362. We embrace two questions together in this article; for since their solution rests upon almost the same principles as the authority of the Fathers, after the things which we have disputed concerning this authority, it is easy to dispatch them more briefly. But first it is necessary to note a few things beforehand for the understanding of each.
363. I. And regarding the first, we said (n. 346) that the period of the Fathers is closed in the twelfth century; after that time there followed the institution of the School, whose office is to propose and teach by a new and more precise method the doctrine received from the Fathers. Hence the Scholastic Doctors were substituted in the place of the Fathers; and to this belong the things which St. Gregory writes (Morals, book 36, chapter 17): “When aged trees are cut down, tender shoots grow up in their strength.” It is true, as Canus says (book 8, chapter 1), “that there were in the school certain ascriptitious Theologians, who resolved all theological questions with frivolous arguments, and by empty and invalid little reasons, detracting great weight from very grave matters, published commentaries on theology scarcely worthy of the night-work of old women. And since in these the testimonies of the Sacred Books are very rare, mention of Councils is none, they smell of nothing from the ancient Saints, indeed of nothing even from grave philosophy, but almost wholly from childish disciplines, nevertheless, if it please those above, they are called scholastic Theologians. Nor are they scholastics, much less Theologians, who, bringing the dregs of sophisms into the school, provoke learned men to laughter and the more refined to contempt.”
364. But the defects of certain men must not be transferred to the School itself. Wherefore here we consider those Theologians who rightly fulfill the offices of scholastic theology itself. The same Canus (same place, chapter 2) recalls these to three: “The first is that those things which are contained hidden in the sacred letters and apostolic traditions be drawn, as if from darkness, into the light. For the Theologian gathers his conclusions from the principles of faith revealed by God, and explains by argumentation consonant with nature those things implicit in the principles themselves… Again, this faculty of disputing in the school has another proposed aim: that of defending our faith against heretics… But if the doctor of the school cannot teach sound doctrine to the faithful, and refute those who do not have sound doctrine, he will perhaps be able to be a Theologian among the crowd; in reality he never will be… Finally, it belongs to the function of scholastics to illustrate, or even confirm, as far as possible, the doctrine of Christ and of the Church from human disciplines.” All these things the scholastic Theologian performs by a fitting method, by defining matters accurately, dividing them distinctly, and proving them solidly.
365. This indeed is the genuine idea of scholastic Theologians. Now, for establishing their authority, the distinctions used for defining the authority of the Fathers must be recalled. And first, the matter here does not concern merely human doctrine, but sacred doctrine. Yet to this belong not only those things which Theologians teach as of faith, but also those things which they teach as theologically true, insofar as, even if they are not properly revealed, nevertheless they are inferred from revealed things and are intimately connected with them. But it is plain that a proposition opposed to doctrine which Theologians commonly hand down as of faith, and another opposed to doctrine which is commonly handed down as theologically true, do not deserve the same note. Concerning this matter compare what we said in the treatise On the Infused Virtues (n. 458 ff.).
366. Nor does the matter concern the opinion of one or another, or even of several Theologians, with the rest contradicting. For these things are judged not by number, but by weight… At this point certain scholastics must be censured, who, from the prejudices of opinions which they received in the school, brand other Catholic men with more serious notes… The doctrines of the school, about which we shall speak soon [which are handed down by common consensus], are one thing; the precepts of a sect, about which we now speak, are another. Things which disagree from the former have a note; things which disagree from the latter do not have one. For neither, if something is contrary to Scotistic or Thomistic pronouncements, is it immediately an error.” Footnote 1. Yet Cardinal Franzelin rightly observes (On Tradition, etc., thesis 17, page 212) that in those things which remain ambiguous, so far as concerns the authority of Theologians, the question is not immediately to be neglected, nor is the authority of the princes of theology to be contemned; but an inquiry into the reasons must be instituted. “But when this examination has been duly instituted, it will become clear that the doctrine of the princes of the school, Lombard, Hales, St. Bonaventure, and especially St. Thomas, in constant and common opinions, is nothing other than a compendium and sum of the doctrine of the Fathers and of ecclesiastical preaching. But even in those chapters which are more ambiguous and placed in opinion, there is not lacking a more or less close congruity and connection with that same ecclesiastical preaching… On account of this intimate connection with the doctrine of the Fathers and with the Catholic understanding universally, the authority of the princes of the school, and before the rest St. Thomas, by itself alone indeed is not irrefutable, yet it is venerable and chief among private doctors.”
367. Therefore the question concerns the authority of Theologians when by unanimous consensus they teach something, not as an opinion, but as a certain judgment either of faith or theologically certain. Certainly authority of this sort is not to be contemned under the pretext that those doctors are more recent. For as Canus very well observes (same place, chapter 4): “Just as he who contemned the Theologians succeeding Christ also contemned Christ the Lord, so he who despises the younger Theologians succeeding the ancients must necessarily despise Christ Himself also. Hence Chrysostom, or whoever it was, in the Imperfect Commentary on Matthew, homily 42: ‘When you hear someone blessing the ancient doctors,’ he says, ‘test what kind of man he is toward his own doctors. For if he sustains and honors those with whom he lives, without doubt he would have honored those others if he had lived with them. But if he contemns his own, if he had lived with those others, he would have contemned them…’ Clearly heretics reason after the likeness of the Pharisees. If the scholastic doctors were such as Hilary, Jerome, and Basil were, we would follow them; if we had been in the days of Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome, we would not have been companions of Mani, Novatus, Vigilantius, Pelagius, or Jovinian. And so they bear witness that they are sons of those who contemned the holy ancients, when they count the younger Theologians of the school as nothing… Therefore, as long as the body of Christ, that is, the Church, shall be, it will pertain to divine governance that those who are held in the Church as doctors of sacred doctrine, as men given by God, hold truth in faith, lest the people be carried about after the manner of little children.”
368. With regard to the second question, two things must be noted. The first is that the common sense of the faithful in matters of faith and morals is manifested not only by explicit theoretical judgments, but also implicitly by usages, rites, prayers, and any external actions whatsoever which, as resting upon revealed truths, suppose them and manifest the same. The other we shall set forth in the words of Canus (book 4, chapter 6, to the fourteenth objection): “There are two kinds of things, as has been said elsewhere, which are believed by the Church. One is of those things which pertain equally to all… and in this kind it is not very difficult to know the faith and sense of all… The other is the kind of those things which it is of interest not for the rude and unskilled in the Church to know, but for the greater and wise… In this kind, if you ask the vulgar opinion of the people, it will be just as if you were asking from a blind man the sense of colors. Therefore cautiously and prudently, when matters of this sort perhaps fall into popular speech, those in the crowd who are a little more modest pronounce nothing at all affirmatively and assertively; but they profess that they believe and think in these matters what the Church believes and thinks… Now we say this: in a common controversy of all, a certain argument is drawn from the common sense of the faithful… But in the faith of those things which are proper to doctors and the wise, the opinion of these alone is to be sought, and that of the crowd is not even to be awaited.”
369. Therefore, these things having been noted: Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved. PROPOSITION XVII. 1. The concordant doctrine of Theologians concerning a matter pertaining to faith or morals is a legitimate and certain criterion of divine tradition. 2. And the same thing must be attributed to the Catholic sense and consensus of the whole Christian people, whether it is declared by explicit profession, or is contained implicitly in deeds and practice.
370. The first part is proved. I. The concordant judgment of Theologians in a matter pertaining to faith or morals is equivalent, in individual ages, to the doctrine of the Church herself. But the Church can never err either in teaching or in believing in matters pertaining to faith and morals. Therefore that concordant and certain judgment of Theologians also cannot be found false. The major is proved. 1) Catholic schools, but especially theological schools, are always by right under the guardianship of the Church, by which they must be instituted, directed, and governed. Although this right in more recent times has been violated in some places, nevertheless from the twelfth century down to the eighteenth, theological schools and academies “were and were considered legitimate only by the authority of the Apostolic See, erected and fortified by diploma of the Pontiff, constituted under the continual vigilance of that Apostolic See itself; they derived all their right, their privileges, and their authority in teaching from the Church.” Even in the more recent age, whenever some of the doctors seemed to incline toward dangerous doctrines, they were restrained either by Academies, or by Bishops, or finally by the Supreme Pontiff himself. Therefore if some doctrine pertaining to faith or morals is handed down not by one or another doctor, but by the common consensus of the schools, without the guardians of the deposit ever protesting, is it not rightly judged to be the doctrine of the Church herself? 2) “Whether those who hear confessions,” says Canus (same place), “or those who preach to the people, each instructs the people as they have received from Theologians.” It can be added that Supreme Pontiffs and Councils use Academies and doctors for counsel. “Thus it happens,” Canus continues, “that the Church, by dissimulating their error into the common faith, would deceive Christ’s faithful by her silence. ‘For error which is not resisted is approved; truth, when it is not defended, is oppressed,’ as Innocent says, distinction 83, canon Error. And God Himself, if He did not disclose the error of all Theologians, would fail the Christian people in necessary matters. For what is the unskilled people going to do except follow those whom it has received for that time as masters of ecclesiastical doctrine?” 3) Indeed, the Church defined very many things by the authority of Theologians. “For three hundred years from now [in the time of Canus], if the Church condemned any heresies, if it issued any decrees concerning faith and morals, in both it was strongly aided by the help and diligence of the Scholastics. Since this is established among all to whom either the acts of Councils or the business of the knowledge of faith are known, it is necessary that we confess that scholastic doctors all together cannot err in faith and morals.” 4) Finally, it is established by experience both that Theologians have never unanimously taught anything as pertaining to faith and morals which afterward was found false, and that those who at first contemned the common consensus of Theologians eventually also despised the authority of the Fathers and of the Church herself. “No dogma,” says Canus (chapter 4), “will be found which all scholastics with the same mind and mouth have asserted certainly and firmly, unless the Church universally holds the same… If heretics can find something, let them bring it forward, and we shall be silent.” And (chapter 1): “All Lutherans to a man both wonderfully contemn and hostilely attack the authority of our school. And perhaps from this, as from the first source, the rest of their heresies have been derived. For at the beginning, which was easy, once the authors of the school had been contemned, they also contemned the judgments of the school. Once these had been neglected, it soon was necessary that Jerome, Augustine, Gregory, Ambrose, and Basil be neglected, whom recent Theologians had as the authors of their dogmas. But after the ancient Saints had been set aside, their Councils also were held in contempt. Whence it followed that the Lutherans cut down both certain canonical books and ecclesiastical authority… For after the school had arisen, contempt of the school and the plagues of heresies have always been connected.”
371. II. These same things can be confirmed by authority. For Martin V (Inter cunctas) proscribed this proposition of Wyclif: “Universities, studies, colleges, graduations, and magisteria in them were introduced by vain heathenism; they profit the Church as much as the devil.” Pius VI (Auctorem fidei) noted these propositions of the Pistorians: “The attack by which the synod assails scholasticism as that which opened the way for finding new and mutually discordant systems regarding truths of greater price… insofar as it rejects against scholasticism the faults of private men who were able to abuse it, or did abuse it: false, rash, injurious to the most holy men and doctors who cultivated scholasticism for the great good of the Catholic religion, favoring the hostile insults of heretics against it.” And: “The assertion which with insults and reproaches assails opinions debated in Catholic schools, and concerning which the Apostolic See has not yet judged that anything must be defined or pronounced: false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools, derogating from the obedience due to apostolic constitutions.” Gregory XVI prohibited the works of Hermes also because they contain propositions “injurious to Catholic schools.” This proposition was proposed to D. Bonnetty for subscription: “The method which St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and other scholastics after them used does not lead to rationalism, nor was it the cause why philosophy among present-day schools should strike into naturalism and pantheism. Therefore it is not permitted to turn it into a charge against those doctors and masters that they used this method, especially with the Church approving, or at least being silent.” And Pius IX noted concerning the books of Gunther that “he did not abstain from those sarcasms against Catholic schools which our predecessor Pius VI of recollected memory solemnly condemned.” The same Supreme Pontiff writes concerning the assemblies of Theologians of Germany: “Nor were we ignorant that in Germany also there has become strong a false opinion against the old school, and against the doctrine of those supreme doctors whom, on account of their admirable wisdom and sanctity of life, the universal Church venerates… By this false opinion, the authority of the Church herself is called into danger, since the Church herself not only permitted through so many continuous centuries that theological science be cultivated according to the method of those same doctors and from principles sanctioned by the common consensus of all Catholic schools, but also very often extolled with the highest praises their theological doctrine, and strongly commended it as the strongest bulwark of the faith and formidable arms against her enemies.” Compare Denzinger (Enchiridion, nn. 505, 1439, 1442, 1487, 1508, 1511, 1532). These things indeed vindicate the honor of the school and, generally, its authority. But the things which Pius IX wrote to the Archbishop of Munich (December 12, 1863) pertain directly to the present matter: “Even if the matter concerned that subjection which must be rendered by an act of divine faith, it nevertheless would not have to be limited to those things which have been defined by express decrees of ecumenical Councils or of Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; but it must also be extended to those things which, by the ordinary magisterium of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world, are handed down as divinely revealed, and therefore by universal and constant consensus are retained by Catholic Theologians as pertaining to faith.”
372. III. The same thing can also be persuaded from this, that in any art one must believe the skilled; nor would someone suffering from a grave illness reject the counsel of all physicians without rashness. The Fathers of the Council of Vienne confirm this prudent way of acting by example (Clementine, single constitution On the Supreme Trinity), saying: “That opinion which says that informing grace and virtues are conferred in baptism upon little children as well as adults, as being more probable and more consonant and concordant with the theology of modern doctors, is to be chosen by Catholics” (compare On the Infused Virtues, n. 37). On these words Canus rightly observes (same place, chapter 4): “If therefore in a matter which formerly had been controversial even among the scholastic Theologians themselves, the concordant opinion of the younger men was of so much weight with the Fathers in Council, how much more must we hold and revere matters prescribed by the school in every age? And if the common opinion itself of more recent Theologians makes faith for a Council, and inclines it to define that an opinion of this sort is to be held, what if all Theologians have predefined something not from opinion, but from a certain and by no means circuitous mind?”
373. The second part is proved. I. From, as it were, the nature of the thing. 1) Christ instituted an infallible magisterium in the Church in order that faith might be conserved whole in it. This is plain from the things which we indicated (n. 329), and it will be clearer from what must be said concerning the infallibility of the Church in teaching. Therefore, just as this infallibility can never fail in the Church, so neither can infallibility in believing fail in the whole Christian people; which would happen if by common sense and consensus it erred in doctrine pertaining to faith and morals. 2) Christ so constituted the Church that she will always be indefectible. But the Church of Christ would fail if all in her erred concerning matters of faith and morals; for the principal bond, the foundation of the others, by which the faithful are contained in the Church, is the bond of faith. Therefore. Hence it is said (Ephesians 4.11-13): “He gave some indeed as Apostles… and others as pastors and doctors… until we all meet into the unity of faith”; and (Matthew 16.18) both that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, and that this is brought about by her being built upon the rock, are said.
374. From authority. St. Jerome uses this criterion against Vigilantius, writing (n. 5): “Who, O mad head, ever adored martyrs? Who thought a man to be God?… Therefore are we sacrilegious when we enter the basilicas of the Apostles? Was the Emperor Constantius sacrilegious, who transferred the holy relics of Andrew, Luke, and Timothy to Constantinople?… Is Arcadius now sacrilegious, who after a long time transferred the bones of blessed Samuel from Judea into Thrace?… Are all bishops to be judged foolish?… Are the peoples of all the churches foolish, who would go forth to meet the holy relics? etc.” 3) Vincent of Lerins reasons in a similar way (Commonitorium, chapter 24): “If [novelties] are received, it is necessary that the faith of the blessed Fathers be violated either wholly or certainly in great part; it is necessary that all the faithful of all ages, all saints, all chaste, continent persons, virgins, all clerics, Levites and priests, so many thousands of confessors, so many armies of martyrs, so great a renown and multitude of cities and peoples, so many islands, provinces, kings, races, kingdoms, nations, finally already the whole world of lands, incorporated into Christ the Head through the Catholic faith, be pronounced, through so long a stretch of ages, to have been ignorant, to have erred, to have blasphemed, and not to have known what it believed.” Cassian (On the Incarnation, book 1, chapter 6): “Therefore this confession of his [Leporius], that is, the faith of all Catholics, both all the African bishops from whom he wrote and all the Gallican bishops to whom he wrote approved… Therefore the consensus of all ought now by itself to suffice for refuting heresy, because the authority of all is the manifestation of undoubted truth, and a perfect reason is made where no one dissents.” St. Basil (Against Eunomius, book 3, n. 1): “That he indeed does not think one ought to remain in the simple and bare faith of the many, but by certain artful and captious reasons to drag truth back again to that which seems good to himself, he shows sufficiently from the words which he has brought forward. For after contemning the opinion of the many, by which they glorify the Holy Spirit, he pretends that he holds the doctrine of the saints.” St. Augustine often uses the same criterion. Thus, for example, he writes (Against Julian, book 1, chapter 7, n. 31): “We do not oppose to you, as you calumniously say, only the murmur of the people; although the people itself murmurs against you for this reason, because the question is not of such a kind that it can escape even the knowledge of peoples. Rich and poor, high and low, learned and unlearned, males and females know what is remitted to each age in baptism. Hence mothers also daily throughout the whole world run with little children not only to Christ, that is, to the Anointed, but to Christ Jesus, that is, to the Savior.” And (page 55, otherwise 119, n. 35) he indicates the reason: “For the Church of God,” he says, “placed among much chaff and many cockles, tolerates many things; and yet she neither approves, nor is silent about, nor does those things which are against faith or good life.” You will find similar things in St. Athanasius (On the Synods, n. 4), Tertullian (Prescription, chapter 29), and St. Gregory Nazianzen (letter 2 to Cledonius). Hence the Church herself, before her definitions, sometimes investigates the sense of the faithful, just as Pius IX, before the definition of the Immaculate Conception, asked the Bishops to indicate “what was the piety and devotion of their faithful toward the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God.” But in the Bull Ineffabilis, among the criteria of divine tradition, he numbers “the singular agreement of Catholic Bishops and faithful.”
375. SCHOLION. Against the established authority of the consensus of doctors, they are accustomed to object that several opinions were formerly commonly received in the school, which afterward were either found false or at least called into doubt. They illustrate this assertion by three principal examples. They say: 1) The Schools commonly taught that all minor orders are true sacraments. This doctrine is now safely rejected by many. 2) They also commonly taught that the handing over of the instruments is the matter of the sacrament of orders. After the investigations of Morinus, Martene, and others, this is now placed in the imposition of hands alone. 3) Finally, they commonly taught that a penitent must approach the Sacrament of penance contrite, so that God alone absolves from fault, and the Priest or minister absolves from punishment or shows him to have been absolved. “For He Himself [God],” says the Master of the Sentences (book 4, distinction 18), “through Himself alone remits sin, because He both cleanses the soul from interior stain and frees it from the debt of eternal death. But He did not concede this to priests, to whom nevertheless He gave the power of loosing and binding, that is, of showing men bound or loosed.” This opinion, especially after the Council of Trent, is held false. The reply is: Canus rightly wrote (book 8, chapter 4): “No dogma will be found which all Scholastics with the same mind and mouth have asserted certainly and firmly… If they can find any, let them bring it forward, and we shall be silent. But if none can be brought forward, without doubt, whether they wish it or not, that which is confirmed by the authority of the whole school is true, if it pertains, as I said, to faith and morals.” With regard to the three alleged cases, that there was no universal consensus as concerning a matter certainly pertaining to faith or morals is clear even from this: that if it had once existed, it could never afterward have ceased, nor certainly would it have departed without the protest of the Church and of other doctors. But when, after the matter had been considered better, grave doctors began to go off into contrary opinions, they were never held guilty of violated faith or error. But that this may be directly plain concerning the individual objected heads of doctrine, we reply: To the first: Hugh of St. Victor, Peter Lombard, and Gratian, already before the age of St. Thomas, had taught that the Church had “constituted for herself” the minor orders, and that they were not instituted by Christ. By asserting this ecclesiastical institution, they sufficiently indicated that they are not true sacraments. But St. Thomas himself (on book 4, distinction 24, question 1, article 2, solution 2) speaks thus concerning this matter: “Concerning this there was a threefold opinion. For some said that a character is imprinted in the order of priesthood alone. But this does not seem true… Others said that a character is imprinted in sacred orders, but not in the minor ones… Since character is a sign distinguishing from others, it is necessary that it be imprinted in all… and this is the third opinion, which is more common.” Where, therefore, is the unanimous consensus concerning a certain matter? The matter concerns an opinion then more common. But among several others who left this opinion, formerly more common, are Cajetan and Dominic Soto; the latter indeed thinks that St. Thomas would have changed his opinion if in the Summa Theologiae he had reached this place. To the second: It is conceded that the objected opinion concerning the matter of the sacrament of orders was formerly more common; even now it is defended by several; indeed in practice and usage it is to be held. But it is denied that it was handed down by unanimous consensus as altogether explored and certain. Let St. Bonaventure suffice as a witness, who defends that the essential matter of order is the imposition of hands alone. For (book 4, distinction 24, part 2, article 1, question 4) he says: “Just as every instrument or armor is in the power of the hand, so also through the imposition of hands, where such things [instruments] were lacking, they can be signified; whence… in the imposition of hands in the primitive Church the other orders were implied.” Indeed, from the things which St. Thomas has (book 4, distinction 24, question 2, article 3), it is sufficiently clear that others explain the matter in other ways. To the third: The same is the reply. Certainly Richard of St. Victor, a contemporary of Lombard, writes thus (Treatise on the Power of Binding and Loosing, chapter 12): “There stands forth the opinion of certain men [therefore not of all] concerning the power of binding and loosing, so frivolous that it seems to be laughed at rather than refuted. For they think and preach that priests do not have the power of binding and loosing, but of showing men to be loosed or bound… They say that apostolic men do not have the power of remitting or retaining sins, although the Lord says this; they say that they have only the power of showing each, although the Lord does not say this.” And St. Thomas (on book 4, distinction 18, question 1, article 3, solution 1, ad 1) tries to explain the opinion of the Master in a favorable sense; for he says: “As the Master says in the text, the power of remitting sins was committed to priests, not so that they remit by their own power, because this belongs to God; but so that they show the operation of God remitting, as ministers. But this happens in three ways. In one way, that they show it as not present, but promise it as future… thus the sacraments of the old law signified the operation of God… In another way, that they signify it as present and operate nothing toward it; and thus some say that the sacraments of the new law signify the conferral of grace… In a third way, that they signify the divine operation present for the remission of fault, and operate something toward it dispositively and instrumentally; and thus, according to another opinion which is sustained as common, the Sacraments of the new law show cleansing divinely made; and in this way also the priest of the New Testament shows those absolved from fault.” These things suffice for our matter; for the doctrine itself, which the proposed difficulties touch, is set forth in its own places.