TRADITION
12
TRADITION
ogy. But the fact remains that scientific hypothesis,
science which seeks itself, and philosophy which de-
velops itself sometimes seem in opposition to revealed
truth. In this case the teaching Church has the right,
in order to preserve traditional truth, to condemn the
assertions, opinions, and hypotheses which, although
not direct denials, nevertheless endanger it or rather
expose some souls to the loss of it. Authority has
need to be prudent in these condemnations and it is
wcU known that tlie cases are very rare when it may
be asserted with any appearance of justification that
it has not been sufficiently so, but its right to interfere
is indisjjutable for anyone who admits the Divine in-
stitution of the magisterium.
There are then between purely profane facts and opinions and revealed truths mixed facts and opinions which by their nature belong to the human order, but which are in intimate contact and close connexion with supernatural truth. These facts are called dog- matic facts and these opinions theological opinions. In very virtue of its mission the teaching authority has jurisdiction over these facts and opinions; it is even a positive truth, if not a revealed truth, that dogmatic facts and theological opinions may also like dogmatic trutlis themselves be the object of an infalli- ble decision. The Church is no less infallible in maintaining that the five famous propositions are in Jansenism than in condemning these propositions as heretical. A distinction must be made between dog- matic traditions or revealed truths, pious traditions, hturgical customs, and the accounts of supernatural manifestations or revelations which circulate in the world of Christian piety. When the Church inter- venes in order to pronounce in these matters it is never to canonize them, if we may so speak, nor to give them an authority of faith; in such cases it claims only to preserve them against temerarious attacks, to pro- nounce that they contain nothing contrary to faith or morals, and to recognize in them a human value suffi- cient for piety to nourish itself therewith freely and without danger.
V. The identity of revealed truth in the varieties of formulas, systematization, and dogmatic develop- ment; the identity of faith in the Clmrch and through the variations of theology. — The saying of Sully Prud- 'homme is well known; "How is it that this which is so comphcated (the 'Summa' of St. Thomas) has proceeded from what was so simple (the Gospel)?" In fact when we read a theological treatise or the pro- fession of faith and anti-Modernist oath imposed by Pius X they seem at first glance very different from the Holy Scripture or the Apostles' Creed. On closer study we become aware that the differences are not irreconcilable; despite appearances the "Summa" and the anti-Modernist oath are naturally hnked with the Scripture and the faith of the first Christians. To grasp thoroughly the identity of revealed truth such as was believed in the early centuries with the dogmas which we now profess, it is necessary to study thor- oughly the process of dogmatic expression in the com- plete history of dogma and theology. It is sufficient hero to indicate its general outhnes and character- istics. That which was shown in Scrijjture or the Evangelic Revelation as a living reality (the Divine Person of Jesus Christ) has been formulated in ab- stract terms (one person, two natures) or in concrete formulas (my Father and I are one); men passed con- stantly from the iniphcit seen or received to the ex- plicit reasoned and reticcted upon; they analyzed the complex data, coiniiared the separate elements, built uj) a system of tlic scattered trullis; they cleared up by analogies of faitli aii<l the Mght of reason points which were still obscure and fused them into a whole, in who.se parts the data of Divine Uevelation and those of human knowledge were .sometimes difficult to dis- tinguish. Briefly all this led to a work of transposi- tion, analysis, and sj-nthesis, of deduction and induc-
tion, of the elaboration of the revealed matter by
theology. In the course of this work the formulas
have changed, the Divine reaUties have become
tinged with the colours of human thought, revealed
truths have been mingled with those of science and
philosophy, but the heavenly doctrine has remained
the same throughout the varieties of formulas, sys-
tematization, and dogmatic ex-pression. It is seen at
different angles and to a certain extent with other
eyes, but it is the same truth which was presented to
the first Christians and which is presented to us
to-day.
To this identity of revealed truth corresponds the identity of faith. What the first Christians believed we stiU befieve; what we believe to-day they believed more or less explicitly, in a more or less conscious way. Since the deposit of Revelation has remained the same, the same also, in substance, has remained the taking possession of the deposit by the living faith. Each of the faithful has not at all times nor has he always explicit consciousness of all that he be- lieves, but his implicit belief always contains what he one day makes explicit in the profession of faith. Certain truths, which may be called fundamental, have always been explicitly professed in the Church, either by word or action; others which may be called secondary may have long remained implicit, envel- oped, as regards their precise detail, in a more general truth where faith did not discern them at the first glance. In the first case at a given time uncertainties may have existed, controversies have arisen, heresies cropped up. But the mind of the Church, the Cath- olic sense, has not hesitated as to what was essential, there has never been in the Christian world that darkening of the truth with which heretics have re- proached it; these might have seen and they who had eyes to see did see. On these points disputes have never arisen among the faithful; there have some- times been very sharp disputes, but they had to do with misunderstandings or bore only on details of expression.
As regards truths such as the dogma of the Immacu- late Conception, there have been uncertainties and controversies over the very substance of the subjects involved. The revealed truth was indeed in the de- posit of truth in the Church, but it was not formu- lated in explicit terms nor even in clearly equivalent terms; it was enveloped in a more general truth (that e. g. of the all-holiness of Mary), the formula of which might be understood in a more or less absolute sense (exemption from all actual sin, exemption even from original sin). On the other hand, this truth (the exemption of Mary from original sin) may seem in at least apparent conflict with other certain truths (uni- versality of original sin, redemption of all by Christ). It will be readily understood that in some circum- stances, when the question is put explicitly for the first time, the faithful have hesitated. It is even natural that the theologians should show more hesita- tion than the other faithful. More aware of the ap- parent opposition between the new opinion and the ancient truth, they may legitimately resist, while awaiting fuller light, what may seem to them unreflect- ing haste or unenlightened piety. Thus did St. An- selm, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure in the case of the Immaculate Conception. But the living idea of Mary in the mind of the Church implied absolute exemption from all sin without exception, even from original sin; thefaithful whom theological preoccuiyi- tions did not prevent from beholding tliis idea in its purity, with that intuition of the heart often more prompt and more enlightened than reasoning and re- flected thought, shrank from all restriction and could not suffer, according to theex))ressi(inof St. Augustine, that there slioulil lie question of any sin wliatsoever in connexion with Mary. Little by little the feeling of the faithful won the day. Not, as has been said, be-
