406 E.

Lampert: Reflections on Death

tragedy can be attached to the death of abstract concepts, or to the

impersonal, transitory phenomena of nature. The only agonizing
and unendurable thing about death is that it should threaten to
destroy the unique and unrepeatable image of man.
It is man who stands behind all the values which metaphysicians
relegate to an ideal heaven for disembodied ghosts, and positivists
to an evolutionary paradise for the immortal human specIes;. and it
is man who must die lest he cease to be human and lose his identity
in the abstractions .and generalities of a scientific, metaphysical or
religious universe. From this point of view death can no longer be
regarded as a matter of "passing away" or "passing over": rather, it
is one of "going down", seeing that human personality is irreducible
and cannot pass away or pass over into anything but itself. If there
is redemption from death, this cannot consist in the attainment of
an alleged immortality, which, in fact, by-passes death, but must
needs be a resurrection of the dead, i.e., a restitution in the very
midst of man's mortal predicament through him who could not be
choked by the irresistible impact of its black and deadly force.
Resurrection is the 'Tomb burst open, not vacant, while immortality
is the Tomb repudiated and denied.
The key to the understanding of death, then, is the recognition of
that inalienable identity of man which marks him as a person. The
disease, which has been eating the heart out of so much modern
thinking and living, of depersonalizing everything, on the one hand,
and of wishing unpleasant things away, on the other, has proved
fatal in the matter of death. Death is so easily and hurriedly ex-
plained away because we are constantly swayed and lured and
blinded by impersonal forces. Most people would readily agree to be
a piece of stone, if only they could escape the burden of personal
existence. The flight into impersonalism, so familiar to our age, is
the flight from death. We flee, as if hurried on by a great wind-
haggard, grim, beastly, mean, cruel, anxious, and pathetic-into the
safety of commonplace existence until death hits us in the face; and,
despite all the promises of a safe return, despite all the unctuous
weeping, with one predatory eye on anything we may have left be-
hind and the other on some sort of immortal compensation, we hear,
even if faintly, the terrible intimation that we, that 1, must die, that
it is my whole and very self which death calls into question. And,
knowing at last that we cannot play the angel, we realize that we
must go down before we can go up.
E. LAMPERT.

The Assumption: A Postscript

TWELVE months have now passed since Pope Pius XII formally
defined the Assumption of the Virgin as an article of the Roman
Catholic faith. If this memorandum contains a personal note that is
because, although the dogma caused widespread reactions among
Christians-of joy among latinized Roman Catholics, of disappoint-
ment or indignation among the non-Roman communions, of be-
 Victor Bennett: The Assumption: A Postscript 407

wilderment or disdain among unattached observers-the present

writer is one of a very few who, by the dogma, has been divided
from his former spiritual allegiance. The possibility of such an out-
come first presented itself to me in 1946, when it became known that
the Pope had consulted the Roman Catholic bishops throughout the
world as to the expediency of a definition. I knew of Roman
Catholics, including some well-known ones, who dreaded the defini-
tion almost as much as I did, but of these there was only one, Mr
Raymond Winch, who I knew was prepared to make a stand against
it. In the ensuing twelve months we repeatedly talked over the situa-
tion and explored the courses open to us. The case was difficult. The
definition now seemed almost certain to take place, and even the date
of it was being confidently predicted. On the other hand, we were
not recognized as theologians, and although we were agreed that
theology was closely connected with the problem of living, we had
also to agree that in practice, and in that of the Roman Catholic
Church in particular, theology is something of a closed shop. We
would of course have been well content to have left our cause in the
hands of qualified champions, but in Germany Dr Ernst was dead
and in France Martin Jugie had withdrawn his caveat. What opposi-
tion there was had already been virtually withdrawn or overruled.
We felt, however, that there was a principle in making a gesture of
protest, even if the gesture were a faint one and one that would in-
evitably be brushed aside. For a precedent, though not for a com-
parison, we looked back to the action of "Janus" at the time of the
Vatican Council.
By courtesy of the Editor of THEOLOGY, there appeared an article
that was intended to raise the alarm in England and beyond Eng-
land.' Five hundred reprints of this article subsequently reached
Roman Catholic bishops and other responsible persons. in the
farthest parts of the world. I have since felt that the negligible effect
of this enterprise might have developed into something positive if
Anglican dignitaries had taken advantage of the introduction of the
subject to state publicly their attitude to the impending definition.
The article, however, produced no audible echo.s After August 1950
spokesmen of the Church of England expressed their reactions to
the definition firmly and moderately, but it was then too late. Had
such pronouncements been made earlier they might well have regis-
tered an effect at Rome and at least caused embarrassment to those
who were advising the Pope. There is reason to believe that the
official silence at the Vatican that preceded the announcement in
August 1950 covered no little doubt about whether the dogma was
opportune. A little pressure might have turned the scale.
Mr Winch and I next decided to collaborate in writin~ a book that
would review all the relevant aspects of the Assumption question
and oppose the definition on strictly Catholic grounds. The S.P.C.K.
were kind enough to encourage this project even before we had a
1 "The Assumption of the Virgin and Papal Infallibility," THEOLOGY, Sep-

tember 1948.
~ An exception may be made for Oekumenische Einheit, Vol. I, No. I.
408 Victor Bennett: The Assumption: A Postscript
manuscript to present, and it was our fault, not theirs, that the book-
was not published until 14 August 1950, only one day before Rome
announced that the dogma would be proclaimed on the Feast of All
Saints to follow. The coincidence of dates gave an air of timeliness
to our venture, but in the eyes of Roman Catholics it placed a guilti-
ness upon. the book from the outset and confirmed our opinion that
it would do nothing to avert the definiton. Although one Roman
Catholic monthly referred to us as "talented amateurs" and another
to the book as "a slick piece of special pleading", our argument, where
it was noticed at all by Roman Catholic reviewers, was rejected with
civility, and from that time no third person in the Roman Catholic
communion made himself known to us as a sympathizer with our
views. We had to content ourselves with the approbation of
numerous dignitaries and members. of a Church that we loved, but
to which we did not belong.
In meeting the objections of Roman Catholics, I found a pre-
liminary obstacle. They are trained to attach great importance to
the virtue of obedience, and it seemed to them that to question the
validity of even a probable dogmatic pronouncement was to have
departed from the obedience due from a true Roman Catholic. The
intellectual encounter was thus forestalled by a moral accusation. I
used, however, to answer in this way. Simple obedience is a becom-
ing virtue in a majority of those who make up the body of the
Church and whose interests. and limitations prevent them from
studying the theology of Christianity in detail, but obviously this
attitude of mind would not become every member of the Church.
There must be some who propound, regulate and oversee the doc-
trines which others accept by obedience. There is such a thing as
"the mind of the Church", and, in fact, theologians frequently refer
to it. Advances in education have done something to reduce the lead
of the clergy over the laity and have made it possible for a larger
number than ever before.to attach themselves to the mind as well as
to the body of the Church. What right I possessed to review for
myself the progress of theology was based uron the not very am-
bitious claim that I constituted a brain-eel in the mind of the
Church rather than a cell located in one of her less conscious parts.
I was willing to interact with the other brain-cells in all their
thousands, but not to be ruled out of order because I had considered
a momentous theological issue for myself. This plea usually enabled
me to proceed to the more relevant aspects of the dogma.
As our objections to the dogma were based on Catholic grounds
and involved the consistency of the Church with her own past, it
was a more serious. objection that in rejecting the coming definition
we had, by implication, rejected the infallibility of the Pope and
were therefore not true RomanCatholics when we wrote the book.
As to this some Gilbertian points could be made, such as that doubts
of the dogma were legitimate from the time of its announcement up
to its actual definition, and that even the Pope could not be certain
of the doctrine of the Assumption, until he heard his own voice pro-
t The Assumption of Our Lady and Catholic Theology.
 Victor Bennett: The Assumption: A Postscript 409

claiming it in all the appropriate circumstances; but trifling aside, it

had always seemed to me that Papal Infallibility was a belief that
could not be held without reservation. A Roman Catholic believes
that the Pope cannot and therefore will not officially err. This, how-
ever, is an abstract principle which could conceivably be contra-
dicted by: an occurring fact. If the Pope taught something patently
false or inconsistent with the faith, belief in Papal Infallibility would
have to be surrendered. The Roman Catholic naturally believes that
a rash Pope would be held back from teaching error by invisible re-
straints, but he cannot say that a false definition is inconceivable,
and 'therefore belief in Papal Infallibility is conditioned by this
logical possibility. One clearly false dogma would constitute a datum
invalidating the theoretical belief in infallibility, and data must
have priority over theory.
This is to show that belief in infallibility must be conditional. It
is in the highest degree unlikely that a Pope will in fact ever teach
officially that which may be simply disproved, and the dogma of the
Assumption did not constitute such an instance. This doctrine was
defective on historical, theological, and dogmatic grounds, but there
remains a margin for believing, if one wills, that it is a theological
truth. The Papal claim has not been destroyed by it, but this claim
has nevertheless been shaken. The implausibility of the dogma
reflects on the infallibility of the Roman see. We have here to con-
jure not with proved facts but with probabilities. The dogma of the
Assumlltion has made it more probable that the dogma of Papal In-
faflibility was a mistake.
Catholic publicists, usually so able irr apologetics, have recently
been much concerned to make the two doctrines hang together, and
to lift the dogma of the Assumption out of the arena of controversy
altogether. Henry St John, O.P., for example, wishes to' show that
historical evidence is not relevant when a doctrine such as the
Assumption is being considered as an article of faith," This point
needs clarification. There are two sorts of historical evidence to be
distinguished here, namely, evidence that Mary was in fact assumed
and evidence that the Church in various ages accepted her Assump-
tion as a doctrine. Of historical evidence that the Assumption took
place there is none worthy of the name. That need not matter. What
is more serious and what is surely relevant to its consideration as a
dogma is that the other kind of historical evidence indicates that
belief in the Assumption was not constant in the Church for half the
course of her history and for a quarter of that course apparently non-
existent. There are those today who believe that the VIrgin Birth is
not adequately proved as an historical event, but these would not
venture to dispute that the Virgin Birth has been an article of faith
in the Church since the first century. While, however, a modernist
outlook may countenance the omission of even a venerable Christian
belief, the avowed repose of the Roman Catholic Church on tradition
makes it logically impossible to ignore her past views when the de-
finability of a doctrine is in question. What the Church believed
1 Letter in THEOLOGY, May 1951.
410 Victor Bennett: The Assumption: A Postscript

yesterday is relevant to what she decides today, or at least that Was

the case until recently. The present anxiety to overrule all historical
evidence in a dogmatic question shows that a displacement has taken
place in the Roman Catholic system. Tradition, as enunciated at
Trent and emphasized at the Vatican, is. no longer a factor of para-
mount importance. Instead the hinge of all doctrine is found in the
papal office with its attendant prerogative in matters of faith. This
office has been accorded power to override tradition, which is but
another name for the historical evidence of what the Church taught
and believed in other ages.
Let it be said that the living Church must have power to clarify
the gospel and develop its content within logical limits. It is never-
theless true that the nature of such doctrines as the Assumption and
the Immaculate Conception, which Roman Catholic theologians are
now obliged to treat as dogmas, renders untenable any theory of
doctrinal development within the strict bounds of reason. This is not
intended as a provocative comment, but as a statement which in
other words they are themselves putting forth.
Canon G. D. Smith, for example, writes of the modern theory of
development in Mariology in this. way. "It is not a purely logical
process by which one abstract truth is deduced from another. It is
a gradual penetration into the whole of revealed truth by means of
theological reflection . . . with the result that the theological por-
trait of Mary comes into clearer and clearer relief. There is nothing
quite like it in any department of human knowledge."l He adds
that it is not determined by historical records or by human reasoning
or by the study of doctors or by the meditations of the saints. If one
asks what does determine it, the answer clearly is: the word of a Pope
speaking ex cathedra. No one else is empowered to say whether a
gradual penetration into the whole of revealed truth by means of
theological reflection (in itself a phrase of uncertain meaning) has
taken place, nor can the doctors or the saints of the Church be used
to confirm or deny the papal utterance.
There are three notable consequences to this theory.
1. A "gradual penetration" which is not a "purely logical pro-
cess" permits, at least as a possibility, the capture of truths
previously unknown and unknowable, or in other words new
revelations. Roman Catholic theologians. are not yet willing to
admit that this is the case. They still feel a respect for the idea
of a closed deposit of doctrine, but once the idea of a mystical
development IS substituted for the idea of a logical develop-
ment, the possibility of new doctrine being, added to the faith
is inescapable.
2. By such a theory, the dogma proclaimed by Pius XII and any
dogmas that may be made by future popes have been lifted out
of the arena of controversy. They cannot be questioned and
need not be defended. Contention may only fasten on to the
theory of development that makes them possible.
3. If this theory of development through a mystical process be
1 The Tablet, 28 October 1950.
 Victor Bennett: The Assumption: A Postscript 4'11
granted, there are indefinite possibilities to the nature and
number of dogmas that may be proclaimed in the future at
Rome.
Having in mind the purpose of justifying the Roman Catholic
dogma of the Assumption, Canon Smith may be excused for not re-
minding his readers that the theory of development he expounds has
not yet been sanctioned at Rome The papal bull Munificentissimus
Deus, in fact, strikes a conservative note. After quoting the well-
known words of the Vatican decree that "the gift of the Holy Spirit
promised to Peter's successors does not mean that he will reveal to
them fresh truths", the bull asserts that "the said doctrine is
grounded upon Scripture, is deeply implanted in the minds of the
faithful, is attested by the immemorial practice of the Church, is
fully in harmony with other revealed truths, and has been lucidly
set forth by the learned labours of theology"." Whatever may be
said about these claims, they are in contrast from Canon Smith's
idea of the non-rational development of this dogma. Nevertheless
Canon Smith voices a view which is becoming fashionable among,
and which may be inevitable for, Roman Catholic theologians. At
the moment the ambiguity of the position admits a certain con-
venience, for while Rome maintains for the ordinary believer that
her doctrine is unchanging, the theologians explain to the more in-
quisitive how doctrines may now be defined which were formerly
not only undiscovered, but which were admittedly inaccessible. The
disharmony behind this expedience must at last become apparent
however, and a choice eventually be made between a theory which
maintains that all doctrine has been conserved from the beginnings
of Christianity and a theory of development which embraces doc-
trines unknown to the Fathers. Both theories present difficulties. of
a serious and intricate nature.
VICTOR BENNETT.

Creation and Incarnation: Some Further Thoughts

IN two interesting and thoughtful articles recently published by-
THEOLOGY (Vol. LII, 354, and Vol. LIII, 366) Mr W. S. Boycott has
been drawing our attention to the importance of considering the
Incarnation in the setting of the Creation, As his quotations show,
the New Testament was vividly aware of this setting. This awareness
was continued into the following centuries. One has only to think of
Irenaeus' doctrine of anakephalaiosis and of the way in which in
early eucharistic liturgies the central act of our redemption was com-
memorated alongside the act of our creation. Indeed, that God the
Redeemer was one with God the Creator was the fundamental meta-
physical point that had to be argued against the Gnostics. The only
Saviour-God who brought redemption to the ancient world was the
God who saved what he himself had created.
Mr Boycott has brought to our notice facts neglected in much con-
temporary religion. One group is apt to concentrate upon "personal
1 Translated by Mgr Knox, The Tablet, 23 December 1950.