CHAPTER 7
Continuation. How heretics
are and always have been
enemies of praiseworthy innovation both in the
development of the sacred deposit and in vocabulary
41. Heretics have always worn a mask of hypocrisy in their attempts to deceive the people and inject them with their own poison. They have paraded as enemies of innovation, accusing Catholic writers and teachers of scandalously novel opinions and expressions against which they appeal to venerated antiquity. But what has scandalised, and still scandalises them? They object to what we have described as natural, necessary, logical, praiseworthy innovations which in no way alter the deposit of faith. Without detracting from, adding to or altering the deposit, these innovations are intended to unfold it, illustrate it and preserve it unharmed.
By applying the deposit to the varying circumstances of the Christian people, these writers unveil the immortal life of Christianity. But what is the real reason for the heretics’ pretended devotion to antiquity? At stake is love of another kind of innovation: godless, execrable innovation that undercuts or caricatures the sacred deposit and, if heretics could succeed in their evil aim, would overthrow and supplant it.
Modern heretics disagree (do heretics ever agree?) about the precise period to which they should assign innovations in the life of the Church which, according to them, disguise or deprave the primitive teaching of Christ and the apostles. For many, this period coincides with the 4th/5th centuries; for others, with the 6th century, the century following, or even much later.
42. This is what we hear continually from Protestants, but heretics in earlier times adopted the same tactic. They took umbrage whenever the truths they wanted to overthrow were better explained or illustrated; they looked upon the praiseworthy innovations of holy teachers as godless innovations destined to challenge ancient doctrine. Arians accused St. Athanasius, and other defenders of the divinity of the Word, of novelty; Pelagians charged St. Augustine in the same way.(70)
43. The accusation of innovation levelled against the Doctor of Grace has unfortunately been repeated innumerable times, even by presump tuous Catholic authors incapable of understanding the sublimity of the questions treated by Augustine. Although he has been effectively and repeatedly defended by learned theologians and by popes, this has not prevented obstinate, mediocre intellects from advancing the same slanderous denunciations. In effect, narrow, arrogant minds have unwittingly imitated heretical methods, parroting the few theological formulas they carry in their heads.
One of the last heretics to attack St. Augustine for the impetus he gave to the development of Christian theology through the gift of intelligence bestowed upon him by God was the pseudo-Pherephonus who, in 1703, published at Antwerp or Amsterdam the Animadversiones in S. Augustini Opera. He was answered by the masterly Lamindo Pritanio.(71) But every holy Father or Doctor first illustrating some dogma and defending it against attack has been called an innovator. Catholic writers have always been accused in this way.
44. From the middle ages, before the birth of Scholasticism, it is sufficient to quote the example of St. Paschasius Radbertus, whose celebrated book De Corpore et Sanguine Domini was adopted as an authority by the Calvinists after they had altered and ruined it. As soon as the deception had been uncovered, and the book seen in its original, authentic text, it was bitterly contested by the Calvinists themselves as innovative. Many Catholics had indeed been frightened or taken off guard from the beginning by certain expressions in the work, as we shall see, although the Church found them wholly in keeping with sacred tradition and well suited for expressing it with great precision.
The same kind of trick was used by heretics in accusing the Scholastics of innovation. As a recent theologian(72) has said, ‘The Scholastics brought together the headings of Catholic doctrine, and in determining them by means of concise formulae followed teaching and tradition received in the Church. Thus they taught, amongst other things, that there are seven sacraments, that three of the sacraments impress the character, that the body of Christ is really and substantially present in the Eucharist; and they called transubstantiation the way in which Christ presents himself in the Eucharist.(73)
The Church then consecrated with its support these precise determinations of dogma offered by Scholasticism. Better established in this manner, dogma was protected from every danger of error and taught more easily to the people.
45. The Scholastics came under attack from Protestants especially, although Erasmus himself (74) and other 16th century humanists also criticised them. They were open to censure, of course, for their barbarous language and arid style, for their lack of critical sense, and for certain private opinions they expressed as individuals. These and other defects are fully recognised and noted by all the great Catholic theologians, for example Melchior Cani(75) and, in modern times, Bolgeni(76) who went too far in this respect. But the heretics’ trick is to accuse the Scholastics in general of innovation, even in matters where their unanimity shows that they must be considered a link in the chain of Catholic tradition. Pius VI rightly suppressed and condemned certain theologians of the last [18th] century, dominated by esprit de corps and motivated by rashness rather than accuracy of doctrine, who assaulted Scholasticism itself, not the abuses of individual teachers, as if it had opened the floodgates to innovation.
It will be useful to refer to the text of the Bull Auctorem Fidei which condemned the Synod of Pistoia: ‘The accusation levelled against Scholasticism by the Synod (of Pistoia) maintained that “Scholasticism opened the way to new and self-contradictory systems relative to higher truths and finally led to probabilism and laxism.” This accusation, in so far as it took no notice of individuals who could or did misuse Scholasticism, is false, rash, and injurious towards the holy men and teachers who brought great good to the Catholic religion through their study of Scholasticism. It also gives support to those who in heretical circles inveigh against Scholasticism.’*(77) {OLR}
46. There is nothing more abhorrent to heretics than the natural, enlightened development brought about by the Church in the deposit of faith during the course of centuries. This development has ensured the continued identity of the deposit in the midst of new and ever more splendid expressions; it has gone hand in hand with the development of worship which, as part of Catholicism, has been able with its majestic splendour to attract, move and conquer heretics themselves, despite their prejudices. Amongst these heretics, some recognised the error in which they had been raised. Men of good will and able minds, although brought up on the false principle that every innovation in the Church is a deviation from primitive evangelical teaching, were able to reflect and see that the Church of Christ, which is not a corpse but a society living throughout the ages, possesses its own natural development as a consequence of its vital state.
It was this thread of life which drew them along the way leading to entry into the Catholic Church. Two especially come to mind: Karl Ludwig von Haller who, despite his inborn prejudices, clearly recognised that the Christian religion is like a seed containing in itself the future tree (like the mustard seed that would develop throughout the ages), and embraced the truth without further difficulty, as he himself says in various places in his writings; and John Henry Newman who, on the basis of the natural development of Christian doctrine and practice, wrote the book that signalled his future conversion.
47. The reason preventing heretics from tolerating the increasing light of truth that assures and illustrates the deposit of faith, and leading them to define it as ‘novelty’, also determines their hatred of the innovative language necessary for such development, and extremely useful in continually forming a more precise determination of the perpetual belief of the Catholic Church. Their attitude is formed by a desire to introduce surreptitiously, through captious interpretation of traditional or scriptural opinions, another kind of innovation relative to doctrine and expression, that is, the profane innovation condemned by St. Paul and abhorred by Catholics.
The Fathers never ceased accusing heretics of such malicious inconsistency. St. Hilary reproved the emperor Constantius for refusing to accept the word homoeusion or homoousion because it was not found in the Scriptures, although the Emperor was ready to admit many other expressions not found there. It will be useful to read Hilary’s own words which offer stringent reasons for proving the Church’s power to adopt new formulae, and showing the utility and necessity for so doing. ‘Amongst other things, he [Constantius] uses his cunning now as he did before to establish wicked things under the appearance of good, and crazy things as though they were reasonable. He says: “I do not want words which are not used in Scripture to be spoken.” But let me put it to him, “What bishop orders this to be done? And which bishop forbids any form taken by apostolic preaching?”.’*(78) {OLR} Here Hilary shows that because the Church has been commissioned to preach the gospel, it has also received the power to establish the most opportune formulae for communicating and handing on the sacred deposit.
He goes on to prove the necessity of new expressions and formulae. ‘Tell me first, if you think this is rightly stated: “I do not want new medicines to fight new poisons; or new wars to fight new enemies; or new counsels to oppose new, insidious dangers.” So, if the Arian heretics for the same reason avoid the word “homoeusion” (or “homoousion”) today because they denied that it was used previously, are you going to run away from it today so that they also may deny it now? The Apostle tells us to avoid innovations in speech, but he is referring to profane innovations. Why, then, do you exclude pious innovations?’*(79) {OLR} He then rebukes Constantius’ inconsistency: ‘You have never seen the word “unbornable” in writing, but do you reject it because it is new? The same can be said about “the Son is similar to the Father”. The Gospels do not contain this word, but why do you reject it? Innovation is accepted in one case, but shied away from in another. Where impiety allows an opening, you allow innovation; where religion is extremely cautious, you exclude innovation.’*(80) {OLR}
Notes
(70) St. Augustine, when accused by the Pelagians of adding something more precise to the language of preceding Fathers on the question of predestination, did not deny the charge but maintained that it was futile: ‘What need is there, then, for us to look into the writings of those who, before this heresy sprang up, had no necessity to be conversant in a question so difficult of solution as this, which beyond a doubt they would have done if they had been compelled to answer such things?’* {OLR} (On the Predestination of the Saints, c. 14).
(71) [Cf. Foreword, p. vii].
(72) Perrone, [Theological Lectures], De locis, p. 2, sect. 2, c. 2, §7.
(73) The use of the words ‘matter’ and ‘form’ applied to the sacraments and accepted in the Council of Florence does not seem to go back further than William Antisiodorensis at the beginning of the 13th century. The expression ex opere operato was first used by Innocent III, and consecrated by the Council of Trent.
(74) Cf. Petavius, [Dogmatic Theology], Proleg., c. 5, §6 and ss.
(75) [Complete course of Theology], De locis theol., 8, 1.
(76) Del possesso ecc.
(77) [Auctorem fidei, 28].
(78) [Hilary of Poitiers, Against the Emperior Constantius, 16].
(79) [Ibid., 594].
(80) [Ibid.].