Note on the Reformability of Dogmatic Formulas

NOTE ON THE REFORMABILITY OF DOGMATIC FORMULAS CAN DOGMATIC formulas-such as "one nature three persons," " one person two natures," " transubstantiation ," etc.-be changed, or are they untouchable? The hitherto prevalent opinion among traditional theologians was that they are definitive and unchangeable. The recent Dec·laration of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith " in defence of the Catholic doctrine on the Church against certain errors of the present day," dated June ~4, 1973,' proposes an important change in the official doctrine on this point. I. A New Teaching In its section 5 on "The notion of the Church's infallibility not to be falsified," it is said first that dogmatic formulas of the Church's Magisterium "were from the beginning suitable for communicating revealed truth," and that " as they are, they remain forever suitable for communicating this truth to those who interpret them correctly." That is, the meaningfulness of these formulas is reaffirmed for the past as well as for the present and the future on condition however that they be " interpreted correctly " : this additional clause is not unimportant . For those who are unable to interpret the formulas correctly , they are no longer meaningful. More important is what follows: some changes were made by way of " suitable expository and explanatory additions " in order " to maintain and clarify their original meaning " : in such manner the ancient dogmatic formulas could " remain 1 AAS 65 (1973) 396-408. 747 748 P. DELETTER living and fruitful in the habitual usage of the Church." This means to say that the formulas needed explanation and interpretation in order to remain faithful to the original meaning. Shall we say that this is nothing else but the normal way of "dogmatic progress"? Under the pressure of deeper questioning and understanding arising partly from external changes and influences, partly from new philosophical linguistic or religious insights, " distinctions " were proposed to delimit a statement and narrow down the meaning of the terms so as to preclude misunderstanding. This is what happened, e. g., to the aphorism: Outside the Church no salvation: which has come to mean today: no salvation without (visible or invisible) connection with the Church. The Declaration goes on, and here it breaks new ground in official documents: " It has sometimes happened that in this habitual usage of the Church certain of these formulas gave way to new expressions which, proposed and approved by the Sacred Magisterium, presented m01'e clearly and more completely the same meaning." In other words, ancient dogmatic formulas were set aside and gave way to new expressions in order to keep the same meaning. We are here faced with a new official teaching, one which today is the crux of the rethinking of doctrine and dogma that is going on the Church. In order to maintain the same meaning in the expressions of the faith, it was necessary at times (and so may be necessary again) to replace the ancient dogmatic formulas by new expressions. The reason is obvious: the meaning of concepts and words evolves with the changing times. The accepted dogmatic formulas, because they are ancient, may fail to convey to our contemporaries the meaning they had for the people of the time when they were coined. They then should give way to new expressions. This was done at times in the past, the Declaration says, and the new expressions were " proposed and approved by the Sacred Magisterium." In the postVatican II time of rethinking dogma, initiated by the Council and continued in postconciliar theology, similar changes are likely to happen again. THE REFORMABILITY OF DOGMATIC FORMULAS 749 II. Changing dogmatic formulas and " dogmatic relativism" Some theologians may ask: Does the advocated change of dogmatic formulas include the danger and error of " dogmatic relativism " ? The phrase refers to what Pius XII had stigmatized as unacceptable more than twenty years ago, in the Encyclical Humani generis.2 The Declaration mentions the error, but not in reference to the proposed change but to something else. The proposed change of dogmatic formulas is based on the inherent inadequacy of every dogmatic formula, as explained in the Declaration. This results from two facts: first, every conceptual expression of a mystery remains " concealed...