CHAPTER 6
New and godless
language compared with praiseworthy
innovations first used by Christian teachers, and then by
the Church herself
38. ‘Test everything; hold fast to what is good’, says St. Paul.(60) This is the discernment of spirit proper to Christianity which, co-terminous with truth and all that is good, embraces everything true and good. What we have said about doctrine, therefore, is also to be applied to the use of words: we have to distinguish between blameworthy and praiseworthy innovations.
In his first letter to Timothy, St. Paul puts him on his guard against the wrong kind of innovation, ‘O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the profane innovations and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge; by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith.’(61) He does not teach him to avoid all innovation in language, but profane innovations and contradictions, that is, everything opposed to the deposit of faith. He warns him against what is falsely called knowledge, the sole source of contradictions; he has no quarrel with true knowledge which can only be in complete agreement with the sacred deposit.
39. This was certainly the meaning given to Paul’s splendid affirmation by ecclesiastical writers, including Fathers and Doctors of the Church. When St. Hilary admonishes Constantius with the words: ‘The Apostle says that new, but profane language must be avoided. Why, therefore, do you exclude new, pious language?’,*(62) {OLR} he shows that he recognises the danger of godless innovation in language, but at the same time upholds holy, praiseworthy innovations which the Emperor, an Arian supporter, was not prepared to grant.
St. Thomas comments on the same passage from St. Paul:
‘Avoid profane innovations and contradictions’: ‘Not to want to hear anything new means barking against custom, but new, profane things are not to be heard. A profane innovation is present when something is said against the faith.’*(63) {OLR}
In the preceding chapter we have shown that Catholic doctrine is susceptible of ever deeper investigation, but this would be impossible if language itself were unable to take on the new, richer expressions and modes contributed by all ecclesiastical writers. In his great work On the Canonisation of Saints,(64) Benedict XIV deals with the subject of praiseworthy, innovative language in his usual competent fashion, and offers several examples of the happy use of new words: ‘purgatory’, ‘trinity of persons’, ‘incarnation’, ‘transubstantiation’. He cites other examples from work on the subject by Father Cajetan Benito de Lugo(65) ‘physical predetermination’, ‘middle knowledge’, ‘moral pre-motion’, and ‘effective, intrinsic assistance’.
Similar expressions could be quoted endlessly from every school of Catholic theology. Fulgenzio Petrelli sums up the matter: ‘There are two kinds of innovation, one commendable, the other detestable. It is detestable in so far as it is vain, useless, out of harmony with morality, contrary to the faith, opposed to the divine Scriptures, and attacks the holy Fathers. It is commendable in so far as it is serious, useful, true, constant, in harmony with morality, at one with the faith and Scripture, and with the Fathers.’*(66) {OLR}
40. Innovative language is not only useful, but highly necessary in the face of sophisticated arguments from heretics accustomed to wriggling out of any situation in which they discover the slightest equivocation in expression. We need to note that language, especially the language of ordinary social life (and there is no other starting point) is poorly adapted for the precise expression of metaphysical concepts and sublime, theological doctrine. The same words often have several meanings, and can be employed in different ways by writers. An additional problem is the multiplicity of languages in which doctrines are expressed. If a person is not fully at home with them, they can be used improperly in writing or orally, or wrongly interpreted by the listener or reader. Nevertheless, none of these reasons caused damage to sound, Catholic teaching before the appearance of heresies.
The Fathers were correctly understood even when they spoke with greater freedom(67) because the common faith was their interpreter. But those wishing to introduce errors against the faith quibbled over words and expressions used by the Fathers, taking their stand on the letter of what was written, which they used as an authority in their favour whenever they found it contained some ambiguity suitable for concealing the poison of their new, perverse teaching.
At this point, defenders of the Catholic faith had to pin them down by discovering new expressions and definitions that rendered their deception impossible. This is the reason used by St. Augustine for justifying his own language and that of other Fathers in speaking about the blessed Trinity: ‘We confess that these terms sprang from the necessity of speaking, when prolonged reasoning was required against the devices or errors of the heretics.’*(68) {OLR}
Such praiseworthy and necessary innovation in expression, used in the first place by individual defenders of Catholic dogma, was often consecrated later by the authority of the Church in its canonical definitions: ‘comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by some characteristic new name.’*(69)
Notes
(60) [1 Thess 5: 21].
(61) 1 Tim 6: [20–21].
(62) Against the Emperor Constantius, n. 16.
(63) Exposition on 1 Tim.
(64) Bk. 2, c. 18, n. 6, 7.
(65) ‘The prior, efficacious concursus of God necessarily coherent with human free will, free from necessity’* {OLR} (Disputation 4, single paragraph).
(66) [On the Beatification of the Servants of God, etc., p. 275].
(67) Cf. Petavius’ observations on the Fathers’ way of speaking in the first three centuries before the Arianism made its appearance (The Trinity, bk. 1, c. 1–3).
(68) The Trinity, 7, c. 4.
(69) Commonitorium, c. 23.