Réginald Schultes, The Catholic Teaching Concerning the Essence of Dogmatic Progress (a. 5)

Brief Translation Introduction

This translation is presented as a relatively stable sketch of this chapter from Reginald Schultes’s Introductio in historiam dogmatum. The text has been edited and reviewed, though it is not in the kind of final form of review that I would do for a published translation. My translation of this book ended up becoming one of the various important background texts used for a pedagogical essay that I am just now finishing concerning Dogmatic Development. I am posting the text here on To Be a Thomist for those who might be interested in referring to an English draft.

. I would like to thank Mr. Mitchell Kengor for his help filling out the details of footnote references.

Section 2: On the Essence of Dogmatic Progress

Article 5: The Catholic Teaching Concerning the Essence of Dogmatic Progress

The Catholic doctrine concerning the essence of dogmatic progress can be summarized in three propositions.

Proposition 1. The following explanations of dogmatic progress must be rejected as heretical: (a) Rationalist; (b) Protestant; (c) Modernist; (d) Güntherian

a) Rationalists hold that dogmatic development is nothing other than merely human development on the level of human cognition.¹

This teaching is expressly condemned by the [First] Vatican Council in the Dogmatic Constitution[s] on Faith and on The Church of Christ, for there dogmas are defined as being divinely (supernaturally) revealed, to be believed in on account of the authority of God who reveals, as [truths] that are infallibly proposed [by the Church], and as containing mysteries properly so called:²

Neque… decleranda “For the doctrine of faith that God has revealed has not been proposed like a philosophical system to be perfected by human ingenuity; rather, it has been committed to the spouse of Christ as a divine trust to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared.”³

Thus, also, in the canons in Dei filius, the following proposition is condemned:

“In revelatione…demonstrari.” “In divine revelation no true and properly so called [sic] mysteries are contained but that all dogmas of faith can be understood and demonstrated from natural principles by reason, if it is properly trained.”⁴

Likewise, the anti-modernist oath includes a condemnation of the error held by all who,

substitute for the divine legacy entrusted to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded by her, a philosophical system… and would leave us with a bare and simple fact, on a par with the common facts of history, (the fact), namely, that men, through their efforts, their skillfulness, and their ingenuity, continued in subsequent ages the instruction that was started by Christ and his apostles.⁵

Thus, it is clear that the rationalist position concerning dogmatic development is utterly contrary to the Catholic teaching concerning the nature of revelation, faith, the ecclesiastical magisterium, and dogmas themselves, and, in the end, is opposed to texts that can be drawn from Sacred Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, and the works of Scholastic Theologians (see a. 3 above).

b) Protestants hold that dogmatic development is fallible and also either erroneous or something that distorts revelation. Likewise, they hold that dogmas contain human accretions that are not only extraneous to revelation but, indeed, are contrary thereto.⁶ Now, this position has been condemned by both the Council of Trent as well as the [First] Vatican Council. The Council of Trent condemned the Protestant teaching by professing the Niceano-Constantinopolitan Creed (which itself is an ecclesiastical definition): “As the principle on which all who profess the faith of Christ necessarily agree and (as that) firm and only foundation against which the gates of hell will never prevail.”⁷ Moreover, she did so by declaring that, “in matters of faith and practice that pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine” Sacred Scripture is not to be interpreted “contrary to the meaning that Holy Mother the Church has held and holds.”⁸ And, finally, in response to other disputed topics, she [bore witness to the fact that she condemns the Protestant position concerning dogmatic development] by promulgating definitions in accord with ecclesiastical tradition.

The [First] Vatican Council principally condemned the Protestant teaching concerning dogmatic development in its definition concerning Papal infallibility, in which the Council concurrently declared the Church’s own infallibility in proposing dogmas, for the dogmas that she declared concerning the pope are themselves to be held on by divine faith. Likewise, the Fathers of the Church and the scholastics unanimously speak of the stability and immutability of doctrine.

c. Modernists⁹ hold that dogmatic development is a development or explication of religious sentiment or human consciousness, according to the moral and scientific condition of given periods of time, such that individual dogmas would only be symbols and likenesses of both religious sentiment and divine things, disfigurations and transfigurations of historical realities, and ways of expressing things in accord with the state of science at a given period of time. Thus, they would not contain objective truth but, rather, only a truth that is relative and mutable, nay, one that is exclusively practical in nature.¹⁰ Now, as is clear, the modernist position is at once Rationalist and Protestant in what asserts; therefore, it is already condemned based on what we have discussed above. However, it was also condemned expressly and specifically, indeed as heretical, both in Pius X’s encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis and in the Anti-Modernist Oath. It is condemned in its [philosophical and theological] presuppositions by the definition of the demonstrability of God’s existence, the knowability and existence of supernatural and divine revelation, the divine institution of the Church, the transmission of the true revelation in the Church, the definition of faith as an intellectual assent to revelation received from a personal God, and the charism of infallibility given to the Church. Moreover, it is condemned in itself, especially in the fourth proposition of the Anti-Modernist Oath:

“I therefore entirely reject the heretical theory of an evolution of dogmas, (namely,) that they change from one meaning to another, different from the one that the Church previously held. I also condemn any error that substitutes for the divine legacy entrusted to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded by her, a philosophical system or a creation of human reflection that gradually formed through human effort and is to be perfected in the future through unlimited progress.¹¹

Finally, the modernist doctrine is wholly different from what we find in the teachings of the Fathers and the scholastic theologians.

d. Anton Günther¹² held that, through the course of the ages, the Church proposes explications of revelation that have relative truth values, accommodated to the state of science in a given eras, with their particular shortcomings. Now, although this sort of claim does admit that dogmas have a kind of revealed foundation and, indeed, that there even is a kind of ecclesiastical infallibility (namely, for choosing those dogmatic explications that are more accommodated to a given era, or even more true, relatively speaking), nonetheless it ultimately destroys the absolute truth value of dogmas and the true nature of the Church’s infallibility, renders faith in dogmas impossible, and in the end, denies the existence of [revealed] mysteries, properly so called. Therefore, positions like Günther’s concerning the development of dogma were rightly condemned by the [First] Vatican Council when it promulgated the definition:

For the doctrine of faith that God has revealed has not been proposed like a philosophical system to be perfected by human ingenuity; rather, it has been committed to the spouse of Christ as a divine trust to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence also that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother Church has once declared.¹³

Likewise, Gunther’s teaching is condemned by the definition of Papal Infallibility. We will have more to say about Gunther’s teaching in a. 12 below (De evolutione dogmaticum in ordine ad traditionem).

Generally speaking, all of these sorts of positions or explanations concerning dogmatic development must be rejected, for:

1. they deny that dogmas are absolutely and immutably true;

2. they deny the Church’s infallibility in defining and proposing revealed [truths];

3. they destroy divine faith in dogmas and render it impossible.

All of these positions were, in fact, already condemned in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, and very strongly in the unanimous teaching of scholastic theologians.

Proposition 2. According to the Catholic faith dogmatic progress consists in the successive and infallible proposition and explication of revealed [truths].

I. According to the [First] Vatican Council (which itself embraced, in an abbreviated form, the tradition’s own teaching concerning these matters), the doctrine of faith revealed by God has been handed on to the Church as a kind of divine deposit “to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared.”¹⁴ Indeed, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter so that they might bring to light some kind of new doctrine that would have been revealed to them by Him; rather, He was given so that He might assist them to “reverently guard and faithfully explain” ¹⁵ the revelation (that is, the deposit of faith) that had been given to them. Now, reverent guardianship and faithful exposition (or infallible declaration) involve, on the one hand, the successive proposing and explaining of revealed [truths] and, on the other, progress in dogmas. (This is clear from what we said concerning the nature of dogma.)

This is confirmed by the words at the end of Dei filius:

Therefore, let there be growth and abundant progress in understanding, knowledge, and wisdom, in each and all, in individuals and in the whole Church, at all times and in the progress of ages, but only within the proper limits, i.e., within the same dogma, the same meaning, the same judgment.¹⁶

II. All of the scholastic theologians, whether before or after the Council of Trent, as well as the Fathers of the Church, by unanimous consent, hold that dogmatic progress takes place by way of the success of proposition and explication of revealed [truths] (as we set forth in article 4 above).

III. Dogmatic progress takes place in as much as dogmas are the subject of successive change [mutatio], which takes place in as much as the Church successively sets forth and explains various dogmas.

Above, we defined dogma as a divinely revealed teaching that is proposed by the Church to be believed. Thus, in the very nature of what a dogma is we must distinguish between:

1. its divine revelation and its being proposed by the Church;

2. the revealed truth in question and its explication, declaration, or exposition.

After the time of the Apostles, revelation came to a close; however, revealed [truths] will continue to be proposed [for belief] until the end of the world. The truth of revelation remains immutable in eternity, yet the explication, exposition, or declaration of revealed [truths] will of necessity continuously take place. In practice, the proposition and explication of revelation generally coincide, for when the Church proposes a given revealed truth, she generally does not merely propose it by itself and simply in the form in which it was revealed but, rather, also determines, formulates, and explicates the meaning of the revealed doctrine in different terms and concepts. Similarly, when she defines a given doctrine as being revealed (or a dogma), she simultaneously defines it as a legitimate explication or exposition of a divinely revealed doctrine. Thus, for example: the definition of the Word’s consubstantiality to the Father also involves the explication of the divinity of the Word; the definition of transubstantiation involves an explication of the Eucharist’s words of institution; the definition of the pope’s primacy of jurisdiction involves an explication of the words of Matthew 16:17–19; and so forth.

Now, in this sort of successive proposition and explication, we see that there is indeed dogmatic progress properly and formally speaking. Thus, the Catholic concept of dogmatic development is contained in the Catholic concept of dogma.

IV. Likewise, common objections, raised [from Catholic quarters] on the basis of the Catholic notion of dogma, are easily resolved on the basis of the Catholic notion of dogma. For it is commonly objected that:

1. Precisely as a revealed truth dogma does not allow for progress or development;

2. Revelation has come to a close;

3. The object of faith does not allow for change or growth;

4. The notion of a new dogma is a notion that is contradictory [to the Catholic understanding of revelation]

Now, to all of these kinds of objections we can respond by means of the aforementioned distinction, for:

1. Indeed, the truth of dogma does not allow for change or development, though its proposition and explication does;

2. Indeed, revelation has come to a close, though not its proposition and explication;

3. Indeed, from the perspective of being concerned with revealed truths, the object of faith does not allow for change or growth, although it does quite rightly allow for it from the perspective of the believing subject, inasmuch as various revealed truths are successively proposed to him, or explicated as something to be believed;

4. It is impossible that it would be a new dogma in the form of a new truth that would not heretofore have been revealed, though it is not impossible that there would be a new dogma as regards its proposition and explication as a revealed truth that is now being proposed and explicated for the first time.

V. Finally, on the basis of what we have said in this second proposition, the necessity of dogmatic progress is clear, that is, the necessity for the express proposition, explication, determination, or definition of revealed [truths] to believed, so that the faithful might be more diligently instructed and avoid errors and that those things that are of faith might be held by all through with an unshakeable faith. This was the excellently set forth by the greater scholastic theologians,¹⁷ as can be seen in the summary form given to their positions by Peter of Tarentaise (Pope Innocent V): “The first reason for the creed’s existence was the certain handing on of the truth, the second the dissemination of the truth that was handed on, and the third, the ruling out of errors.”¹⁸

Proposition 3. Scholastic Theology most excellently defines dogmatic progress as being the explication of that which is implicit (or passage from the implicit to the explicit). This takes place in three ways:

1. by passing from an implicit proposition of revelation to one that is explicit;

2. or, by the explicit explication or proposition of the implicit meaning of revealed [truths];

3. or, by the passage from implicit to explicit faith.

The fact that, generally speaking, such dogmatic progress consists in the explication of that which is implicitly revealed follows as a corollary from the second proposition proposed above, for proposition, declaration, exposition, and explication are always a kind of explicitation of that which is implicit. However, we can prove this part by part.

a) Dogmatic progress involves passing from an implicit proposition of revelation to an explicit proposition thereof. In a way, all the revealed truths were already proposed at the very start of the Church’s life, especially through the proposing of Sacred Scripture as being the inspired word of God, as well as through the proposing of the Church’s teaching as being the rule of faith and the proposing of the Apostles’ Creed. Nonetheless, it is not the case that, from the very start of her existence, all revealed truths were proposed by the Church determinedly and explicitly, at least as regards their meaning. (And the same holds true for today.) Rather, in later definitions, a number of truths successively came to be proposed for belief in their actual and explicit form. Thus, through dogmatic progress, truths that heretofore had been proposed implicitly have come to be proposed explicitly. Thus, for example: in the Apostles Creed, the central truths of the faith are proposed more explicitly; through the definitions concerning the consubstantiality [of the Word and the Father] and the hypostatic union the truth of faith concerning the divinity of the Word and the Incarnation of God were proposed in a more explicit form; so too, through the definition of the canon of Scripture, the inspired character of determinate books was made explicit; and through the definitions set forth by the [First] Vatican Council, the truth of faith concerning God, Revelation, faith, and the Church were all given a more explicit formulation.

b) Dogmatic progress involves the explication or explicit proposition of the implied meaning of revealed [truths]. Dogmatic progress generally is spoken of to refer to the explication of revealed truths. Now, in order for a given doctrine to be explicated, two things are required: (1) that the meaning of a given truth be expressed in a more explicit and determinate form, becoming more fully known or made known; (2) that the explicated truth remain unchanged (that is, that the explication and the truth that is explained both declare the same teaching). Both of these conditions are found in the explication or explicit proposition of the implicit sense of a truth, for through the explicit proposition of the implicit sense of a given truth, that very truth, now explicated, becomes known more fully, without however changing. Thus, at the end of the Conciliar Constitution Dei filius, the [First] Vatican Council speaks of the wish that there be development, through “within…the same meaning, the same judgment.”¹⁹

c. Dogmatic progress takes place from implicit to explicit faith.—Just as all revealed truths were proposed for beliefs from the very beginning of the Church, so too were they believed. However, they were not all believed explicitly, in particular, actually, and distinctly, but rather, some were believed explicitly, while others were believed in implicitly, namely in faith in God, in faith in Christ, in faith in revelation, in faith in the Church, or in faith in some other given, determinate truth. Through the dogmatic definitions by which a given truth was established as something to be believed in through divine and Catholic faith, faith came to be actuated, determinate, distinct, and particularized. That is, it became explicit. Thus, dogmatic progress takes place from implicit to explicit faith.²⁰ And so, Scholastic theologians most excellently define dogmatic progress as being the explication of that which is implicit, or, more briefly, the explication of faith. Now, by way of corollary, there are two additional propositions that we can set forth as follows.

Proposition IV. Scholastic theology most excellently formulates the nature of dogmatic progress as follows: there is no growth as regards the substance of the articles of faith but, rather, only as regards their explication. This formula is found in St. Thomas in ST II-II, q. 1, a. 7; however, as we saw above,²¹ it is also found in substance in Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, [St.] Albert the Great, Peter of Tarantaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, ultimately going back to the Master of the Sentences and Hugh of St. Victor.²² Technically speaking, the great scholastics, including St. Thomas, use this formula to set forth the nature of the progress of revelation. Nonetheless, Post-Tridentine theologians rightly transferred this formula, mutatis mutandis, making use of it to express the nature of dogmatic progress in the Church.²³ Similarly, the formula is held in general by all modern theologians, although it is expressed in various ways: such progress does not take place quoad se but quoad nos; the change in question does not take place as regards the substance of dogmas but only its accidents (that is, in the form of explication); it does not involve a materially new dogma but, rather, only something new formally; and so forth.

The meaning of this formula is as follows:

1. In the New Testament, dogmatic progress does not take place through the addition of new revelations, but rather, through a greater explication of apostolic revelation.²⁴

2. The dogmas that come to be defined later on by the Church do not set forth some doctrine that would be objectively different from what had been revealed to the Apostles and communicated to the Church herself but, rather, only sets it forth in a more explicit and determinate form, expressing or formulating the same doctrine in a different way. (This is sufficiently clear from what we said in propositions 1–3 and in the historical overview presented above.)

3. Finally, the formula means that dogmatic definitions involve no extraneous addition to revelation. That is, they involve no definition of a doctrine that would not be contained in the deposit of faith objectively (as regards what is asserted).

Therefore, when some thinkers restrict revelation or the deposit of faith to certain “general ideas,” they fall short of what is indicated in the scholastic formula concerning dogmatic development and the Catholic doctrine that such scholastic theology itself states. For were the deposit of faith so limited, the identity and immutability of the substance of faith would not be sufficiently retained in the midst of dogmatic development, nor would the scholastic and Catholic formulation of this matter be rightly understood. On the contrary, we must firmly hold: every doctrine that has come to be defined as a dogma is properly and in itself (formally) revealed and found in the deposit of faith; at this later time, it is only explicitly proposed by the Church to be believed, in a more explicit and determinate sense, thereby being expressed or formulated in a new manner. Thus, there is substantial identity or immutability.

Proposition 5. Finally, the ultimate theological or dogmatic form for expressing and determining the nature of dogmatic progress is: the explication of faith or of revealed [truths]. For this is what we find constantly and universally in the whole of scholastic theology, whether before or after the Council of Trent. Therefore, it has a theological authority, namely, from the consent of theologians, although it also has authority through the at-least-tacit or indirect approval of the Church herself. Indeed, the [First] Vatican Council, in stead of the term “explication” uses the terms “exposition” and “declaration.” However, at least as regards the very truth of the matter, it approved the term “explication” when it spoke of declaring, setting forth, and explicating. Therefore, the formula, “explication of faith or of revealed [truths]” must be retained as a proper and technical term that is properly theological and the scientific formulation of scholastic theology and is to be used in practice.

Indeed, as we already saw above, the great scholastics, and especially St. Thomas Aquinas, understood the expression, “explication of faith” in two senses:²⁵ (1) for the explication of revelation through a new revelation; (2) solely as the exposition and declaration (or formulation) of the meaning of a revealed truth. Regarding the first understanding of the expression, St. Thomas states, “The explication of things to be believed is brought about through divine revelation,”²⁶ and, “the articles of faith grow through the passage of time,” such that, however, “all the articles (later revealed) are contained in certain first credibilia,” namely in the revelation of God’s existence and of Divine Providence.²⁷ Along the second lines of how the formula can be understood, St. Thomas says:

We find explicated in one (creed) certain things that are implicitly contained in another.²⁸

(In other creeds) certain things are contained that stood in need of explication on account of heresies that arose.²⁹

In the later Councils, fathers of the Church did not intend to add something new (to the Nicene Creed) but, rather, on account of heresies that arose, strove to explain what was implicitly contained therein.³⁰

The Procession of the Holy Spirit from [or, through] the Son is implicitly contained in the Niceano-Constantinopolitan Creed, as much as it is there said that He proceeds from the Father.³¹

It pertains to the Pope to “finally determine those things that are of faith.”³²

But this is not so that the creed formalized [editum] by him would contain “a different faith” but, rather, would “more explicitly set forth the same faith.”³³

In the teaching of Christ and of the Apostles the truth of faith is sufficiently explicit (namely, as regards its revelation). However, because perverse men came to pervert the apostolic teaching and the Scriptures,… it was therefore necessary, with the passage of time, that the faith be explicated (through explicit proposition and definition of its implicit meaning) in opposition to the errors that arose.³⁴

However, later scholastics exclusively use the expression “explication of faith” in this latter, stricter sense. And thus, dogmatic progress is the explication of faith or progress from the implicit to the explicit.

Therefore, Catholic teaching admits and establishes the true nature of dogmatic progress.³⁵ However, as regards defined dogmas and the Church’s faith, excludes every form of objective change in revelation or faith, as well as any new addition by way of new revelation or human doctrines that are extrinsic to revelation. Thus, Catholic teaching defines dogmatic progress as being the successive proposition and explication of revelation, by way of the explicit proposition of what had been implicitly proposed in revelation and the explication of the implicit meaning of revealed [truths] (or of implicit revelation), such that the scientific scholastic and theological formula for dogmatic progress would be: the explication of faith.

The teaching of the scholastics concerning the explication of faith, which we set forth above in the historical overview (in a. 4), is completely sufficient by itself. However, on account of certain difficulties that have been raised by opponents of the faith, as well as on account of controversies among scholastic theologians, it does stand in need of further explanation, not so much to be perfected as in order to be more clearly defined and applied to more recent questions. This will be the task that we undertake in the following articles.

---

1. See a. 3, 1.1 above.↩︎

2. See a. 2 above.↩︎

3. First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, ch. 4 (Denzinger, no. 3020 [1800]).↩︎

4. First Vatican Council, Dei Filius ch. 4, canon 1 (Denzinger, no. 3041 [1816]).↩︎

5. Pius X, Sacrorum Antistitum (Denzinger, nos. 3541 and 3548).↩︎

6. See a. 3, no. 1 above.↩︎

7. Council of Trent (Denzinger, no. 1500 [782]).↩︎

8. Council of Trent, Session 4 (Denzinger, 1507 [786]).↩︎

9. See a. 3, no. 2 above.↩︎

10. See a. 3, no. 2 above.↩︎

11. Pius X, Sacrorum Antistitum (Denzinger, no. 3541).↩︎

12. See a. 3, no. 3 above.↩︎

13. First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, ch. 4 (Denzinger, no. 3020 [1800]).↩︎

14. First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, ch. 4 (Denzinger, no. 3020 [1800]).↩︎

15. First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus, ch. 4 (Denzinger, no. 3070 [1836]).↩︎

16. First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, ch. 4 (Denzinger, no. 3020). Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium primum 23, no. 3 (R. Demeulenaere: CpChL 64 [1985]: 177₇-178₁₂/PL 50:668A).↩︎

17. See a. 4, nos. 10 and 11 above.↩︎

18. Peter of Tarantaise, In III Sent., d. 25, a. 1, q. 3.↩︎

19. First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, ch. 4 (Denzinger, no. 3020 [1800]).↩︎

20. See a. 10 below.↩︎

21. See a. 4, no. 9 above.↩︎

22. See a. 4, no. 6 above.↩︎

23. See a. 4, nos. 15–26 above.↩︎

24. Pesch, S.J., Christiano. Praelectiones Dogmaticae vol. 8, [4^th and 5^th ed.], ([Freiburg: Herder and Co.], [1912-1922]). 93-96, no. 195.↩︎

25. See Giovanni Battista Franzelin, Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura, 2^nd ed., (Rome: Ex typographia Polyglotta: 1875), thesis 26, no. 2.↩︎

26. ST II-II, q. 2, a. 6.↩︎

27. See ST II-II, q. 1, a. 7; q. 174, a. 6. De veritate, q. 14, a. 11. In III Sent., d. 25, q. 2, a. 2.↩︎

28. ST II-II, q. 1, a. 9, ad 2.↩︎

29. In III Sent., d. 25, q. 1, a. 1, q. 3, ad 1 and 4.↩︎

30. De Potentia, q. 10, a. 4, ad 13.↩︎

31. Ibid.↩︎

32. ST II-II, q. 1, a. 10.↩︎

33. ST II-II, q. 1, a. 10, ad 2.↩︎

34. ST II-II, q. 1, a. 10, ad 1.↩︎

35. Thus, Mausbach most excellently notes that those who hold that there can be no true progress or evolution in the Christian religion, in fact, themselves hold a non-Catholic position. See Mausbach, Joseph, “Die Entwicklung des katholischen Dogmas,” Neues Hochland III (1906): 406-417, here 406: “The assertion that genuine Christianity does not allow for any kind of essential development is an anti-Catholic principle and a favorite weapon of heresy.”↩︎