous statement of Vincent of Lerins ( ~before
450): “In the Catholic Church great care must be taken that

18

Tradition, The Living Deposit of Revelation

we hold what has been believed everywhere, always, and by
all” (Commonitorium primum, chap. 2); this is to say, that a
doctrine which de facto is universally believed, belongs to
Tradition. This universality of belief can be ascertained es­
pecially in two ways, namely through the doctrine of the Fa­
thers and through the common sense of the faithful. Hence if
the Fathers commonly teach, as a truth of faith, a doctrine not
sufficiently contained in Scripture, such a doctrine has surely
been transmitted or developed by Tradition; likewise, if a
doctrine, whose origin cannot be ascertained through the Fa­
thers or the Councils, is nevertheless commonly believed in
the Church, it certainly comes down from Tradition.

2. The probative value of Tradition, as a theological place.

This value can be expressed with the following six norms.
First norm. Since Tradition is a true and primary deposit of
revelation, it is consequently a proper, primary and independ­
ent theological place, from which a theologian can confidently
proceed in his investigation. It is a primary place even with re­
spect to Scripture, in the sense explained above (p. 14). It is
simply independent from Scripture, even for its interpreta­
tion, it is also independent from the Magisterium, not as to its
interpretation (for the Magisterium interprets both Scripture
and Tradition), but as to its probative force, as explained above with regard to Scripture ( p. 6 ).

Second norm. In interpreting the sense of Tradition, the first
and supreme rule is the authentic declaration of the Magis­
terium, as we stated also for Scripture (p. 7). However, this
does not dispense a theologian from inquiring directly into the
various means by which Tradition is handed over ( see above
p. 11), in order to clarify the truth of the magisterial declara­
tion and to complete his own theological knowledge.
Third norm. A theological argument or investigation can be
based on any of the means by which Tradition is handed over,
as the Magisterium, the Fathers, liturgy, etc.; but it will be
more effective, if it is based on several at once, in the manner
of a synthesis, showing how a truth flows from the original
source through the various channels and branches of the same
Tradition.
19

The Channels of Revelation
Fourth norm. Among these means, the doctrine of the
Fathers has a particular value and a greater force in any argu­
ment drawn from Tradition, because it is scientifically the
surest and easiest way to find the truth; this is the reason why
the argument from Tradition is often called “argument from
the Fathers” and is confined mainly to their doctrine.25 In the
making of such an argument, the texts should be critically and
certainly established, the doctrine should be carefully valuated, to make sure that the Fathers speak of a doctrine about
faith or morals and propose it positively ( not merely opiniatively) as something to be held with faith, and finally the
morally unanimous agreement of the Fathers on such a doc­
trine should be established.26

Fifth norm. Since a particular truth can be contained in
Tradition only implicitly and later become explicit through
legitimate and logical progress in the Christian mind and con­
science (see below p. 49), the argument of Tradition for such
a truth consists precisely in showing how it was implicitly con23 We are dealing here with the Fathers only as witnesses of Tra­
dition or as part of it. Further below (op. 24-27) we shall consider
them as private doctors having a personal and fallible authority and
we will also explain the proper concept and meaning of the title
“Father of the Church.”
2fl In order to have a morally unanimous agreement, it is suf­
ficient that all the Fathers of one age agree: for, Tradition being
one and immutable, one age cannot disagree with another. It is also
sufficient that all the Fathers of one large part of the Church, for
instance the Western or the Eastern regions, agree, while the other
part does not positively disagree: for, the Church being one in faith,
it is impossible that a large part of it disagrees with the other about
the same faith. Likewise, it is sufficient that several outstanding
Fathers, in various principal churches and in various places and
times, agree: for. it is impossible that a large and important part of
the Church be lacking in faith. It may also happen that the doctrine
of very few Fathers, or even of one single Father, be sufficient, as
expressing the tacit agreement of the others, if those Fathers or that
Father have been recognized (particularly by the Magisterium) as
doctors or defenders of the common faith in a particular circum­
stance or with regard to a particular dogma, as is the case of St.
Athanasius in the question of Incarnation against Arianism, and of
St. Augustine in the question of grace against Pelagianism.
20

Tradition, The Living Deposit of Revelation
tained in another explicit truth since the beginning and how
afterwards it progressed step by step from implicit to explicit.
Thus, for the truth of the Immaculate Conception, the logical
and historical steps of its progress were: the fullness of grace
in Mary (the biblical “Hail, full of grace’’), the comparison
with the purity of Eve before the original sin (several Fa­
thers), the greatest sanctity after that of Christ as was fitting
divine maternity (Fathers and theologians, particularly S.
Thomas), finally privileged immunity from original sin in
conception (definition of the Magisterium).

Sixth norm. When the preceding direct ways of determin­
ing a traditional truth fail or are less efficacious ( by reason of
the lack of documents or the multiplicity of elements necessary
to show the continuity of a doctrine with the apostolic times),
the theologian may have recourse to the so-called argument of
prescription, which, although indirect, is likewise based on
Tradition.27
This argument can take a negative or a positive form. Its
negative form amounts to this: The Church, in some determin­
ed age and for a long time before, has peacefully taught a doc­
trine as being of apostolic origin ( for instance the doctrine of
the seven sacraments, held explicitly from the 12th to the
16th centuries, when the Protestants attacked it). But adver­
saries cannot prove the non-apostolic origin of such doctrine,
or assign the author, time, place, manner, by which it would
have arisen in some subsequent age. Therefore, they have no
right to attack the apostolic origin of such doctrine and the
Church has the title of prescription of such doctrine, that is,
the right of not being disturbed in its profession.
27 This argument was sagaciously introduced and effectively used
first by Tertullian in his work On the Prescription of Heretics (about
the year 200), who transferred analogically the concept of prescrip­
tion from its proper juridical object to the apologetico-theological
field. Its basic principle is: “The possessor has the juridical advant­
age” (“Melior est conditio possidentis”); which means that no one
can be disturbed in his peaceful and continued possession of some­
thing, until certain documents are brought forward to prove that
he has no right on such thing. Cf. P. De Labriolle "L’argument de
prescription,” Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuse (1906)
408-429, 497-514.
21

The Channels of Revelation
Its positive and stronger form, which goes beyond the mere
concept of prescription by showing the exclusion of possible
causes of a post-apostolic origin of some doctrine, runs as fol­
lows: If a doctrine, which is considered apostolic, would have
been introduced in some later time, this would have happened
in two ways, namely, either by a common conspiracy of de­
ception, or by a general relaxation, carelessness, and inadver­
tence, through which an error would have been slowly intro­
duced. Now, both ways are excluded, in view of the diversity
of places and persons, and especially of the zeal of many faith­
ful and pastors in guarding the deposit of faith. Therefore,
such a doctrine is truly of apostolic origin and pertains to Tra­
dition.

Note 1. On the sense of the faithful, as a theological place.20

We stated above ip. 19) that one of the ways of discerning
Tradition, or knowing whether a particular doctrine belongs
to Tradition, is to consult the common sense of the faithful
This common sense can be considered as one of the means by
which Tradition is handed over, or rather it is an outstanding
witness to Tradition.

The importance of this witness lies in its infallibility. usual­
ly called passive infallibility ( with respect to the active in­
fallibility of the Magisterium, which has a great influence on
it): however it likewise has its own true active character as
being also under the direct influence of the Holy Soirit. This
infallibility is based on the assistance of the Holy Spirit pro­
mised by Christ to the Church as a whole, even abstracting
from the Magisterium (cf. John 14.16; 17.20-22; 1 Tim. 3.14.
where the entire Church is called ‘‘the pillar and the mainstay
of the truth”). It is shown also by the following considerations.
The purpose of the infallible Magisterium, which is to direct
and strengthen the faith of the Christian people (cf. Matt.
16.18; 28.18-20), would be frustrated if the people would ever23

23 Cf. F. Marin-Sola. L’évolution homogène du dogme catholique
(Fribourg. Swisse 1924) 353-392: C. Balic, “Il senso Cristiano c il pro­
gresso del dogma.” Gregorianum 33 (1952) 106-134; W. M. Thomp­
son. “Sensus fidelium and Infallibility.” American Ecclesiastical
Review 167 (1973) 450-486.
22

Tradition, The Living Deposit of Revelation
err in matters of faith. The Fathers in their controversies with
heretics, and the Magisterium itself in its definitions, appeal
to the common sense of the faithful; thus Pius IX before defin­
ing the Immaculate Conception inquired of the bishops
throughout the world “what was the piety and devotion of
their faithful toward the Immaculate Conception of the
Mother of God;” moreover the Vatican Council II explicitly
declared the infallibility of the Christian people, as a property
of the prophetic office of the Church in which they share.29

Reason itself illustrates this truth by an analogical compari­
son with that kind of natural infallibility, resting on intuition,
which is found in the so-called common sense. For, just as this
natural sense spontaneously springs up from common natural
reason, on the basis of evident general principles, and be­
comes an acknowledged criterion manifesting natural truth,
so the common agreement of the faithful about some super­
natural truth can not but spring connaturally from their com­
mon faith, infused and moved in their hearts by the Holy
Spirit.30
The principal means of descerning this sense of the faithful
are Christian literature, the practice of prayer and devotions,
popular preaching, and the monuments of Christian art itself
(architectural, sculptural, pictorial).

By reason of its infallibility, this Christian sense, besides
being a witness or sign of Tradition, can be taken also as a
distinct theological place, having by itself the force of a princi­
ple of theological argumentation. However, it must be used
29 “The holy People of God shares also in the prophetic office of
Christ, by spreading a living testimony to Him especially by a life
of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the
fruit of lips praising His name (cf. Heb. 13.15). The whole body of
the faithful, anointed as it is by the Holy One (cf. John 2.20 and 27),
cannot be deceived in his belief. It manifests this property by means
of the supernatural sense of faith of the whole people, when, ’from
the Bishops down to the lowest member of the laity’ [St. Augustine,
On the Predestination of Saints 14.27] it shows a universal agree­
ment in matters of faith and morals” (Dogmatic Constitution on the
Church, no. 12).
30 Cf. Marin-Sola, op. ctt. 382 f.

23

The Channels of Revelation
with careful discretion, that is, only when the universal agree­
ment of the Christian people is certain and when it is question
of principal and more common truths which alone are easily
brought into explicit and general knowledge, as well as into
definite and common practice, just as in the order of natural
truths no one would reasonably appeal to the common sense,
except in those things which are of interest to all and suitable
to the intelligence and judgment of all.

Note 2. On the Fathers of the Church as a theological place.31

The Fathers of the Church can be considered in two ways.
First as witnesses to Tradition, as we considered them above
(pp. 7, 11, 19, 20), and thus they are a primary and sure
theological place, or rather they mingle with other elements
into one primary theological place which is Tradition itself.
Secondly, they can be considered in themselves or in their
capacity and value as private doctors in the Church, and thus
they represent a particular and distinct theological place, but
of secondary and mere probable value, as we shall explain be­
low, after a brief determination of the notion of Father of the
Church and of the connected notions of ecclesiastical writer
and of Doctor of the Church.

Father of the Church, as a title of traditional use, was orig­
inally connected with the concept of generating others in
Christian faith, and later received its full theological mean­
ing, according to which Father of the Church is properly de­
fined: He who. by reason of a particular holiness, eminent and
orthodox doctrine, remote antiquity, and ecclesiastical appro­
bation, had a connatural influence in the generation of the
faithful and the propagation of the faith.

Hence four qualities are required in a man to deserve such
title. Particular holiness is required, by reason of the intimate
connection between Christian life and Christian doctrine.
Eminent and orthodox doctrine is required by the concept of
paternity in faith, lest the petty would generate the petty and
the blind would guide the blind; however, the eminence of
31 Cf. Y. M.-J. Congar, “Les Saints Pères, organes privilégiés de
la Tradition.” Irénikon 35 (1962) 479-498.
24

Tradition, The Living Deposit of Revelation
doctrine is to be understood relatively to the time and other
circumstances (as is, for instance, effective refutation of here­
sies); orthodoxy is not affected by a particular error, either
secondary (as found in many Fathers) or material (as was St.
Cyprian’s error on rebaptism). Remote antiquity, or nearness
to the beginnings of the Church, is required that one may be
considered as generating and bringing to maturity the adoles­
cent Church; this condition applies strictly to the first five
centuries, (up to and including St. Gregory the Great +604),
but theologians commonly extend the patristic age to the
eighth century, more exactly up to St. Isidore of Seville
(+636) in the West and to St. John Damascene (+about 749)
in the East. Ecclesiastical approbation is required because only
the Magisterium is qualified to judge on the orthodoxy of a
writer; this approbation is given either in general, inasmuch
as Councils and Roman Pontiffs in their acts refer generically
to the authority of the Fathers, or in particular, and again
either implicitly, if the works of a writer are publicly used in
the acts of the Magisterium, or explicitly, if the works of an
individual writer are commended by name (thus St. Augus­
tine’s works were directly commended by Popes Celestine and
Hormisdas; Saints Cyprian, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Athananius, and others, were commended by Pope Gelasius; cf.
Denz. 237,353 ) or even solemnly by the attribution of the spec­
ial title “Doctor of the Church” (as Saints Ambrose, Augus­
tine, Jerome, and others; see below).

Ecclesiastical writer, in the strict sense and as distinguished
from “Father,” is the one who enjoys antiquity but lacks one
or another of the three remaining properties required in a
Father, that is, holiness, orthodoxy, or approbation of the
Church. Especially by reason of the lack of full orthodoxy, the
title of Father of the Church is to be refused to some very out­
standing ecclesiastical writers, such as Tertullian, Origen, and
Eusebius of Cesarea.32 However, in the theological argument
32 The following are not strictly Fathers: some among the so-call­
ed Apologists of the second century, that is, Aristides, Athenagoras,
and Tatian (this one on account of his heretical Encratism); like­
wise Tertullian (on account of his montanist heresy), Origen (who
was condemned several times for some unorthodox opinions, such
as the preexistence of souls and the universal eschatological rear25

The Channels of Revelation
from the Fathers or from Tradition, these and other ecclesias­
tical writers are included on account of the value of their re­
maining doctrine, in which they are at times far superior to
those who are properly Fathers; such is Tertullian in apolo­
getics, Origen in exegesis and generally in theology, and Euse­
bius of Caesarea in ecclesiastical history.33

Doctor of the Church is a special and specific title given by
the Magisterium, since the end of the thirteenth century
(starting from Boniface VIII in 1295). It was first given to
some of the Fathers, and then also to theologians and other
ecclesiastical writers, for both their holiness and their eminent
doctrine, which in some particular matter or manner contri­
buted to the building up of the faith. Up to the present time 32
have been declared doctors. 20 among the Fathers and 12 among theologians (of whom two are women, Catherine of
Siena and Theresa of Avila). The first Fathers declared doc­
tors by Boniface VIII in 1295 are the four great doctors of the
West: Ambrose. Augustine. Jerome, and Gregory the Great;
much later Pius V in 1568 gave the same title to the four great
doctors of the East, Athanasius. Basil. Gregory of Nazianzus,
and Chrysostom. The first, theologian to receive the title was
St. Thomas Aquinas (by Pius V in 1567) and the second was
St. Bonaventure (by Sixtus V in 1588).34

rangement of the fate of men), Arnobius. Lactantius, Eusebius of
Caesarea (who was not sufficiently exempt from Arianism), Rufinus
of Aquilea (who indirectly favored Origenism). Thcodoret of Cyrus
and Theodore of Mopsuesta (for their connection with Nestorianism).
33 Often in the same argument arc included also some of the out­
standing writers of the late patristic or medieval age, particularly
Bede (4-735), Anselm of Canterbury ( | 1109), and Bernard of Clairvaux (4-1153).
34 The other doctors among the Fathers, besides the eight just
mentioned, are: Anselm of Canterbury (declared doctor in 1720),
Isidore of Seville (1722), Peter Cbrysologus (1729). Leo the Great
(1754), Peter Damian (1828). Bernard of Clairvaux (1830). Hilary of
Poitiers (1851), Cyril of Alexandria (1882), Cyril of Jerusalem
(1882), John Damascene (1890), Bede (1899), Ephraem (1920).
The other doctors among theologians, besides St. Thomas and St.
Bonaventure, are: St. Alphonsus Liguori (1871), St. Francis de Sales
(1877), St. Peter Canisius (1925), St. John of the Cross (1926). St.
26

Tradition, The Living Deposit of Revelation
The Fathers < and proportionally also the other ecclesiastical
writers), not as witnesses to Tradition (see above, p. 20) but
as private doctors, that is, when they do not propose a doctrine
as to be held by faith or do not unanimously agree on such a
doctrine, make up a proper and distinct theological place, but
only secondary and probable, on which therefore a theologian
can base only a probable argumentation.

However, these probable patristic arguments are not to be
discarded or undervalued, for these writers greatly contribut­
ed to the increase and evolution of theological science, as is
evident particularly of so many secondary doctrines of St.
Augustine, which gave to medieval theologians the opportuni­
ty of inquiring further into various theological truths, some of
which (as that on the sacramental character) reached later
on the maturity of a dogma defined by the Magisterium. Nat­
urally the force of probability in such arguments grows ac­
cording to the number of Fathers who can be brought forward
(short of universal agreement), to their greater nearness to
the apostolic age, and to the greater authority of one or an­
other individual Father, based on a superior intelligence, or a
particular inquiry into the subject matter, or a special ap­
probation of the Church (such is the theological authority of
St. Augustine above all the other Fathers, even of the Eastern
Church).

Note 3. On the theologians as a theological placed
Like the Fathers, theologians can be considered in two ways.
First, as witnesses to Tradition; thus all that has been said above about the Fathers ( p. 20 ) applies proportionally to them,
although in a much lesser degree of importance and authority.
Robert Bellarmine (1931), St. Albert the Great (1932), St. Anthony
of Padua (1946), St. Lawrence of Brindisi (1959), Ste. Theresa of
Avila (1970), Ste. Catherine of Siena (1970). Regarding these last
two Doctors, first among women to be honored by the Church with
such title, see Civiltà Cattolica 121 (1970), vol. 3, pp. 458-468; vol.
4, pp. 18-30; Claretianum 12 (1972) 257-289.
35 Cf. II. Lamiroy, “De auctoritate theologorum,” Collationes
Brugenses 24 (1924) 66-69; H. Van Laak, Theses quaedam de Patrum
et theologorum magisterio necnon de fidelium sensu (Roma 1933)
33-49.
27

The Channels of Revelation
Secondly, they can be considered as private doctors, and in this
respect they are like the Fathers, but at a lower level, a dis­
tinct theological place of secondary and mere probable value.

Theologians by definition are Catholic men, who after the
closing of the patristic age have taught or teach sacred science,
either by word in the schools or (and especially ) by writings,
with an eminently orthodox doctrine and under the approba­
tion of the Magisterium.
Among the four properties required in the Fathers (see
above p.24), only two are required in a theologian, that is, no
antiquity and no official holiness, but eminent orthodox doc­
trine and the approbation of the Magisterium.3®
The doctrine must be strictly theological, although auxiliary
sciences are not excluded by reason of their intimate connec­
tion with theology. It can be also a doctrine proposed only by
words (as in teaching or preaching), although it is usually
given or accompanied by writings. It must be eminent; for not
everyone who dabbles with theology, or even teaches theology,
or achieves the academic degree of doctor in theology, is prop­
erly a theologian, but only he who produces valuable theologi­
cal writings, according to the common estimation, or spends a
long and successful teaching career. It must be orthodox, es­
sentially and as a whole, notwithstanding a possible secondary
or material error, as we said in regard to the Fathers them­
selves (p.25). The approbation of the Church must be at least
general and implicit, that is, contained in the very fact that
the words or the writings of a doctor are allowed by the vigi­
lant Magisterium to be used in preaching, instruction of the
faithful, and in the program of schools. However, also an ex­
plicit approbation has often been given to theologians by the
Magisterium, either in general or in particular (as in the case
of St. Thomas), and moreover some of them (twelve up to the
present time, as shown above, p. 26) have been also given the

38 Hence strictly speaking all the ecclesiastical writers from the
eighth century on, including St. Bede (+735), St. Anselm (4-1109),
and St. Bernard (+1153), are theologians, although in a stricter or
more common sense, only the scientific writers from the twelfth
century on are called “theologians.”
28

Tradition, The Living Deposit of Revelation

official title of Doctor of the Church i first in time St. Thomas
himself).37

Theologians, considered not as witnesses to Tradition, but
as private doctors, that is, when they do not propose a doctrine
as of faith or do not unanimously agree on such doctrine, con­
stitute, like the Fathers themselves, although on a lower level,
« proper and distinct theological place, but only secondary
and probable, whose force is greater or lesser according to the
authority and the number of the defenders of a doctrine. Such
theologically probable doctrines should not be undervalued,
for they often carry the seed of a future certain doctrine,
which will finally gather the general agreement and pave the
way to a solemn declaration of the Magisterium; at any rate,
they are always useful for a deeper understanding of the re­
vealed truths.

As regards the solid probability of a theological opinion,
and hence its conformity with the teaching of the Magisterium,
it is not sufficient that such an opinion be held by one or a few
theologians, unless it is a question of a theologian especially
commended by the Magisterium, particularly under the title
of Doctor of the Church (such as St. Thomas), or of a few com­
monly recognized as weighty authorities in their field. Hence
Alexander VII condemned the following laxist proposition:
“An opinion, expressed in the book of a younger or modern
37 Among others, the following are certain and outstanding theo­
logians: The twelve Doctors of the Church, mentioned above (among
whom two women); the leaders of the better known theological
schools, as St. Thomas, Scotus, Suârez; their principal predecessors
and followers, as Peter Lombard, Alexander of Hales, Albert the
Great, Bonaventure, Capreolus, Cajetan, Ferrariensis, Victoria, Cano,
Toletus, Vâsquez, Molina, Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and many others up to our present time, in a spec­
ial manner the authors of works used as manual or reference books
in theological schools, for the instruction and formation of future
apostolic preachers.
Heretical and schismatic writers, as well as those whose doctrine
has been censured by the Magisterium (as Catholic Semirationalists
and Semimodernists), however learned they may be in auxiliary
sciences or disciplines, are not theologians, for lack of orthodox
doctrine.
29

The Channels of Revelation
author, should be considered as probable, as long as it is not
evident that it has been rejected as improbable by the Apos­
tolic See” (Denz. 20471.38

Thomas Aquinas, among and above all other theologians,
may be considered as a particular and distinct theological
place, having a stronger probable value for a sound and sure
theological investigation.39 This is based on a very special
commendation of his works and doctrines by the Magisterium,
beyond the title of Doctor of the Church, given also to several
other theologians. The Magisterium, in fact, besides contin­
uously praising and commending his doctrines through cen­
turies since the very day of his canonization by John XXII
38 This is more than a warning to that kind of theological laxism
or immoderate freedom, claimed for probable opinions in the pre­
sent time. Some recent writers have even gone so far as to claim for
the theologians a kind of Magisterium in the Church, practically
equal or at least parallel to that of the Hierarchy, based on an alleg­
ed true magisterial office which would pertain to the entire Church.
Thus we read in the work Dissent In and For the Church (by Charles
E. Curran. Robert E. Hunt, and others. New York 1969, p. 86 f.): “In
the face of this trend toward establishing an exclusive teaching pre­
rogative in the hierarchy, recent historical studies have exercised a
modifying influence by pointing out the presence of error in past
papal and episcopal teaching and the correction of error by way of
theological dissent. Dissent thus appears traditionally as one pos­
sible, responsible option in the theological task. and. in its own way,
is an intrinsic element in the total magisterial function of the
Church. The entire Church, as truly magistral, can never be con­
tained simply and exclusively in what has become known as the
hierarchical magisterium.’’ See the right evaluation and criticism of
this book made by J. F. Costanzo, “Academic Dissent: an Original
Ecclesiology,” Thomist 34 (1970) 636-653.
39 Cf. I. B. Raus, “L’enseignement de la doctrine de saint Thomas
considérée dans ses rapports avec le Code et les écoles théologiques.’'
Nouvelle revue théologique 52 (1925) 261-291, 358-380: H. Dieckmann, “De auctoritate theologica S. Thomae Aquinatis,” Scholastik
(1926) 567 ff.; R. Villeneuve. “Ite ad Thomam.” Angelicum 13 (1936)
3-23; I. M. Ramirez. De auctoritate doctrinali S. Thomae Aquinatis.
Salmanticae 1952; “The Authority of St. Thomas,’’ Thomist 15 (1952)
1-100; A. D. Lee, “Thomism and the Council,” Vatican II: the Theo­
logical Dimension (collective work, The Thomist Press 1963) 451492.
30

Tradition, The Living Deponit of Revelation

(July 18, 1323), has recently proclaimed him “Prince and
Master of all scholastic doctors” i Leo XIII, Encycl. “Aeterni
Patris”), “Particular support and glory of the Catholic
Church” (ibid.), “Leader of Studies” ( Pius XI, Encycl. “Stu­
diorum ducem’), “Common or universal Doctor of the Church
. . . whose doctrine the Church has made its own” (ibid,), the
one who occupies “the main place” among Catholic doctors
(Paul VI, Allocution given at the Gregorian University, Sept.
10,1951.40 Besides, the Magisterium has insistently and strong­
ly declared that theological studies should be made according
to the doctrine of St. Thomas. His Summa Theologiae was pre­
scribed as a text for the Italian Seminaries by Pius X (Motu
Proprio “Sacrorum antistitum”) and by Benedict XV in 1920,
and for Germany by this same Pope in 1921. Under the same
Pontiff the Code of Canon Law proposed St. Thomas’ teaching
in seminaries under the form of a law: “Professors shall
handle the studies and the instruction of their students accord­
ing to the method, the doctrine, and the principles of the
Angelic Doctor and keep these religiously” (can. 1366, §2).
Pius XII in his Encycl. '‘Humani generis” urged the applica­
tion of this canonical law. Vatican II declared that the study
of speculative theology in the seminaries should be made “un­
der the guidance of St. Thomas” (Decree on Priestly Forma­
tion, no. 16) and in Catholic schools, particularly in Univer­
sities and faculties, modern questions and investigations
should be made “following in the footsteps of the Doctors of
the Church, above all of St. Thomas Aquinas” (Declaration on
Christian Education, no. 10).
As long as the aforementioned law remains in the Code,
there is an obligation for professors of theology to follow the
teaching of St. Thomas in its main principles and conclusions,
or as a doctrinal body, although the weight of this obligation
is judged more or less strictly or lightly by various theolo­

<° The three special names given to S. Thomas are: “Angelic Doc­
tor” (used since the 15th century, repeated by Pius V and later com­
monly by the theologians and the Magisterium), “Eucharistic Doc­
tor” (used in the 17th century, at least by the Salmanticenses in their
treatise on the Eucharist, and repeated by Pius XI), and “Common
Doctor” (first and pointedly introduced by Pius XI).
31

The Channels of Revelation
gians. However, no faithful or prudent son of the Church, nor
any docile hearer of its Magisterium, can conscientiously over­
look the fact that the Church has made the doctrine of St.
Thomas its own doctrine and the Magisterium has been in­
sistently urging the theologians to follow it, for the good of
the Church and for their own good.

32

Ill
The Magisterium,
Organ of Revelation41

1. The nature of the Magisterium.

This matter is to be examined more distinctly in the treatise
on the Church, as in its proper place. Here we briefly gather a
few general and essential notions, which are necessary to astablish the other and principal point of this question, namely
the value and use of the Magisterium as a theological place, or
base of theological investigation.

Magisterium is defined as the right and the duty of teach­
ing authoritatively the revealed truth, to which on the part
of the faithful corresponds the obligation of accepting the pro­
posed doctrine with submission of heart and mind.

It is divided into ordinary Magisterium and extraordinary
or solemn Magisterium.
The ordinary Magisterium is that which is exercised in a
41 Cf. Baumgartner, Dejaifve, and Van den Eynde, cited above,
on p. 10; M. Caudron, “Magistère ordinaire et infaillibilité pontifi­
cale d’après la Constitution Dei Filius [de Vatican I],” Ephemerides
theologicae Lovanienses 36 (1960) 393-431; A. Piolanti, “Il magistero
della Chiesa e la scienza teologica," Divinitas 5 (1961) 531-551; L.
Ciappi, “Il magistero della Chiesa nel pensiero di S. S. Pio XII,”
ibid. 552-580; P. Nau, “Le magistère pontifical ordinaire au premier
Concile du Vatican,” Revue thomiste 62 (1962) 341-397; Mysterium
salutis. Dogmatique de l’histoire du salut (trans, from the German),
1/3: L’Eglise el la transmission de la révélation, Paris 1969.
33

The Channels of Revelation

common manner by the pastors of the Church (Pope and
bishops) or under their direction, by means of ordinary papal
documents or allocutions, documents of the Roman Curia,
pastoral letters and allocutious of local bishops, preaching of
priests, writings of Fathers and theologians, scholarly teach­
ing and catechetical instructions. It can be either infallible or
noninfallible.
The extraordinary Magisterium consists in a formal, expli­
cit and solemn declaration, made only by the supreme author­
ity in the Church, namely, the Roman Pontiff or an Ecumeni­
cal Council. Depending on the will of this authority and on
the mode or formula of the declaration, it can be either infal­
lible fas are the definitions of Vatican I) or noninfallible (as
are the Constitutions, Decrees, and Declarations of Vatican
ID.
The Magisterium, both extraordinary and ordinary, is the
organ of revelation, that is, the channel through which revela­
tion comes to us from the deposit of Scripture and Tradition.
When it proposes with infallibility a revealed truth, it becomes
also the proximate rule of faith, that is, the norm determining
for us the object to be believed, while Scripture and Tradi­
tion remain the remote rule of faith: in other words, what we
believe and we have to believe is not simply the word of God
contained in Scripture and Tradition, but that same word as
determinately and authoritatively proposed to us by the in­
fallible act of the Magisterium.42 By being the organ of revela­
tion contained in Tradition, the Magisterium becomes also
part of the active Tradition, that is. one of the principal
means by which the objective Tradition is transmitted, as we
noted above (pp.11,18).

2. The probative value of the Magisterium., as a theological
place.

This value can be expressed by the following three norms.
42 Vatican I: “By divine and Catholic faith, all those things must
be believed which are contained in the written or transmitted Word
of God and are proposed by the Church, either through a solemn
pronouncement or through the ordinary and universal Magisterium,
to be believed as revealed truths" (sess. 3. chap. 3, Denz. 3011).
34

The Magisterium, Organ of Revelation
First norm. Since the Magisterium is the organ of revelation
and the proximate rule of faith, on which depend the inter­
pretation and the presentation of Scripture and Tradition, it
is a proper, primary, independent, proximate and most ef­
ficacious theological place, or basis of theological investiga­
tion. It is true that the Magisterium, being only an organ and
a guardian and not a deposit of revelation, depends on Scrip­
ture and Tradition, as the object to be guarded and interpret­
ed (see above, pp. 6, 15), but subjectively on our part, and
hence for theological investigation, it is the first theological
place, since Scripture and Tradition depend on it for the right
interpretation of their sense (see above pp. 6, 7, 18, 19).

Second norm. The ordinary Magisterium has the same the­
ological value as the extraordinary; it is even in itself more
valuable, inasmuch as it consists in the ordinary and connat­
ural proposition and explanation of the entire deposit of rev­
elation, while the extraordinary Magisterium has a provisional
character and a particular objective, namely, that of solemnly
proclaiming a particular truth or condemning a particular er­
ror.

However, on our part and for theological investigation, the
extraordinary Magisterium is much more efficacious, because
it has a well-determined subject (the Pope and the Council)
and it manifests itself in well-definite formulas, while the or­
dinary Magisterium is made up of numerous and different
elements, expressing themselves in various and indefinite
forms. Hence it is more difficult to ascertain and to determine.
This is evident as regards those truths that are only implicitly
contained in the deposit of revelation and gradually are
brought into explicit knowledge (such as the Immaculate Con­
ception and the Assumption); but also those truths which, be­
ing explicit and fundamental (as the divinity of Christ, the
hypostatic union, and the mystery of the Trinity), were pro­
posed since the beginning by the ordinary Magisterium,
have received a more definite and theologically more val­
uable formulation by the extraordinary Magisterium.
Third norm. Before using a declaration of the extraordinary
Magisterium for a theological argumentation or investigation,
it is necessary to ascertain the degree of its force, its proper
35

The Channels of Revelation
and direct object, and the exact sense of its words or formulas.

Regarding the degree of its force, it has to be noted that not
all the declarations of this Magisterium, however solemn, are
definite pronouncements implying infallibility, but often they
are simple authoritative explanations of a doctrine, preferred
by the Magisterium and more common in the Church, or warn­
ings, advices, persuasions, censures and prohibitions of opin­
ions. condemnations of errors, without a definite and final
judgment that the doctrine is to be held as an article of faith.
Moreover, it is not always easy to ascertain whether a particu­
lar declaration carries the weight of infallibility. The surest
signs of this are: a declaration made under the form of a pro­
fession of faith, as is the Creed of the Councils of Nicaea and
Constantinople I; the use of the explicit formula “We define
such doctrine to be a revealed truth, or to be held by faith, or
under pain of incurring heresy,” as in the definitions of the
Immaculate Conception and the Assumption; the infliction of
the note of heresy on the opposite doctrine, as is done also un­
der the word “anathema,” at least in some of the canons of
Trent and Vatican I, while in other canons, especially of older
Councils, this word means only excommunication, or separa­
tion from the unity of the Church.43

43 Hence, among recent pronouncements of the Magisterium, the
surest infallible definitions arc the canons of Trent and Vatican I,
and the two definitions of the Immaculate Conception (by Pius IX)
and the Assumption (by Pius XII).
Non-infallible documents are most of the doctrinal encyclicals of
Leo XIII and subsequent Popes, and the constitutions, decrees and
declarations of Vatican II.
Doubtful infallible definitions, by reason of the various judgments
of theologians, are some of the most important documents of recent
Popes, as the encyclical “Quanta cura” by Pius IX 1864 (against
Naturalism and Socialism), the Syllabus by the same 1864 (against
Rationalism), the mere chapters of Vatican I (the same holds for the
chapters of Trent), the epistle “Apostolicae curae” by Leo XIII
1896 (on Anglican ordinations), the encyclical “Pascendi” by Pius
X 1907 (in which Modernism is condemned as “a collection of all
heresies”), the encyclical “Casti connubii” by Pius XI 1930 (on
Matrimony), the encyclical “Mystici Corporis" by Pius XII 1943
(on the nature of the Church), the apostolic constitution “Sacra36

The Magisterium, Organ of Revelation
From the proper and direct object, which alone is infallibly
defined, have to be excluded the things which are casually
and incidentally asserted (usually under an indirect formi,
the merely explanatory propositions without which the sense
of the defined truth remains unchanged, and the reasons or
arguments added to prove the defined truth. For the Magis­
terium does not intend to define incidental or accidental de­
terminations. nor is it infallible in arguing and proving truths
but only in determining them and judging on them.
In determining the exact sense of the words and formulas
with which this proper and direct object of the definition is ex­
pressed, careful attention should be paid to two things. First, to
the sense which those words and formulas had at the time they
were used, considering the historical circumstances and the
contemporary status of the sacred science and ecclesiastical
terminology ( for instance, at the time of Trent and Vatican I).
Second, to the intention and the character of the Pope or the
Council defining, considering expecially the circumstances
which provoked the definition, the acts of the Council, as well
as the character and mentality of the heretics against whom
the definition was issued. From the lack of such examination,
it happens at times that the words of older Councils (even of
Trent itself) are unduly understood according to the develop­
ed and more definite sense which they gradually acquired in
more recent theological terminology.

Moreover, it is to be noted that the definitions of the Mag­
isterium, considered in their proper object, do not necessarily
express the full positive sense of a revealed truth, since they
are usually brought forth to exclude some particular error,
rather than to explain directly a doctrine in itself. Hence it is
necessary further to compare such definitions with the deposit
of revelation (Scripture and Tradition), not so much in order
to prove their conformity with it, as to grasp the fuller sense
of the proposed truth.

mentum Ordinis" by the same in 1947 (on the matter and form of
the Sacrament of Orders).
37

Part II
The Theological Contents

Of the Channels of Revelation

The proper contents of revelation, and hence of its channels,
are either explicit truths, which can be called dogmas in a gen­
eric sense, or implicit truths, able to be drawn from the ex­
plicit truths themselves, which are called theological conclus­
ions. Both are theological contents of those channels, because
a theologian must necessarily deal with them in his scientific
investigation, since there is nothing else in theology, as in any
other science, than principles and conclusions. Hence, this
second part of our dialectic and methodological treatise about
the channels of revelation consists in a theological evaluation
of both dogma (chap. 4) and theological conclusion (chap. 5).
It is logical to add to this an explanation and determination of
the so-called theological notes and censures, which imply a
judgment about the agreement or disagreement of a proposi­
tion with the contents of revelation (chap. 6).

38

rv
Dogma'4
lo VJilidilic)

1. Notion of dogma.

Dogma (a Greek noun, from “dokéo”=I think, I decree)
etymologically signifies either an opinion or a precept, and in
this twofold sense it is used both in Scripture (Luke 2.1 and
Acts 17.7: imperial decree; Acts 14.4: ceremonials laws of the
O.T.; Col. 2.14: God’s decree) and by the Greek Fathers, who
however, gradually gave to the word the stricter sense of a
44 Alszeghy, Z. and Flick, M., Lo sviluppo del dogma cattolico, ed.
2, Brescia 1069.
Boyer, Ch., "Lo sviluppo del dogma,” Problemi e orientamcnti di
teologia dommatica 1 (Milano 1957) 359-380.
Doronzo, E., Theologia dogmatica 1 (Washington 1966) 491-526.
Gardeil, A. Le donné révélé et la théologie(éd. 2, Paris 1912) 77-186.
Garrigou-Lagrange, R.. "Vérité et immutabilité du dogme,” Angeli­
cum 24 (1947) 124-139.
Grandmaison, L. de, Le dogme chrétien. Sa nature, scs formules, son
développement, éd. 3. Paris 1928.
Journet, Ch., The Church and the Word Incarnate 1 (tr. A. H. C.
Downes, New York 1950) 338-353.
Malevez, L., "L’invariant et le divers dans le langage de la foi,”
Nouvelle revue théologigue 95 (1973) 353-366.
Marin-Sola, F., La evoluciôn homogénea del dogma catôlico. Va­
lencia-Madrid 1924. Second edition in French (trans. B. Cambon),
L’évolution homogène du dogme catholique, 2 vols., Fribourg.
Suisse 1924. The best and most complete work on this subject.
Newman, J. H.. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,
new edition, New York 1949.
Parente, P., "La formola dommatica di fronte alla cultura in evoluzione,” Doctor Communis 22 (1969) 89-108.
39

MT. ANGEL ABBEY LIBRARY
ST. BENEDICT, OREGON 9737o

The Channels of Revelation
doctrinal decree or obligatory doctrine. With this specific sense
the word was later introduced, especially by St. Augustine
and Vincent of Lerins, into the Latin Church and became
classical in ecclesiastical literature. In the 17th century, how­
ever, on the occasion of the Jansenist controversy, the word
received also the more strict and technical sense of a doctrine
of faith defined by the Church. In this sense it is used occas­
ionally in the documents of the Magisterium ( Pius VI speaks
of the “dogma of Transubstantiation” and Vatican I of the
“dogmas proposed by the Church” and of the infallibility of
the Pope as ‘a divinely revealed dogma,” Denz. 2629, 3043,
3073). Hence “dogma” in ecclesiastical and theological use has
two senses, one general, that is, any revealed truth, the other
specific, that is, a revealed truth infallibly defined by the Mag­
isterium as to be believed of divine faith.
In this second sense and proper definition, dogma is made
up of two elements, that is, the revealed truth, which is the
direct and only object of our faith, and the definition of the
Magisterium, which is not the object of our faith, but only its
proximate rule, that is, the necessary condition, without which
we are not obliged to believe what is found in the deposit of
revelation, as far as the force of the mere deposit is concern­
ed.45

Rahner, K., “The Development of Dogma,” Theological Investiga­
tions (tr. C. Ernst) 1 (Baltimore 1961) 39-77.
Rondet, H., Les dogmes changent-ils? Théologie de l’histoire du
dogme, Paris 1960; Histoire du dogme, Tournai-Paris, 1970.
Schultes, R. M., “Circa dogmatum homogeneam evolutionem,” Divus
Thomas (Piacenza) 2 (1925) 83-89, 554-564; “Eclaircissements sur
l’évolution du dogme,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théo­
logiques 14 (1925) 286-302.
Various authors, Gregorianum 33 (1952), no. 1 (It deals entirely
with the progress of dogma).
Vollert, C., “Doctrinal Development,” Catholic Theological Society
of America 12 (1957) 45-74.
Walgrave, J. H., Unfolding Revelation. Nature of Doctrinal Develop­
ment, London 1972.
48 Note, however, that the Magisterium actually proposes in a
general way the whole Bible to our belief, and hence we are obliged
to believe whatever is clear and explicit in Scripture. But for things
and truths that are not clearly shown in it, or about which some rea­
sonable doubt may be raised, we need an additional and particular
40

Dogma
Whatever has been revealed by God and infallibly proposed
by the Magisterium becomes a dogma to be believed with sup­
ernatural faith, whether it be a supernatural truth (as the
Trinity), or a natural truth (as the existence of God, which
can also be known by the natural reason, but at any rate has
been also revealed), or a thing to be done (moral acts), or a
particular historical fact ( such as all those that make up the
life of Christ). For all these objects have a close connection
with the principal object of revelation (Deity) and with its
proper purpose (our salvation and beatific vision).
2. The immutability of dogma.

Dogma, once established through the revelation of God and
the definition of the Magisterium, becomes absolutely immut­
able. both objectively and subjectively. It is objectively and
essentially immutable in itself, because on the one hand God’s
affirmation cannot change or proved to be false, and on the
other hand the Magisterium can no longer revoke its defini­
tion, since it is a mere temporary condition required for elicit­
ing the assent of faith which is irrevocable. It is also immut­
able subjectively on the part of the faithful, who cannot
change or corrupt it in their knowledge, because of the infall­
ibility of the believing and the teaching Church under the as­
sistance of the Holy Spirit, promised by Christ.

This absolute immutability has been explicitly declared on
several occasions by the Magisterium, against Liberal Pro­
testants and Modernists, denying the very objective immut­
ability of dogma, on the basis of the subjective nature of re­
ligion, and against Orthodox Protestants and Jansenists, deny­
ing only the subjective immutability of dogma, on the basis
of their denial of the infallibility of the Church.*
46 Vatican
declaration of the infallible Magisterium in order to be obliged to
believe.
46 Liberal Protestants and Modernists, based on agnostic Ration­
alism (see our treatise on Revelation, p. 5), deny the first clement
of dogma, that is the objectivity of the revealed truth. According to
them religion itself and its revelation is something merely subjective
and human, that is, a sense of the conscience, which changes and de­
velops with the evolution of the consciousness of humanity, under
the influence of various circumstances and cultures. Dogma is a
41

The Channels of Revelation
Council I defined: “If anyone shall say that, in view of the
progress of science, the dogmas proposed by the Church could
at times be understood in a sense other than that in which
the Church has understood and understands them: let him be
anathema “(sess. 3, can. 3 on faith and reason, Denz. 3043;
cf. chap. 4, Denz. 3020).

This immutability belongs only to dogma itself, not to its ex­
pression or dogmatic formula, which can vary or change as
long as it does not alter or render ambiguous the concept it­
self, carried by the definition of the Magisterium. However,
such a change depends exclusively on the Magisterium itself.47
definite formulation, in an objective form, of this subjective religious
sense, and consequently it is bound to change with it, having each
time only a normative and practical value, without any objective
foundation. This modernistic system is explained at length and
severely censured by Pius X in the Encyclical “Pascendi” (Denz.
3477-3488).
Orthodox Protestants deny the second element of dogma, that is,
the infallibility of the Magisterium in proposing the objective re­
vealed truth, and hence they admit the possibility of at least a part­
ial and substantial change in things believed by the faithful, under
the influence of human causes and circumstances. Jansenists speak
of the possibility of a general obscuration or darkening of funda­
mental truths in the Church (cf. a proposition of the Synod of Pistoia, condemned by Pius VI, Denz. 2601). A. Gunther, a Catholic
semirationalist, taught that the definitions of the Magisterium have
only a temporary validity, and that the progress of science may de­
mand their change (cf. his condemnation by Pius IX, Denz. 2829, and
by Vatican I, Denz. 3043). Λ similar opinion is being spread ambig­
uously in recent days by the so-called “progressive theologians.”
47 It is evident that, in order to express the revealed truths aptly,
the Magisterium in its definitions has had to use words and expres­
sions, current in the common language and culture (even philosoph­
ical) of each time, adapting them to fit an ecclesiastical terminology.
Thus the Council of Nicaea adapted the Greek word “homoousios”
(“consubstantial” - “of the same nature”) to signify the numerical
identity of the divine nature in Christ and in the Father, although
the word can signify also a merely specific identity, as between two
men; likewise the Council of Trent adopted the word “Transubstantiation,” already used by the scholastic theologians, to signify the
eucharistie change, declaring it to be “a very apt expression."
Only the Magisterium is competent in using or changing a dog­
42

Dogma

3. Development or progress of dogma.

The absolute immutability of dogma does not necessarily ex­
clude its development or progress, with regard to the finding
and understanding of its full meaning and of its virtual im­
plications.

The existence of the development, understood at least in a
generic and indefinite manner, is evident from the fact that
Christ entrusted to the Apostles and their successors the of­
fice of transmitting the deposit of revelation, which implies
necessarily some kind of development in the manner of trans­
mission, according to different times and cultures. The Church
furthermore, actually has accomplished this office in many
and ever more perfect ways of explaining, interpreting and
defending the original revealed truths. It is also in a more
definite manner declared by the Vatican Council I quoting the
famous statement of Vincent of Lerins (see above, p. 18 f.):
“Therefore ... let the understanding, the knowledge, and wis­
dom of individuals, as well as of all, of one man as well as of
the whole Church, grow and greatly progress through ages and
centuries, but let such progress be only of its proper kind [i.e.
homogeneous], that is within the same dogma, the same sense,
and the same understanding” (sess. 3, chap. 4 on faith and rea­
son, Denz. 3020). Vatican II repeats the same declaration,
pointing out also the two causes of this progress, namely, the
matic formula. In future definitions, the Magisterium will, as usual,
adapt its new formulas to the culture of the time, as far as such a
culture will be able to be used for the right expression of the re­
vealed truth. As regards past definitions the Magisterium has never
changed any of the principal formulas once used, both because they
conform also to common sense and understanding, and because they
are a safeguard against alteration of doctrines. At any rate, if, for
instance, the world “Transubstantiation” should come to be changed
by the Magisterium, it would necessarily be replaced by a word
which would mean that the nature of bread (whatever it is that
makes bread to be bread and not meat or other things) is no longer
existing in the Eucharist, but has been changed into the body of
Christ.
Vatican JI (Constit. "Gaudium et spes.” no. 62) invites theologians
to adapt their teaching to the culture of the present time, but does
not give them the right to discard the defined dogmatic formulas.

43

The Channels of Revelation
teaching of the Magisterium and the experience of the faith­
ful.48

The proper nature of this development is not so easy to un­
derstand and determine, as is evident from the different ex­
planations given by theologians. The difficulty arises from the
fact that through such development we have now arrived at
believing several truths which do not seem to be sufficiently
contained in the deposit of revelation, but seem rather derived
through an elaborate process of natural reason, based more­
over on philosophical and perishable systems; such are, for
instance, the sacramental character, the sevenfold number of
the sacraments, transubstantiation, the sacramentality of Mat­
rimony, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption. To this
difficulty theologians usually answer that in these and other
similar cases, the development of dogma is not objective but
subjective, that is, it consists not in an addition to a revealed
object but in a further explanation and understanding of the
same object; or it is also an objective progress, but only from
implicit to explicit, that is, not again by the addition of a new
object or truth, but only by rendering explicit to us an object
or truth which was already implicitly contained and so believ­
ed in another object or truth which was explicitly believed in
previous times. This latter and better formulation of the de­
velopment of dogma is to be clarified with the following ob­
servations.

First. Throughout the Old Testament up to and including
Christ and the Apostles, revelation developed objectively by
48 Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation, no. 8: “This Tradition,
which comes down from the apostles, progresses in the Church un­
der the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the understanding of
the things and of the words, which have been handed over, grows
either by means of the contemplation and study of the faithful, who
keep and compare them in their hearts (cf. Luke 2.19,51), as well
as by an intimate understanding of the spiritual things they exper­
ience, or through the pronouncements of those who have received,
with the episcopal succession, the sure charism of truth. Thus the
Church through succeeding centuries, moves constantly toward the
fulness of divine truth, until the words of God reach their complete
fulfillment in her.”
44

Dogma
addition of new truths, not contained, even implicitly, in the
formerly revealed truths, although contained in the same re­
ality. Hence there was a development not from reality to reali­
ty, but from one concept to another concept, really distinct
from the first and not contained in it, even implicitly. Thus
in the same reality of God there was a passage from the simple
concept of one God to the concept of the Trinity of Persons,
and in the same reality of Christ there was a passage from the
concept of Messiah to the concept of God and then to the con­
cept of Son of God. It is evident that the concept of God does
not contain, even implicitly, the concept of several persons in
God (otherwise we would know through natural reason the
mystery of the Trinity as we know the existence of God).
Likewise the concept of Messiah does not include the concept
of God, nor does the concept of God include the concept of
Son of God ( as is clear from the person of the Holy Spirit, who
is not Son of God ).
Second. Such an objective development of dogma by addi­
tion of new truths is impossible in the Church, because public
revelation has been completely given by Christ and the Apos­
tles and has been closed at the death of the last apostle (that
is, of St. John who died toward the end of the first century, as
Catholic exegetes unanimously agree).49 This fact, proposed
49 After Christ’s Ascension public revelation continued through
the apostles, as founders of the Church, and only through them, so
that whatever revelation may have been given to others of the faith­
ful, at that time, even to the coapostolic ministers of the Word, docs
not belong to public revelation or to the object of our faith. But with
regard to the extent of the revelation given to the apostles them­
selves, wc know very little from Scripture. St. Paul sometimes speaks
of revelations received from the Lord, but their object is something
that had already been revealed by Christ and was known by the
other apostles, as the mystery of the Eucharist (1 Cor. 11-23) and
the Gospel in general (Gal. 1.11-24). However, three new revelations
seem certain from Scripture, namely, the inspiration of the books of
the New Testament, since they were written after the Ascension, the
eschatology consigned by St. John in the Apocalypse (cf. 1.1-3), and
the so-called Pauline privilege (1 Cor.7.12-15). for it can hardly be
said that the apostles were instructed by Christ on such things be­
fore the Ascension. It is probable that several other things were re­
vealed to the apostles and transmitted through oral Tradition.
45

The Channels of Revelation
equivalently by the Council of Trent (sess. 4, Denz.1501) and
more directly by Pius X in the Decree “Lamentabili” against
Modernism (Denz.3421), has been finally explicitly declared
by Vatican II saying: “No further public revelation is now to
be expected before the glorious manifestation of Our Lord
Jesus Christ” (Dogm. Constit. on Divine Revelation, no. 4).50

Third. Hence there remain only two ways by which dogma
can develop in the Church. The first and simple way is a
merely subjective process, consisting in a clearer explanation
and understanding of a formally identical object which is
contained in the deposit of revelation and was believed since
the beginning. However, this is not a progress of dogma itself,
but only of man in his knowledge of a dogma, and it explains
only the succession of new and better formulas, expressing
the same truth, such as the Divinity of Christ, not the rise and
definition of new dogmas, which, as the Immaculate Concep­
tion, the Assumption, and the others mentioned above, seem
entirely or formally different from the ones explicitly con­
tained in the deposit. Hence there remains only one way of
explaining a proper development of dogma, applicable to this
sort of new dogmas, that is, an objective process from implicit
to explicit. Such a process consists in this, that a truth, which

so Private revelations, which belong to an undying charism in the
Church, have the same nature as public revelation and the same gen­
eral purpose of helping the Church. Their object is either the same
as the public revelation, that is, an explanation of the revealed
truths, or something new by which public revelation may be ac­
cidentally extended. It does not, however, identify with public rev­
elation and does not become an object of faith for others than the
person to whom it is given and who is bound to believe it by the
same supernatural faith, if he is certain of the revelation by a mirac­
ulous sign of God (either exterior, or interior in his mind). If the
Magisterium approves such revelations (as in the case of St. Mar­
garet Mary Alacoque about the Sacred Heart and of St. Bernardette
at Lourdes), one is only obliged to admit their fittingness as ap­
proved by the Church, but he can also, if he chooses, believe them,
along with the public revelation, with the same supernatural faith.
Such revelations are also useful for the development of dogma.
Cf. K. Rahner, “Les révélations privées,” Revue d’ascétique et de
mystique 25 (1949) 506-514; P. De Letter, “The Meaning of Lourdes,”
Clergy Monthly 20 (1958) 3-16.
46

Dogma

is actually contained in another and hence known and believed
in another, is not yet known in itself and as to its inclusion in
the other, but later on, under favorable circumstances and by
means of a logical and necessary process of the mind or of a
forceful intuition of the Christian sense, it comes to be known
as such, passing from implicit to explicit in our knowledge
and in our faith, as well as in the deposit of Tradition itself.
Thus, there is no change nor addition of an entirely new truth,
but the same truth, explicitly believed since the beginning
or at some time, is later known under a new concept implicit
in it, or according to its implicit content and virtuality. For in­
stance, from the truth or concept of Divine Maternity Tradi­
tion passed to the truth or concept of the greatest sanctity af­
ter that of Christ (included in it as a necessary consequence 1
and from this concept the same Tradition later passed to the
concept of exemption from original sin (included in it as a
necessary effect).

Fourth. This implicit inclusion of one truth in another and
its subsequent extraction from the other, cannot be explained
but by the existence of a necessary and infallible connection
between the two, by force of which, if one is posited, the other
must necessarily follow. This connection can be the connec­
tion of an essential property, which is absolutely inseparable
from the essence of a thing, as are, for instance, intrinsic ex­
tension in regard to quantity, radical possibility of dying or of
sinning which always remains in man in heaven. Or this con­
nection can be that of an effect to its metaphysical cause, that
is, to a cause which not only has the power of producing the
effect, but also contains virtually and actually the effect it­
self. as the spirituality of the soul contains its immortality and
God’s immutability contains his eternity.51
51 There is of course a third way of intimate connection and in­
clusion, which we may call connection of essentiality, and which
exists either between a thing defined and its definition (thus rational
animal is included in man), or between the essence and its essential
parts (thus the body is included in the essence of man), or between
a universal thing and its particular (thus Peter is included in man­
kind). or between two relative things (thus the concept of son is in­
cluded in the concept of father, and vice versa). However, by means
of this connection, there is no real and objective development of dog­
47

The Channels oj Revelation
Examples of development of dogmas, based on the connec­
tion of an essential property, are the following: The Nicene
dogma of the numerical consubstantiality of Christ with the
Father is a consequent property of his divine sonship, because
by being Son he has necessarily the same nature as the Father
and by being God he has necessarily the same individual na­
ture as the Father. The dogma of the two wills in Christ, or
the existence of a human will in him, defined by the Council
of Constantinople III, is deduced from the truth that Christ
is a true and perfect man, similar to us, whose essential prop­
erty is the human will.
More numerous are the examples of development based on
connection of effect with its metaphysical cause. The Ephesus
dogma of Divine Maternity is drawn as a metaphysical effect
from the concept of “Mother of Christ,” coupled with the con­
cepts of Christ’s divinity and of a single person in Christ.
From the fullness of grace, hailed in the gospel (or at any rate
following from the Divine Maternity) are drawn both the
Tridentine dogma of the privileged exclusion of venial sin in
Mary and the dogma of the privilege of Immaculate Concep­
tion. Likewise the Assumption can be drawn from the Divine
Maternity or from the Immaculate Conception. Transubstantiation is implicitly contained, like an effect in its cause, in
the Real Presence, considered not abstractly but as concretely
expressed in the words '‘This is my body” i other than “Here
is my body”), which are not. true if the bread remains, and
hence they require not only the presence of Christ but also the
ma itself, but only the aforesaid subjective progress of our know­
ledge, about the same truth, by way of clearer and more definite
formulas, or of definite equivalent concepts, which are obtained by a
mere analysis of the truth, or the so-called explanatory syllogisms, as
when from Christ’s divine sonship we conclude that one of the other
two persons of the Holy Trinity is a Father.
To this improper and subjective progress of dogma belong the
various declarations of the Magisterium which express a truth, al­
ready believed, with other clearer words or formulas (as are the
various symbols of faith), or with more polished and authentic
words (dogmatic formulas, of which some are more definite and
particular and hence they are called more strictly dogmatic formulas,
as those that are found in the later councils).
48

Dogma
absence of the bread. The infallibility of the Pope, as successor
of Peter, is implicitly contained, as an effect in its cause, in
the amplitude of his primacy, explicitly revealed, because
such ample primacy has been given to Peter and his successors
with reference to all the things that are necessary to confirm
the brethren in their faith and to be the rock or foundation
on which the Church stands firmly, even in matters of faith.
The historical mode or way of such a development is two­
fold. The first is a rational and deductive way, by which, from
a doctrine already definitely and explicitly known, another
is deduced which is implicitly and necessarily contained in the
former, as we have just explained. The second is an empirical
or inductive way. consisting in this that the sense of the
Christian people, by a sort of connatural intuition, perceives
the necessary connection between a truth, already explicitly
believed, and another, although the necessity of this connec­
tion cannot be proved in a rational and deductive way (see
above, pp. 22-24).
In this second case, the common Christian sense does not
create this connection between the two truths, otherwise there
would be a mere pious fiction and an arbitrary invention of a
dogma; but it only finds it instinctively and more easily than
it would be found through a rational deductive process, which
for instance, might be apparently blocked or temporarily stop­
ped by the consideration of another dogma.

This is particularly illustrated by the case of the develop­
ment of the truth of the Immaculate Conception. This truth is
implicity contained in and necessarily deduced from the full­
ness of grace in Mary, provided however that this fullness is
understood not in any way, but in all the amplitude compati­
ble with the dogma of the universal redemption of men
through Christ. But, through a rational and deductive process,
it was not clear that it should be taken in such an ample sense,
which even seemed to be positively excluded by Christ’s un­
iversal redemption that had to include also the Blessed Virgin;
hence the majority of the great theologians in the Middle
Ages ( St. Thomas included I and many others afterwards were
opposed to the privilege of the Immaculate Conception, until
the persevering conviction of the Christian people, shown
49

The Channels of Revelation
particularly in their devotion and in their interpretation of
the existing feast of the Holy Conception of Mary, obliged the
theologians themselves to remove the aforementioned ob­
stacle, apparently deriving from the truth of the universal re­
demption, by a rational distinction between releasing redemp­
tion, common to all men, and merely preservative redemption,
proper to Mary, and thus to arrive through such a forced ra­
tional process to the point where the Christian sense had easily
preceded them.

The direct causes of such a development are included in
these same two ways, that is, theological science and the
Christian sense; the third and principal cause is the Magister­
ium itself, as directing the other two and closing by its solemn
definition the whole development of a dogma. The indirect
causes, or occasions, of the development are especially three.
First, the necessity of refuting errors or heresies, which
brought along the declaration of several important dogmas, as
those defined by the great Councils of the first centuries and
later by the Councils of Trent and Vatican I. Second, the fit­
tingness of settling some grave doubt or controversy among
Catholic doctors, such as the controversy about rebaptizing
heretics at the time of St. Cyprian, which the Magisterium
resolved negatively, and the medieval controversy about the
rational soul as the form of the body, settled in the affirma­
tive by the Council of Vienne. Third, the utility of strengthen­
ing the cult and devotion of the people, as in the case of the
Immaculate Conception and the Assumption; in this regard,
also private revelations may have their influence, inasmuch
as they would impel the Magisterium to examine their con­
formity with the truths contained in the deposit of public
revelation.
The degrees or steps of development may be described gen­
erically as follows: there is first a period of simple faith in
some explicit truth, then a period of further explanation or
controversy about its proper and full meaning, finally a period
of precise and definite determination and formulation, or, as
the case may be, of the explicit expression of a new truth, im­
plicitly contained in the former. A more precise and important
question is that of the continuity of the dogmatic progress, that
is, whether the knowledge of revealed truth has been always
50

Dogma
progressing, or on the contrary there has been or could be a
regress, notwithstanding the essential immutability of dogma,
as explained above.

With regard to the apostles, it is certain that they had a bet­
ter and deeper understanding (probably even infused) of the
truths explicitly revealed; this agrees with their instruction
received from Christ before the Ascension for forty days, with
Christ’s promise to send the Holy Spirit who would “teach
them all things, all truths” (John 14.26; 16.3), and also with
the manner of their doctrine (shown in the Acts and the
Epistles, particularly of St. Paul). As for the implicitly re­
vealed truths, which are now explicit to us, it is possible, but
it does not seem probable that they knew them clearly and
sufficiently (although some theologians think so, as Dorsch,
Marin-Sola, Lercher-Schlagenhaufen) ; if they had thought,
for instance, of the Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation, the sacramentality of Matrimony, the sacramental char­
acter, they would likely have left some signs or hints of these
important, though not fundamental, truths, in their preaching
consigned in the Holy Scripture.

Regarding the post-apostolic age, if we consider the time
of elaboration of a dogma, which precedes its explicit know­
ledge and its definition by the Magisterium, there can surely
be a kind of general oscillation, or even obscuration and re­
gress, connatural to all development, as happened in the de­
velopment of the truth of the Immaculate Conception, which
was denied for a long time by many theologians. But in the
time following the explicit knowledge and definition of a dog­
ma, there cannot be a real general regress, such as to throw
back into implicitness what has been explicit. For this would
imply either a negation, or a renewed controversy, or a com­
plete oblivion of the truth, which would be contrary to the
indefectibility of the Church. However, there can be a partial
diminution or obscuration of a dogma, in such manner that a
notable part of the faithful fall into heresy, at least material,
as happened to the truth of the full divinity of Christ at the
time of Arianism, or that some dogma may be less clearly
known or valued, as happened to the truth of the Roman Pri­
macy at the time of Western schism and of Jansenism and Gallicanism.
51

V
Theological Conclusion52

1. Notion of theological conclusion.
A theological conclusion is a proposition (or a judgment or
a truth), which through a discoursive process is derived from
a revealed principle. It is called conclusion, because it is not
revealed in itself, but only deduced from a revealed truth; it
is called theological, because revealed truths are the principles
of theology. Since every discursive process (usually expressed
in the form of a syllogism) implies two principles or premises
(major and minor) from which a conclusion is deduced, a
theological conclusion may be inferred either from two re­
vealed principles (for instance God knows the day of the last
judgment, but Christ is God, therefore Christ knows the day
of the last judgment) or from one principle of faith and one
principle of reason (for instance, a perfect man has a human
will, but Christ is a perfect man like all other men, therefore
Christ has a human will).
There are two kinds of theological conclusions. One is a
theological conclusion improperly so-called, or explanatory,
which is a mere explanation of the principle and does not con­
tain a new concept, different from what is contained in the
principle, but expresses the same concept in another manner

52 See the bibliography, listed above (p. 39), especially Doronzo,
Gardeil, Grandmaison, Marin-Sola, Schultes. Cf. also A. Gits, La foi
aux faits dogmatiques dans la théologie moderne, Louvain 1940; J.
F. Bonnefoy, in Marianum 12 (1950) 194-226; A.M. Elorriaga, several
articles in Estudios eclesidsticos 1926-1929; A. M. Lubik, in Antoni­
anum 36 (1961) 29-68, 173-198.
52

Theological Conclusion
or by an aquivalent concept, drawn immediately from a mere
analysis of the first. This happens when one concept is in­
cluded in the very essence of the other, according to the four
ways explained above.53 The second is a theological conclusion
properly so-called, in which three things are required; first, it
must be truly illative, that is, bringing forth a new concept,
formally distinct from the concept expressed in the principle;
second, it must be also a necessary and scientific conclusion
(for if it is only probable, it does not properly belong to the
science of theology); third, it must be an absolutely necessary
conclusion, causing an absolute certitude, because a conclu­
sion shares in the same certitude of its principles, and the
principle of a theological conclusion is a revealed truth of faith
which is absolutely certain.54

This absolute necessity and certitude in a theological con­
clusion can be obtained only in two cases, namely, when the
concept expressed in the conclusion is either an essential prop­
erty, or a metaphysical effect of the concept expressed in the
principle, as has been explained above with pertinent exam­
ples ( p. 47 ).
33 See footnote 51. These four ways of essential inclusion can be
exemplified in theological conclusions improperly so-called, as fosllows: either the definition is inferred from the thing defined (as:
Christ is man, therefore he is a rational animal); or an essential part
is inferred from the whole essence (as: Christ is a man, therefore he
has a soul); or a particular is inferred from the universal (as: Christ
is man, but all men belong to the same genus or family of Adam,
therefore Christ belongs to the family of Adam): or one relative con­
cept is inferred from its correlative (as: Christ is a divine Son. there­
fore he has a divine Father).
54 As we noted in the treatise on Revelation (p. 17). absolute cer­
titude is founded on metaphysical (and mathematical) laws, that is,
in the very essence of things, which admit no exception, while the
conditional certitude is founded on physical and moral laws, which
allow exceptions, and it is sufficient in physical and moral sciences.
The certitude required in a true theological conclusion is absolute
and of the metaphysical order: hence, certain conclusions, which
are derived from revealed principles with only a physical or moral
necessity, are not truly theological conclusions, but have to be con­
sidered as mere probable theological opinions.
53

The Channels of Revelation
2. Definability of a theological conclusion.

The question is whether the Magisterium can infallibly de­
fine, as to be held with divine faith, not only a revealed truth,
but also something logically derived from a revealed truth,
that is, a theological conclusion properly so called/
About this question there is a variety of judgment and a
real controversy among theologians, depending mainly on
what is to be called a theological conclusion. Hence we shall
first indicate the three things on which they all agree, and
then show and try to resolve the proper point of controversy.

All the theologians agree that the Magisterium can infallibly
define as to be held with divine faith the following three
things. First, the theological conclusions improperly so called,
since they are mere explanations of a revealed truth and hence
they are equivalent to it. Second, those theological conclusions
which we called proper and truly illative, as in all the exam­
ples given above (see pp. 48, 53), and which however, some
other theologians consider as improper conclusions; in either
consideration, the reason of their definability is their intimate
and essential connection with the revealed truth. Third, also
those proper theological conclusions which are derived from
two principles or premises of faith, as explained above; the
reason of their definability is again their intimate and total
connection with the revealed truth, since no principle of rea­
son intervenes in the process of deduction.

The point of controversy is whether the Magisterium can
infallibly define, as to be held with divine faith, also other
things, no matter how we call them. Such other things would
be either proper theological conclusions (abstracting from the
above-mentioned), that is, those that everyone considers as
expressing a concept truly distinct from the one expressed in
the revealed principle and at the same time proceed from one
principle of faith and one principle of raison, or the so-called
dogmatic facts, that is, facts intimately connected with reveal­
ed truth (which, at least in our opinion, have to be reduced
to theological conclusions).55
55 These dogmatic facts are usually divided into mere historical
facts, on which the authority of a Pope or a Council depends (for
54

Theological Conclusion

Because this question is somewhat ambiguous, on account
of the various senses in which a proper theological conclusion
is understood by theologians, we shall put it in the following
general and unmistakable form : Whether the Magisterium can
infallibly define as de fide any conclusion which foliotas with
absolute necessity and certitude from a revealed truth. There
is a twofold opinion, one denying and the other affirming.

The first and negative opinion, held by several modern the­
ologians and particularly emphasized by R. M. Schultes, O.P.,36
teaches that theological conclusions, expressing a truly new
concept and derived from one principle of faith and one prin­
ciple of raison, cannot be infallibly defined as of divine faith,
because their object, being deduced partially from reason, ex­
tends beyond the revealed truth and is not homogeneous with
it; the same reason holds for the so-called dogmatic facts. Of
course, the Magisterium infallibly defines such things, which,
though not revealed, are intimately connected with revela­
tion, but it defines them as to be believed not with divine faith,
as the revealed truths, but with an ecclesiastical faith. This
faith is neither divine nor simply human, but is found as it
were in between the two, that is, resting solely on the authori­
ty of the infallible teaching of the Magisterium; thus, while
the motive of the assent of divine faith is: “I believe this be­
cause God has revealed it,” the motive of the assent of eccles­
iastical faith is: “I believe this because the Magisterium teach­
es it infallibly.”*
57
instance, whether the Anglican Orders are valid), and doctrinal facts
or dogmatic texts, that is. the sense of signs by which revelation is
expressed (for instance, the true meaning of a word, expression, or
book of an author).
58 Art. cit. (footnote 44). Supporters of this opinion are, among
others, Billot, Hugon, Garrigou-Lagrange, Lennerz, Zapelena, De
Aldama, Elorriaga.
57 The name of ecclesiastical faith was explicitly brought forward
for the first time around the middle of the 17th century during the
controversy with Jansenists about the definitions of dogmatic facts
(see footnote 62). But the concept itself had already been inculcated
by L. Molina (4-1600), N. Becanus (4-1624), and J. Granados
(-{-1632), and was urged in the 18th century under the very name
of ecclessiastical faith by Antoine. Tournely, and Kilber, until it be­
came quite common in the 19th and 20th centuries.
55

The Channels of Revelation

The second and affirmative opinion, held by an increasing
number of recent theologians and particularly emphasized by
F. Marin-Sola,58 teaches that all true and necessary theological
conclusions, as well as dogmatic facts, because of their inti­
mate and necessary connection with revealed truths, can be
defined infallibly as of divine faith by the Magisterium.
The reasons for this more probable opinion are the follow­
ing:

First. The Magisterium has in fact defined, as dogmas of
divine faith, several true and illative theological conclusions,
that is, which express a concept truly new and distinct from
the one expressed in the revealed truth, and which are derived
from one principle of faith and one principle of raison.
This fact is, of course, denied by the defenders of the first
opinion, who say that all such conclusions, defined by the Mag­
isterium as dogmas of divine faith, are not proper and illative
conclusions, but only improper and explanatory conclusions,
and they contain nothing truly new and distinct from the re­
vealed truth. However, if this can possibly be said of some of
those truths which we listed above as proper and illative con­
clusions (p. 48), such as the consubstantiality of Christ with
the Father and the Divine Maternity, which are very close to
revealed truths, it cannot be reasonably said of other very
particular and distinct truths, defined as de fide by the Magis­
terium. Such are, for instance, among the many things defin­
ed by the Council of Trent, the permanence of concupiscence
after the remission of original sin, the necessity of the inten­
tion of doing what the Church does in the minister of a sacra­
ment, and the necessity of natural water in Baptism. Who
would reasonably say, or try to explain, that all these and
many other similar truths are explicitly revealed and not
merely inferred from other revealed truths through a proper
58 Op. cit. (footnote 44). Supporters of this opinion are especially
De Grandmaison, Gardeil, Journet, Balic, Rondet, Sauras, Bonnefoy,
Roschini, Dhanis, Garcia Martinez. There are a few discrepancies
among these authors (for instance, some of them extend the infallible
definition of the Magisterium even to probable theological conclus­
ions); but they all agree in the essential positive doctrine.
56

Theological Conclusion
and illative process?59

Second. A conclusion which brings out a formally new con­
cept and follows with absolute necessity and certitude from
a revealed principle, even with the concourse of a principle of
reason, is implicitly revealed and truly homogeneous with the
explicit revealed truth. This is so because it is nothing else
than the proper and intrinsic virtuality of the revealed truth
itself, actually although implicity contained in it, in the man­
ner of an essential property or effect, and distinguished from
it not by a real distinction, but by the so-called distinction of
reason having its foundation in the reality of things (see above, p. 47). Therefore such a conclusion can be defined in the
same way as the explicitly revealed truths.

Again it is not reasonable to object that such conclusions
are not proper but improper conclusions; for they bring forth
a new and formally distinct concept, as in the examples just
mentioned. Nor can one oppose that such conclusions go be­
yond the revealed truth and are not homogeneous with it,
since they mingle with natural reason; for, natural reason is
involved only in the process of concluding, not in the object
of the conclusion itself, which is directly drawn from the re­
vealed truth, although with the help of the natural principle
and of the natural reasoning. The same thing happens, es­
sentially and proportionally, when a theological conclusion is
drawn from two premises of faith ( in which case all theolog­
ians admit that it can be defined as of divine faith) ; for in both
cases a new distinct concept is drawn from a revealed truth
by means of a process of natural reasoning, and the difference
of the two premises of faith is accidental to this matter.
Third. Any infallible definition of the Magisterium carries
with it the obligation of assenting by divine faith to the pro­
posed doctrine. The reason is because an infallible definition
obliges to an infallible assent of faith ( that is, an assent that
cannot be deceived), and only the assent of divine faith is in­
fallible, because only God is infallible. Hence, an assent which
would be based directly on the sole authority of the Magister­
ium, even under God’s assistance, is only an assent of fallible

59 Cf. Gardeil, op..cil. (footnote 44) 171.
57

The Channels of Revelation

faith based on a fallible human authority. Hence the so-called
ecclesiastical faith involves a contradiction, by being at once
infallible and not divine, that is, infallible and not infallible.
There is no middle term between divine faith and purely hu­
man faith.60

What has been said about the definition of theological con­
clusions applies likewise to the definitions of dogmatic facts,
pronounced infallibly by the Magisterium; namely, these
definitions also carry the obligation, not of the so-called ec­
clesiastical faith (as the aforementioned theologians claim),
but of the same divine faith by which the revealed truths
themselves are believed. This however, cannot be explained
but by reducing the dogmatic facts to theological conclusions,
that is, by considering them as implicitly contained in the re­
vealed truths and brought out into explicit knowledge by the
infallible declaration of the Magisterium. The inclusion of
these facts in the revealed truths can be understood as that
of a particular in the universal, not however simply and ab­
solutely (as Peter is included in the human race), but hypo­
thetically and conditionally, that is, on the supposition that
some condition is verified.
Thus, the dogmatic historical fact that the Council of Trent
is infallible, is implicitly contained in the general revealed
truth that all ecumenical Councils are infallible, provided they
are legitimate. Such a fact can be brought into explicit know­
ledge by merely and naturally verifying Trent’s legitimacy
through a reasoning process, which leads to the following
proper theological conclusion: “Every ecumenical Council is
infallible in its definitions, if it is legitmate in its convocation
and acts; therefore, the Council of Trent is infallible.” This
same process applies to other dogmatic facts, both historical
and doctrinal.61 Thus the dogmatic doctrinal fact of the

60 Marin-Sola: “The ecclesiastical faith is a useless invention”
(op.cit. [footnote 44] I 454). Gardeil: “The so called ecclesiastical
faith [is] a word and a thing entirely new, unknown to thomistic the­
ology, a kind of fourth theological virtue, invented to designate the
assent given to theological conclusions . . . supported by an act of
the ecclesiastical authority” (op. cit. [footnote 441 183).
e* See their distinction above, footnote 55.
58

Theological Conclusion
orthodoxy or heterodoxy of a word or proposition or text or
book of an author, is contained implicitly in the revealed truth
and brought out from it through the following conclusion: “All
texts, which bear a sense contradictory to revealed truth, are
heretical; but this particular text bears a sense contradictory
to revealed truth; therefore this particular text is heretical.”62

62 Such was the case of the condemnation of Jansenius’ work
“Augustinus." The Jansenists tried to weaken the strength and
sense of that condemnation, distinguishing between the question of
right (that is, whether a proposition taken in itself is heretical) and
the question of fact (that is, whether a proposition, as contained in
this particular book and as pertaining to this particular author, is
heretical), and they granted the condemnation only in the first
sense. But Alexander VII rejected this interpretation, declaring that
“the propositions of Jansenius had been condemned in the sense in­
tended by Jansenius himself” (Denz. 2012).
59

VI
Theological Notes and Censures83

This question is logically and methodologically connected
with the two preceding questions, because the note or critical
judgment about a doctrine, as to its agreement with revealed
truth, shows its greater or lesser value as a principle of theo­
logical argumentation, according to whether it is a doctrine of
faith, or only theologically certain, or merely probable.
1. Notion of theological note and censure.

“Note” or “mark” means generically a distinctive sign, while
“censure” (from the Roman office of censor) means an act of
rebuke. In ecclesiastical science, “note” is taken in two senses,
namely, apologetically, as a distinctive sign of the Church (the
four notes of the Church, called unity, sanctity, catholicity,
and apostolicity), and dogmatically, as a favorable judgment
on the theological value of a doctrine ( whether it is de fide, or
certain, or probable). Likewise “censure” is taken both in the
canonical sense of penalty (canonical censure) and in the
dogmatic sense of unfavorable judgment (theological censure).
Theogical note and theological censure are often taken inter­
changeably, and they are also called theological value or quali­
fication.
They are properly defined: a judgment about the dogmatic63
*

63 Cf. C. Cahill, The Development of the Theological Censures Af­
ter the Council of Trent (1563-1709), Fribourg, Switzerland 1955;
S. Cartechini De valore notarum theologicarum et de criteriis ad
eas dignoscendas, Rotna 1951; Dall’oplnione al dogma. Valore delle
note theologiche, Roma 1953; E. Doronzo, Theologia dogmatica 1
(Washington, 1966) 526-542.
60

Theological Notes and Censures
value of a proposition, or more distinctly: a judgment about
the agreement or disagreement of a proposition with a doc­
trine proposed by the Magisterium. If the judgment is of agreement, it is called more properly ‘note;” if it is of dis­
agreement, it is called more properly “censure.”
2. History of theological notes and censures.

Pronouncing such judgments is a part of the teaching office
of the Church, which has exercised it since the beginning in
various manners. St. Paul condemns as “anathema” any one
who would spread false doctrines (Gal. 1.9; cf. 1.6-8; 1 John
2.22; 4.1-3; 2 John 7 and 10). In the first centuries, the Mag­
isterium condemned schismatics and heretics with the same
censure of “anathema,” which in the canons of ancient Coun­
cils meant a solemn excommunication, implying also a de­
claration of heresy in the case of a doctrine (see in Denzinger
the various canons and decisions of the Councils of Rome, Car­
thage, Ephesus, Orange, Constantinople II and IV, Nicaea II).
Only in the 14th century the Magisterium began to use those
particular expressions and distinctions, which have become
traditional and classical in theology. John XXII (+1334) con­
demned various errors, using for the first time four out of the
five principal censures, more commonly listed by theologians,
namely, heretical, erroneous, temerarious, and ill-sounding
(Denz. 916, 924, 946, 979); the Council of Constance in 1418
added the fifth censure, “offensive to pious ears” (Denz. 1251 ).
From then on the same censures were frequently repeated,
along with other names; several of them were particularly and
distinctly used by Innocent X against Jansenius (Denz. 2006),
by Alexander VIII against certain moral opinions (Denz.
2269), and by Pius VI against the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia
(Denz. 2601-2700). The Councils of Trent and Vatican I in
their canons used consistently the word “anathema,” also in
the sense of heretical. Recent documents generally abstain
from applying particular censures under the aforementioned
names and simply condemn or proscribe errors (cf. the con­
demnation of Bonnetty, Gunther, the Rationalists, the Ontologists, Rosmini, and the Modernists, Denz. 2811 ff., 2828 ff.,
2841 ff., 2901 ff., 3241, 3466).
3. Author of notes or censures, and manner of their applica61

The Channels of Revelation
tion.
The principal author is naturally the Magisterium, as the
authentic guardian and defender of revelation. Hence this task
belongs to the Roman Pontiff (acting directly or through the
Roman Congregations) and to the bishops (in Councils or in­
dividually), and it is usually exercised by way of censure
rather than by positive theological notes. However, also pri­
vate doctors or theologians, as specialists in their field and
qualified witnesses of revelation, can assign a theological cen­
sure or note; such a right was often put into practice by great
universities, as those of Paris and Louvain, and is usually ap­
plied by various theologians in their writings, who try in this
manner to interpret the prouncements of the Magisterium.

The manner in which censures are applied by the Magister­
ium is various. Often an individual proposition is directly con­
demned, either with a simple censure or with several (for in­
stance, as heretical, erroneous, and temerarious). Sometimes
several propositions are condemned together and “in globo,”
either equally with one or several censures or unequally and
respectively, so that one or another of the assigned censures
regards each proposition, without any further determination
(cf. Denz. 1251, the first global censure, issued by the Coun­
cil of Constance against Wyclif and Hus; Denz. 1592, against
Luther; Denz. 1980, against Baius; Denz. 2332, against Jan­
senists, etc.).
4. Division of notes and censures.

As there are many ways of valuating a proposition, the num­
ber and the names of notes and censures vary in the docu­
ments of the Magisterium, and in the writings of theologians.
However, among the censures issued by the Magisterium,
there are five which show a more definite and distinctive
character, and are brought to particular attention by theolo­
gians, namely, heretical, erroneous, temerarious, ill-sounding,
and offensive to pious ears. These and many others used by
the Magisterium®4 can be reduced to two general headings;
some involve a doctrinal defect, either in the concept itself

64 See especially the Constitution “Auctorem fidei,” issued in 1794
by Pius VI against the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia (Denz. 2601-2693).
62

Theological Notes and Censures
(heretical, erroneous, temerarious), or in its expression (illsounding), others involve directly only a moral defect (offen­
sive to pious ears; under the same heading would come more
serious censures, which easily involve also a grave doctrinal
defect, as scandalous, blasphemous, and schismatic).

Heretical proposition (opposed to the note: de fide) is the
gravest censure, involving a direct opposition to a proposition
defined by the Magisterium as de fide. Such opposition can be
either a direct contradiction (by saying, for instance: Christ
is not a man) or a simple contrariety (Christ is an angel); in
both cases there is heresy, because two contradictory, as well
as two contrary propositions, cannot be true at once.65 With
this censure are connected three lower and intermediate cen­
sures, which have a peculiar and undetermined opposition to
faith, namely, proximate to heresy (opposite note: proximate
to faith), tasting heresy (resembling heresy), and suspected
of heresy; these last two imply only a probability of heresy.

Erroneous proposition (opposed to the note: theologically
certain, or Catholic doctrine), which is the principal definite
censure after that of heresy, implies an opposition not immed­
iately to faith itself, but to a proposition directly and neces­
sarily connected with faith, so that if this is denied, faith also
would be denied, at least logically if not actually. Such a prop-

e5 The opposite note “de fide” is distinguished by some theolog­
ians into that “of divine faith” (which would correspond to truths
as merely found in the deposit of Scripture and Tradition) and that
“of Catholic faith” (which is attributed to truths defined by the Mag­
isterium). But it would be better to abstain from such a distinction,
since there is only one faith and one object of faith, that which fol­
lows the definition of the Magisterium. Hence the expression “This
is a truth of divine and Catholic faith,” occurring in some documents
of the Magisterium, is a mere pleonasm which brings forth the two
elements necessary to constitute the object of faith, namely the rev­
elation of God and the proposition of the Magisterium.
As shown above (p. 58), there is no such thing as an ecclesiastical
faith, distinct from divine faith; consequently we discard the cor­
responding note and censure (truth of ecclesiastical faith, error or
heresy in ecclesiastical faith), listed by the supporters of this “faith.”
Hence, the triple division, divine faith, Catholic faith, and eccles­
iastical faith, is to be avoided, as a cause of confusion.
63

The Channels of Revelation
osition, necessarily connected with faith, is either a strict
theological conclusion (see above, p. 53) or the so-called Cath­
olic doctrine, that is, a doctrine so intimately connected with
faith that it is commonly believed to be certainly revealed,
and hence proximately definable, although it has not yet been
defined by the Magisterium as de fide: also such a point of
Catholic doctrine is to be objectively reduced to a theological
conclusion, although its intimate connection with faith is not
known through a logical and a priori process, but through an
evident sign, that is, from the fact that it is commonly thought
to be a revealed truth and as such is proposed also by the Mag­
isterium, before defining it infallibly.®®
Temerarious proposition ( opposed to the note : highly prob­
able, or morally certain) is a less definite censure and more
difficult to describe. A temerarious proposition is opposed to
a proposition not entirely certain but highly probable and in
this sense morally certain, as being solidly founded and com­
monly accepted among theologians. It is called temerarious,
precisely because it affirms or denies something either with­
out sufficient foundation or against the common opinion of
theologians.*
67

Ill-sounding proposition (opposed to the note: correctsounding) implies a defect regarding not the truth itself but
its expression. Such a defect consists in the inaccuracy or the
ambiguity of the expression ( due to the words themselves or
to historical circumstances) which may lead to error about
the truth; for, as St. Thomas remarks after St. Jerome, *'a
heresy may arise from words wrongly used” ( Summa Theol.,

Such are the chapters of Trent and Vatican I, the two dog­
matic Constitutions of Vatican II (on the Church and on Revelation),
the Encyclical “Quanta cura” and the Syllabus of Pius IX, the En­
cyclical “Pascendi” and the Decree “Lamentabili” of Pius X, the
Encyclical “Casti Connubii” of Pius XI, the Encyclical “Humani
generis” of Pius XII. However, some of these documents may be in­
fallible definitions de fide, as we noted above (footnote 43).
67 Such would be, for instance, the affirmation of an immaculate
conception for St. John the Baptist; the negation of the necessity of
interior intention in the minister of a sacrament, or of the objective
gravity of sexual intercourse outside marriage.
64

Theological Notes and Censures
p. 1, q. 31, a.2).6a

Offensive to pious ears proposition (opposed to the note:
fitting for piety) implies a defect not of doctrinal order (re­
garding the truth or its expression) but only of moral order.
Such a defect consists in saying a truth, which should be kept
unsaid out of reverence for holy things, or in saying it in a
manner which would cause contempt for holy things; both of
these things offend the sense of piety and are opposed to the
virtue of religion.68
69 However, such a theological offense to
pious ears must not be valued and measured according to the
ears of any vulgar crowd, who easily take childish offense or
Pharisaic scandal, but according to sound and Christian com­
mon sense.
5. Interpretation and use of notes and censures.

With regard to the interpretation of these qualifications,
careful attention should be paid to their author (whether they
procede from the Magisterium itself or from the private judg­
ment of theologians ), to their proper and historical sense, and
especially to their proper force, as to the agreement or disa­
greement of a proposition with revealed truth. For, while the
two first censures of heretical and erroneous propositions ( and
their opposite notes) arc absolutely immutable, on account of
the evident opposition of these propositions to revealed truth,
the last three censures are reformable with the change of cir­
cumstances, which are the cause of the aformentioned per­
nicious character.
Thus, what is a temerarious proposition at one time may
68 Such would be, for instance, the following propositions: “In
God there are three relative essences” (in which essence is incor­
rectly taken for person and may induce one to believe that in God
there are simply three essences, and hence three gods); “In the
Trinity the Father is the cause of the Son" (which in the strict sense
of causality, as the word “cause” is understood in the Latin Church,
would imply subordination and inferiority on the part of the Son).
69 Such would be, for instance, an emphasis on some moral de­
fects or sins of the apostles or other saints (who should be highly
revered), as in the following prayer: “O Magdalen prostitute, Mat­
thew usurer, Peter perjurer, Paul persecutor, pray for us!"
65

The Channels of Revelation

not be temerarious at another time, if such a proposition be­
comes solidly probable, after sufficient reasons for it have
been advanced ( for instance, the affirmation of an immaculate
conception for St. Joseph is no longer temerarious, as it used
to be branded). A fortiori an ill-sounding proposition may lose
such character, when words and formulas change their mean­
ing through historical or doctrinal evolution, as happened to
those used to express the mysteries of Trinity and Incarnation.
The same holds a fortiori for a proposition offensive to pious
ears, whose offensive character has only a relative basis, so
that what is offensive at one time and in some circumstances
may not be such in other times or circumstances.
With regard to the use of notes and censures by theologians,
the following observations may be suitable. These qualifica­
tions should be based on and derived from the documents of
the Magisterium, when the Magisterium itself has not assign­
ed any explicit qualification. They should be simplified as to
their number and their names, as we did above; the five quali­
fications, just explained, seem to be sufficient, at least gener­
ally, and in particular in theological manuals for the schools;
the note “de fide” should not be sub-divided into those of
“divine faith” and ‘‘Catholic faith,” much less with the addit­
ion of “ecclesiastical faith;” and the note “Catholic doctrine,”
if used, should be accompanied by a clear explanation, on ac­
count of its broad and somewhat ambiguous sense.

Regarding the moral value of these qualifications, it should
be noted that only the first censure (heretical) implies a sin
against faith and the loss of this virtue, while all the others
imply only a sin against the virtue of religion, and the last
three (temerarious, ill-sounding, and offensive to pious ears)
involve also a sin against prudence.

66

Glossary of Technical Words

Occurring In This Treatise

Analogy of faith is a theological expression which adopts
the philosophical term of analogy, meaning a similarity be­
tween two concepts. Hence analogy of faith means a similarity
between two revealed truths, or more properly the agreement
which is necessarily found between the various truths of faith,
so that from one we can rightly judge about the other: thus
from the perpetual virginity of Mary we understand that those
who are called brothers and sisters of Christ in the Gospel are
only close relatives to him.
Argument-Conclusion. Argument or demonstration is a
process by which we draw a conclusion from principles. This
is done in any science. Hence it is proper to theology as a
science to use arguments, that is, to draw conclusions from the
principles of revelation, which are the various truths revealed
by God. These theological conclusions, if they follow not mere­
ly probably but necessarily from the revealed principles, can
be infallibly defined by the Church Magisterium, just as the
revealed principles themselves, and hence they become also
the object of our faith. Thus, from the revealed truth that
Christ is also a true man similar to us, it is necessarily con­
cluded that Christ has also a human will besides his divine
will, and the Magisterium explicitly defined this as an article
of divine faith in the Council of Constantinople III in 681.

Faith can be taken in two ways. First in a subjective sense,
that is, for the virtue of faith residing in our mind and the
consequent act of faith by which we express our belief in the
word of God; in this sense Christians are called “The Faith­
ful.” Secondly, faith is often taken in an objective sense, that
67

The Channels of Revelation
is, for the objects or truths we believe, briefly the word of
God. It is in this second sense that faith is taken in the follow­
ing expressions commonly used in theology:

Preambles of faith are those truths about God which can
be known through natural reason (such as his existence and
Providence) and which therefore are presupposed to, and
prepare the understanding of, the supernatural truths. Foun­
dations of faith are the revealed truths themselves, briefly
revelation, which is the object and hence the foundation of
faith. This is the reason why the theological treatise on rev­
elation is called fundamental theology. Principles of faith are
the same revealed truths inasmuch as they become the prin­
ciples of all theological reasoning and conclusions. Truths of
faith are the same revealed truths considered in themselves.
Articles of faith are more strictly the principal or fundamen­
tal truths of faith, as those contained in the Creeds or Sym­
bols of faith. Formula of faith is a definite expression of
revealed truth, such as the various symbols of faith or the
definitions of the Magisterium. Symbols of faith (the Creeds)
are the formulas expressing the principal revealed truths. Rule
of faith is the authoritative factor which determines for us the
object to be believed; it is divided into the remote rule (Scrip­
ture and Tradition) and the proximate rule (the Church Mag­
isterium). Dogma of faith (or simply dogma) is revealed
truth, contained in the deposit of Scripture and Tradition, as
presented to us for belief by the infallible Magisterium; dog­
matic formulas are the various expressions of the same dogma
in the documents of the Magisterium. Analogy of faith is the
necessary agreement existing between various revealed truths.
Magisterium generically means teaching function or office,
whether freely accepted by others or imposed upon them by
social rules. It implies always a doctrinal authority in the
sense that a master or teacher as such knows more than the
disciples or listeners, and hence impresses them with his sup­
eriority and has an influence on their mind with his know­
ledge. But a merely human Magisterium has no practical au­
thority, that is, it cannot force anyone’s mind to accept what it
says or teaches, for the human intellect is an interior faculty
and hence ontologically and socially free from coercion.

68

Glossary

God's Magisterium on the contrary has also a practical
authority, that is, it can command to the mind of man to ac­
cept his words and his teaching, not only by virtue of his in­
finite and infallible knowledge (which implies a supreme
doctrinal authority), but by his dominion over our intellect
as well as over our whole being. Moreover, nothing prevents
God from communicating this practical authority of his to a
man with regard to others, to be exercised by him in God’s
name and as it were instrumentally, in the manner of a com­
missioned office. Such is precisely the Magisterium of the
Church, which can oblige the faithful to believe its pronounce­
ments or presentations of the word of God. For this reason it
is called the authentic or authoritative Magisterium.
Reason. When we speak of natural reason, or light, or prin­
ciples, in opposition to supernatural revelation, or light, or
principles, we point out the proper and specific power of our
intellect, working out its knowledge from its own innate
principles in the light of that proper perfection that makes
man a rational animal. For this proper work our intellect does
not strictly and physically need any additional supernatural
help from God, although in the present condition of fallen na­
ture after the original sin, we morally need such help only to
promptly and definitely understand, as we should, moral and
religious truths ( such as God’s existence, creation, Providence,
and our fundamental obligations to him and to our neighbor).

But with regard to the knowledge of truths concerning
supernatural religion ( such as the Trinity, Incarnation, sancti­
fying grace, faith, hope of beatific vision, love of friendship
for God) our natural intellect is powerless and blind, and
hence it needs a proportionate supernatural help, that is, a
higher light (of revelation, faith, or beatific vision). This sup­
ernatural light blends, as it were, with the natural light of
reason itself and makes it able to elicit a supernatural act ( of
knowledge, of faith, or beatific vision). Thus reason is elevat­
ed to a higher order and the rational animal becomes a par­
taker of the proper light of God.

Revelation is generically the manifestation of a hidden
truth, either in the natural or in the supernatural order.
69

The Channels of Revelation
Supernatural revelation, taken subjectively on the part of the
act of knowledge, can signify in a broader sense any superna­
tural help in the line of the intellect, just as grace can signify
any supernatural help in the line of will, or in both lines. How­
ever, strictly speaking, revelation is such a supernatural help
which makes us understand directly a supernatural truth and
thus it is equivalent to speech of God to man. In this strict
sense revelation is distinguished from two other supernatural
lights or helps. These are, first inspiration, that is, a superna­
tural movement of God for writing without error what God
wills a man to write, given in such a manner that God becomes
the principal author of the writing. This took place with the
various men who wrote the Bible, called therefore the inspir­
ed books. Second, assistance of the Holy Spirit, by which God
disposes and arranges things and human actions in such a man­
ner as to prevent a human writer or speaker from any error
in a particular work or speech ( as in the case of the Pope or
an ecumenical council when defining infallibly a revealed
truth).

Taken objectively, revelation is the truth manifested to us
by God through the aforementioned supernatural light, that
is, the revealed truth. To this concept of revelation are refer­
red the theological terms of source, channel, deposit and organ
of revelation, of which we are about to speak in the following
entry.

Source, channel, deposit, organ of revelation. All these
terms carry the same general concept of means of transmis­
sion of God’s revelation to man. However, there is a shade of
meaning between them, by reason of which they are not used
interchangeably in theology. Up until the Second Vatican
Council, Scripture and Tradition were called sources of reve­
lation; the term channel has always kept an indefinite mean­
ing and attribution. Vatican II suggested a change in theo­
logical terminology by using the term source of revelation
only to signify the Gospel itself, and the term deposit to signi­
fy Scripture and Tradition. Hence the terminology, as it stands
now, is the following. The source of revelation is the Gospel
preached by Christ; Scripture and Tradition are the deposits
(or rather one total deposit) of revelation (or the channels
70

Glossary
containing revelation); the Magisterium is the organ of rev­
elation (or the channel immediately transmitting revelation to
us). To use a common image, the living water of revelation
comes down from the Gospel as its original source; it is gather­
ed into the water tower of Scripture and Tradition; from this
it is finally channelled to us, for our immediate needs and
obligations, through the pipeline of the Magisterium. Of course
it is up to our good will and savoir-faire to turn the faucet the
right way in order to get from the indefectible pipeline of the
Magisterium the limpid water, gathered into the unbroken
reservoir of Scripture and Tradition from the inexhaustable
source of the Gospel.

Theological “Loci” are called the places in which theolog­
ians find the proper principles of their investigation and
demonstrations. The ten theological “loci” usually listed after
Melchior Cano (+1560), their first illustrator (namely, Scrip­
ture, Tradition, Believing Church, the Magisterium of the
Pope, the Magisterium of the Ecumenical Councils, the Fa­
thers, the theologians, natural reason, the authority of philo­
sophers, and history), can be reduced to three (omitting the
last three which are merely extrinsic and confirming “loci”),
namely, Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium, which arc
also channels of revelation and rules of faith.

71

Analytical Index

Analogy of faith, an expression used by theologians and in­
sisted upon by the Magisterium, is the mutual agreement
which necessarily exists between the various truths of faith,
8.
Apostles. After Christ’s Ascension the apostles received sev­
eral public revelations, footnote 49, but with the death of the
last apostle ( St. John who died about 100) public revelation
was closed forever, 45. The apostles had a deeper under­
stand of the revealed truths, at least of those which are ex­
plicitly revealed, 51.

Believeing Church. The sense of all the faithful about a doc­
trine of faith, or a doctrine connected with it, is witness to
Tradition, 19, 22- 24. It carries also infallibility in matters
of faith, 22. It can be compared to the natural common sense
with regard to the first principles of reason, 23, 49. It is an
influential cause of the development of dogma, 49 f.
Censures (theological). See Notes (theological)
Channels (of revelation) are divided into deposits of revela­
tion (Scripture and Tradition, which can be considered as
one total deposit) and organ of revelation (the Magister­
ium), footnote 3, 15. See Source (of revelation)

Conclusions (theological). In the strict sense a theological
conclusion is a proposition necessarily derived from a reveal­
ed truth by means of a discoursive process of our natural
reason, 52 f. It is distinguished from a mere explanation of
the revealed truth and also from a proposition which follows
only probably from a revealed truth, 52 f. Various examples
72

Analytical Index

of theological conclusions 48, 56. To theological conclusions
are to be reduced the so-called dogmatic facts, that is, those
historical or doctrinal facts that arc necessarily connected
with the revealed truth, 54; see Dogmatic facts. The Mag­
isterium can infallibly define theological conclusions, but it
is disputed whether in that way they become the object of
divine faith (as is more probable) or of an inferior kind of
ecclesiastical faith, 54-59; see Faith (ecclesiastical)
Deposit (of revelation). See Channels (of revelation)

Doctors (of the Church). See Fathers (of the Church)
Dogma. In the strict sense dogma is a revealed truth infallibly
defined by the Magisterium as to be believed of divine faith,
40 f. It is objectively immutable with regard to the defined
truth itself, 41 f., but it undergoes development and progress
with regard to the formulation and the logical implications
of the revealed truth, 43-51. This progress is both subjective,
as to a clearer understanding of the truth, and also objective,
consisting in the passage of a truth from implicit to explicit,
44-50. Nature of this passage and various examples, 46-49.
Historical ways and causes of the development of dogma,
49-51. There can be in the history of the Church an obscu­
ration or regress about a revealed truth, totally so before
its solemn definition by the Magisterium, and only partially
afterwards, 51. See Conclusion (theological). Faith {divine).
Revelation

Dogmatic facts are those historical or doctrinal facts that arc
necessarily connected with a revealed truth, such as the or­
thodoxy or eterodoxy of a doctrine or writing of an author,
and the legitimacy of a Pope or Council, 54, 58 f. They are
to be reduced to theological conclusions; see this entry. They
can be infallibly defined by the Magisterium, but it is dis­
puted whether they become the object of divine faith ( as is
more probable) or of an inferior kind of ecclesiastical faith,
54-59; see Faith (ecclesiastical)
Faith (divine). Scripture and Tradition are only the remote
rule of faith, while the Magisterium is its proximate rule,

73

The Channels of Revelation
infallibly determining for us the object to be believed, which
thus becomes dogma of faith: see Dogma Magisterium Scrip­
tures Tradition. A “de fide” proposition is the first theo­
logical note, to which a heretical proposition is directly op­
posed, 63; see Notes (theological)
Faith (ecclesiastical), as to its origin, its supporters, and its
weakness, 55, 58, 66, footnote 65. See Conclusions (theolog­
ical). Dogmatic facts

Faithful. See Believing Church

Fathers (of the Church). They can be considered in two
ways, that is, as witnesses to Tradition, 7, 11, 19. 20, 24, and
as private doctors, 24, 27. Considered as witnesses to Tradi­
tion, their doctrine is the principal part of what is called ar­
gument of Tradition, 20: in this argument the doctrine of the
Fathers should be carefully valuated, 20; see Tradition.
Considered as private doctors, their doctrine is the basis of
a secondary and mere probable argument in theology, 27.
The four qualifications required to be a Father of the
Church, 24 f. Distinction between Fathers and both eccles­
iastical writers and Doctors of the Church, 25 f. List of the
Doctors of the Church, 26
Inspiration. Its notion and extension, 2 f. It gives to Scripture
its importance and its relative excellence over Tradition, 15,
footnote 24. However, we know only from Tradition itself
that Scripture, as a whole, is inspired, 14, 15
Magisterium (of the Church). Notion and division into ordi­
nary and extraordinary 33 f. The ordinary Magisterium has
the same value as the extraordinary, 7, 35. The Magisterium
is the channel and the organ of revelation as well as the
proximate rule of faith, and under this consideration it is
for us more important than Scripture and Tradition, foot­
note 3, 34 f. The Magisterium declares the sense of Scrip­
ture, 7, 35, and of Tradition, 19, 35. It is, however, inferior
to Scripture and Tradition inasmuch as these are the deposit
of revelation from which the Magisterium derives its doc­
trine, 6. The Magisterium is also part of Tradition, taken in­
74

Analytical Index

tegrally, 11, 19. It is the basis of the strongest argument in
theology, 35; for this purpose the various pronouncements
of the Magisterium should be carefully valuated, 35-37. The
Magisterium is one of the causes of the development of dog­
ma in various ways, 43, 50. Once infallibly defined by the
Magisterium, a truth becomes formally a dogma of faith,
40 f., objectively immutable, 41, and subjectively free from
a general obscuration or regress in the Church, 50 f.
Modernists deny the objective value and immutability of dog­
ma, footnote 46

Notes (theological). Their notion and distinction from theo­
logical censures, 60 f., their history, 61, author, 61 f., div­
ision, 62-65, interpretation and use. 65 f. The principal notes
are three, namely, a proposition of faith, a proposition theo­
logically certain, and a proposition greatly probable, to
which three censures are opposed, that is, heretical, errone­
ous, and temerarious propositions, 63 f.
Prescription (theological), as to its value and the manner in
which it should make up a theological argument. 21 f.

Protestants discard Tradition as a rule of faith, holding firmly
to their aphorism “Scripture alone,” footnote 18; they deny
also the infallibility of the Magisterium and the immutabil­
ity of dogmas defined by it. footnote 46
Revelation. Its object; see Conclusions (theological). Dogma.
The means of its transmission or channels ( which come
down to us from the Gospel, its source» are Scripture and
Tradition, as deposits of revelation, and the Magisterium, as
its organ; see these three entries. Public revelation, given
by Christ and partially continued through the apostles after
his Ascension, has been definitely closed at the death of the
last apostle ( St. John who died about 100), 45 f. Private
revelations are not an object of faith, even after their ap­
probation by the Magisterium which only declares them to
be in harmony with faith and Christian life, footnote 50

75

The Channels of Revelation
Scripture. Regarding the senses of biblical texts. See Sense
(biblical). Chronology of the various biblical writings, foot­
note 19. Scripture is not properly the source of revelation,
but its channel and deposit, footnote 3, 6. Comparison be­
tween Scripture and Tradition as to their value under the
aspect of deposit of revelation. 12-18. The interpretation of
biblical texts depends on Tradition and on the Magisterium,
6 f. See Inspiration. Magisterium. Tradition. Vulgate

Sense (biblical) is usually divided into literal, typical, and
ampler, 3-5. The third sense, introduced by some modern
scholars under the name of “sensus plenior,” seems difficult
to admit, 5. The literal sense is practically the most import­
ant, 8 f. The typical sense should not be easily asserted be­
cause it is known only through God’s revelation, 9

Source (of revelation), according to the new terminology in­
troduced by Vatican II, is the Gospel itself and not Scrip­
ture and Tradition, which are only the deposit of revelation,
footnote 3. See Channels (of revelation)

Theologians, as distinct from the Fathers of the Church, 27 f.
Not everyone who teaches theology or even holds a doctor­
ate in theology is properly a theologian in the theological
sense, but to be qualified as such two things are required,
namely, eminent doctrine and approbation (at least implicit)
of the Magisterium, 28 f. Theologians, considered as private
doctors, are the basis of a probable argument in theology,
especially in the case of general agreement, 29 f. Theolog­
ians have no Magisterium of their own but they are only
commissioned to teach by the authentic Magisterium, foot­
note 38. Theological reasoning is an influential cause of the
development of dogma, 46-49
Thomas Aquinas. His doctrine can be considered as the basis
of a strong probable argument in theology by reason of its
very special approbation by the Magisterium, which con­
siders St. Thomas as the “Doctor Communis,” 30-32. Vati­
can II points him out as the guide to be followed in Catholic
schools and theological faculties, 31. He was the first among
theologians to be declared Doctor of the Church, 26
76

Analytical Index

Tertullian, who introduced and effectively used the so-called
argument of prescription, footnote 27, is not properly speak­
ing a Father of the Church because of some important errors
in matters of faith, 25
Tradition is a channel and a deposit, of revelation, footnote 3,
12-14, 19. Taken integrally, it implies all the means
through which the revealed truth is transmitted, including
Scripture and the Magisterium, 11, 19, 23. The restrictive
sense, which opposes and distinguishes Tradition from Scrip­
ture, has been introduced by the theologians only after the
Council of Trent, 11. Comparison between Tradition and
Scripture in their value as deposited of revelation, 12-15.
Ambiguous controversy among recent authors about the
very existence of the so-called constitutive Tradition which
would contain some truths not sufficiently contained in
Scripture, 15-18. Tradition depends on the Magisterium as
to its interpretation, 18, 35. The argument of Tradition
should be carefully valuated, 19-21. See Fathers (of the
Church)

Vatican Council II introduced a new terminology, calling the
Gospel alone source of revelation, and Scripture with Tradi­
tion only deposit of revelation, footnote 3. It considers also
Scripture and Tradition as one total deposit rather than two
deposits of revelation, 15, 18. The Magisterium is not above
the word of God but merely its channel and organ, footnote
12. The mind of the Council about the so-called constitutive
Tradition, footnote 24. The sense of all the faithful in mat­
ters of faith is infallible, 23. On the development of dogma,
43 f. Public revelation has been closed forever at the death
of the last apostle, 46. This Council issued no definitions of
faith, even in the two dogmatic constitutions on revelation
and the Church, footnote 66

Vulgate, or the Latin version of the Bible, as to its authority
and theological use, 3, 6

77