THE CHURCH’S DOGMATIC AUTHORITY COMPARED
TO THE DIVINE AND APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY
174. THREE FACTORS PERTAINING TO OUR FAITH. - Three factors intervene,
although under different aspects, in any act of our divine faith in the truths
of the revealed deposit. With respect to the revealed deposit or public
revelation, we believe all, and only, those things committed by the Apostles to
the Church; all, and only, those things that the Church teaches us through her
ordinary or solemn magisterium. To appreciate with exactitude the different
ways in which the authority of God, that of the Apostles, and that of the
Church, intervene in that faith or revelation, we must bear in mind two
elementary and important distinctions, viz.: 1. that two elements are comprised
in divine revelation: (a) the object revealed by God to the Apostles and
by them conveyed to the Church; and (b) the proposition and explication of that
same object subsequently made to us by the Church. 2. That one thing is to be
mere organ or instrument, and quite another thing is to be the original source
or principal cause.
God intervenes
in revelation or in our faith as the original source or principal cause, not
only of all revealed objects, but also of all the divine meaning or explication
of those objects. No truth can be the object of true divine faith if it has not
been really and truly revealed by God. No meaning or explication, even of truly
revealed truths, can be the object of divine faith if God, upon revealing such
truths, did not really intend to express or signify such a meaning or
explication.
Neither the Apostles,
nor any creature whatsoever, can be the original source or principal cause of
any divine or revealed truth, or of the divine explication of that truth. Any
truth, or any explication of any truth, that should have its origin in the
Apostles, and not in God, would be a human truth and a human explication
incapable of deserving divine faith. However, although the Apostles are
not the source of either a revealed object or of a divine explication of such
an object, they have been, nonetheless, divine organs or instruments of both
things; i.e., not only of a new explication of that which was already
revealed, but also of new revealed objects or new revelations.
The world received through the Apostles, not only the explication of things
already revealed (just as we receive it today from the Church), but also new
revealed truths or new revelations.
The Church coincides with the Apostles in that she cannot be the
original source of either new objects or revelations or of a new
explication. At the same time she differs from the Apostles in that she cannot
be the organ or instrument of new objects or revelations; but she
coincides with the Apostles in being an organ of new explications of an
already revealed truth. Through the Church’s dogmatic magisterium we receive,
not new objects or revelations, but, indeed, new explications (and not
merely the conservation) of truths already revealed.
To resume: God is the principal source of new objects
and new explications; the Apostles are organs both of new objects
and new explications; the Church is an organ of new explications.
It becomes obvious that new explications are common to God, the
Apostles, and the Church. (Francisco Marín-Sola, The Homogeneous Evolution of
Catholic Dogma [trans. Antonio T. Piñon; Manila, Philippines: Santo Tomas University
Press, 1988], 329-31, emphasis in original)
175. COMPARISON RELATIVE TO NEW REVELATIONS.–When a comparison is
attempted between the authority of the Church and that of God or of the
Apostles, the comparison can be made either relative to new objects or
revelations, or relative to new explications of truths already revealed.
When the comparison is made relative to new objects or new revelations,
the Church's authority is evidently inferior to that of the Apostles and of
God. Whereas God has revealed to us new truths, and likewise the Apostles have
disclosed or taught us new truths, the Church cannot teach us new truths or
objects; her dogmatic magisterium is restricted to truths already revealed. But
if the comparison is made, not relative to new objects or revelations, but
relative to new explications of truths already revealed, it can, and must,
be said that in this respect the authority of the Church is the same as that
of the Apostles and that of God; viz., it is a divine authority.
Let us make this clear by means of an example. Suppose we go back to the
last years of the first century. With the exception of Christ's beloved disciple,
who is still alive in Ephesus, all the other Apostles are dead. In Rome, the
head of the universal Church is a successor of St. Peter, e.g. St. Clement. In
this case there are within the Church three mediums to arrive at the divine
truth: God (Who can, if He so wishes, intervene extraordinarily and reveal, or
explicate by Himself the revealed truth), the Apostle St. John, and the Pope
St. Clement. The authority of God, that of the Apostle, and that of the Church.
Let us compare them.
Obviously God’s revealing authority is not limited to the revelations
already made by Himself to the Apostles. He could have revealed new truths by
the end of the first century, as He could have done on Pentecost. And if He
should have done so then, just as if He should do so today, God’s authority is
always divine and the faith that it deserves is divine.
Similarly, the authority of the Apostle St. John is not restricted to
the truths already taught by the other Apostles, since the revelation of new
truths, or at least the promulgation and teaching of the same by the Apostles
to the Church, was not closed until the death of the last Apostle. The new
truths that the Apostle should teach as revealed would be truths of divine
faith, and would deserve divine faith. On the other hand, Pope St. Clement’s
dogmatic authority is confined to the truths taught by the Apostles; he cannot
dogmatically teach any truth not yet taught by the Apostles or not contained
really in the revealed deposit. If we suppose that he did teach any such truth,
it would not be a divine truth or doctrine, but an ecclesiastical tradition,
nor could it deserve divine faith. Thus, relative to new revelations, the
authority of the Church is inferior to that of the Apostles and that of God. (Ibid.,
331-32, emphasis in original)
