Theological Meaning: Understanding ‘Eodem Sensu Eademque Sententia’

The Latin formula eodem sensu eademque sententia is a traditional theological way of describing sameness-of-meaning. The formula is often quoted as part of an insistence that new theological statements must have the same meaning as prior expressions of Church doctrine, otherwise they cannot be authentic expressions of the faith.

However, the use of the Latin formula can involve philosophical assumptions about what sameness-of-meaning means.

This raises a question. Are those who appeal to the formula always clear about whether, and to what extent, their theological appeals presuppose philosophical assumptions?

1. Why Does It Matter?

Before turning to the specific Latin words, it is worth clarifying why the formula matters.

The formulaic words eodem sensu eademque sententia initially arose in a Latin translation of the New Testament, from a context where St. Paul was urging Church unity. They appeared in the following text:

I urge… that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. (1 Corinthians 1:10)

The bold text here, and in what follows, identifies where the formula appears.

The Latin formula came to theological prominence through the writings of St. Vincent of Lérins (d. 445). He used the words to state a condition which doctrinal statements must meet. He said:

[Understanding]… knowledge, [and] wisdom…ought, in the course of ages… to increase… but… only in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning. (Commonitory, Chap. 23 #54)

Over the centuries, St. Vincent’s words have been cited in a wide range of Church documents, including, for example:

Pope Pius IX’s 1854 Ineffabilis Deus
Vatican I (1870), Dei Filius (4. 14)
Pope Leo XIII’s 1899 Testem Benevolentiae
Pope Pius X’s 1907 Pascendi Dominici (#28)
The 1910 Oath Against Modernism
Pope John Paul II’s 1993 Veritatis Splendor (#29).

In 1965, the words were also reiterated by Vatican II, which stated:

Theologians… are invited to seek continually for more suitable ways of communicating doctrine… for the deposit of Faith or the truths are one thing and the manner in which they are enunciated, in the same meaning and understanding, is another. (Gaudium et Spes 62)

The repetition of the Latin formula, by councils and by popes, means that the words have entered the Church’s formal theology as an authoritative criterion for stating the sameness of meaning, which determines the orthodoxy (or heterodoxy) of theological statements.

2. The Meaning of Meaning

One of the background issues raised by the Latin formula, is a question in the Philosophy of Language (or Semiotics) about the meaning of meaning, especially as it is understood by Internalists and Externalists.

At the risk of oversimplifying, we can sum up the difference between those approaches, as follows.

Internalists typically believe that meaning exists inside people’s minds. To know the meaning of a word like “dog,” is to grasp a mental concept or “sense” of the word. We can tell what is in each other’s minds by looking at the logical implications of how we use words. Two words mean the same if they can be logically substituted for each other.

Externalists typically believe that meaning exists (to some extent) outside of people’s minds. To know the meaning of a word like “dog” is to grasp the reality of the thing-called-a-dog. We can tell whether words mean the same by looking at how we use words to describe reality.

The philosophical differences between Internalists and Externalists are far more subtle and nuanced than that very crude summary. (See, for example, Twin Earth.) However, the simplistic summary does illustrate some pertinent points.

Internalists typically focus upon issues of meaning as matters of logic. At its extreme this type of approach can lead to attempts to reduce theology to just an exercise in logical analysis of dogmas and proof texts. Historically, that style was often associated with some of the early twentieth-century Neo-scholastic Manuals of Theology.

Externalists typically focus upon questions of meaning as issues of “experiencing reality.” At its extreme it can lead to affirmations of verbal contradictions and the kinds of complexities (or incomprehensibilities) which can be seen in the writings of mystics like Meister Eckhart (d. 1328).

The debates between Internalists and Externalists raise a background question for the understanding of the Latin formula eodem sensu eademque sententia. We know that the formula asserts the need for sameness of meaning, but is that an Internalist or an Externalist sameness of meaning? To put it another way, is the formula’s sameness of meaning a matter of sameness of logic and words, or of sameness of realities and things?

3. Translating ‘Eodem Sensu’

The Latin word eodem is a form of the word idem, which means “same.”

The word sensu is a form of the Latin word sensus, which had a wide range of implications, clustering around ideas of “meaning,” “sense.” To reach a more precise understanding of the Latin word sensus, we can look at some instances of word usage in the Summa Theologiae (ST) of St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274).

Here are two examples (with added emphasis to show where the Latin word appears):

These two examples potentially illustrate an (Internalist) logical equivalence, as the words can be substituted for each other with no loss of sense or meaning.

However, the following example raises some additional considerations. In this example, Aquinas quotes a remark of St. Jerome (d. 420), who was comparing the following two texts of Scripture:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law. (Matthew 23:23)

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence. (Matthew 23:25)

St. Jerome (as quoted by Aquinas) made the following comment about those texts:

This comment is interesting because Aquinas states that the two Scriptural texts have the same sensus. But those texts do not have what we would normally think of in English as the same “meaning,” or “sense.” The texts contain words which cannot be logically substituted for each other, so they do not share an Internalist sameness of meaning.

However, the two texts are making the same point. They are describing the same reality. So, in so far as those texts do have a sameness of meaning (or sameness of sensus), then it would seem to be an Externalist sameness of meaning which they share.

4. Translating ‘Eademque Sententia’

The Latin word eadem is another form of the word idem, which means “same.” Adding the suffix que to the word adds an “and” to the sentence. So, “eademque…” means “and the same…”

The Latin word sententia was used in a wide range of different ways by Scholastic thinkers. Here are four examples of usage taken from Aquinas’ Summa Contra Gentiles (SCG). (I have used bold capitalization to highlight the English renderings of the Latin sententia):

There are some subtle contextual nuances in some of these examples, but there is also an underlying implication of the word sententia, as expressing a content or “meaning” of a claim.

The following example raises further complexities. In this example, Aquinas noted the words of the heavenly voice at Jesus’ baptism, as they occurred in Matthew’s Gospel; and he then compared it with the parallel texts in the other Gospels. The Scriptural texts read as follows:

THIS IS my beloved Son… (Matthew 3:17, emphasis added).

YOU ARE my beloved Son… (Mark 1:11 and also Luke 3:22, emphasis added).

Aquinas commented on those texts, in the following words (with emphasis added to illustrate where the word sententia is used):

Aquinas said that the different Scriptural texts have the same sententia. Clearly those texts are not logically equivalent, as the words “this is…” and “you are…” cannot be logically substituted for each other. So, the sameness of sententia in these Scriptural texts is not an Internalist sameness of meaning.

However, Aquinas insisted that the two Scriptural texts do make the same point. They are asserting a sameness of the reality that Jesus has a divine sonship, even if the texts assert that reality from different perspectives. As the sameness is a matter of reality, rather than logic, this suggests that the two Scriptural texts have an Externalist sameness of meaning.

5. Translating the Entire Formula

When it comes to translating the entire formula (eodem sensu eademque sententia) we know that it insists upon a “sameness of meaning,” but do sensus and sententia simply reinforce each other, or do they add subtly different nuances to the implication of the formula?

Arguably, the two phrases are making the same point. We can see this if we look at the following examples of how the Latin formula has been translated:

same sense and same meaning (“The True Notion of Tradition”)

same sense and same understanding (“They Will Use Newman to Promote Heresy”)

same sense and interpretation (“Oath Against Modernism”)

same meaning and the same explanation (“The Oath Against Modernism Betrayed”)

same meaning and same judgment (“Lérinian Hermeneutics”)

original sense and meaning (ITC, The Interpretation of Dogma, 1989).

In these translations, sometimes the English words “sense” or “meaning” have been used to translate sensus, and sometimes the translations use those English words to translate sententia. Where that occurs, it suggests that translators did not see a significant difference between the Latin words.

Arguably, despite the differences of terminology, any of the examples of translations above are potentially reasonable translations of the Latin formula.

However, understanding the implications of the formula is not just a matter of knowing which English word should translate which Latin words. It also involves knowing whether to read specific occurrences of the Latin formula with the philosophical assumptions of an Internalist or an Externalist.

How are people to know which philosophical assumptions to use? Can they just pick and choose, as they wish? Or is this an issue where the Church’s magisterium needs to sometimes be involved in order to clarify matters for theologians?

6. Conclusion

The Latin formula eodem sensu eademque sententia describes a theological sameness of meaning. The formula is often used in Church documents to state the sameness of meaning which new theological language must have, if it is to count as authentic and orthodox statements of Church teaching.

But there are two very different ways of understanding sameness of meaning. And those ways have rather different theological implications.

If the sameness of meaning is understood in a purely Internalist sense, then assessments of orthodoxy and heresy become logical exercises in analyzing the implications of theological words and doctrinal phrases. This means that anyone with sufficient education and logical training can see for themselves whether the texts of specific councils and popes have the requisite sameness of meaning to be orthodox or heretical.

However, if the sameness of meaning enjoined by the Latin formula is understood (at least sometimes) in an Externalist sense, then assessments of orthodoxy and heresy become matters of discerning spiritual realities. But that realization raises a crucial question: who has the appropriate skill in spiritual discernment?

Perhaps it is precisely the complexity of discernment, which has traditionally made the Church cautious about the abilities of individuals to make assessments of orthodoxy and heresy? The Church has a well-known insistence that individuals cannot make “private interpretations” of Scripture or Tradition. Perhaps part of the reason for that view is that when assessments of sameness of meaning require spiritual discernment, rather than just educational excellence or logical acumen, then the matter may just require the collective wisdom of an Ecumenical Council?