The following comes from Patrick Granfield, The Limits of the Papacy: Authority and Autonomy in the Church (London:
Darton, Longman and Todd, 1987), 154-58. As I often discuss Catholic theology
and try to interact with the best arguments from Catholic theologians and
apologists, the issue of the levels of doctrinal certainty and related topics
is an important area of Catholicism:
The Kinds
of Church Teaching and Assent
Church teaching is
either infallible (definitive) or noninfallible (nondefinitive) [57]. Let us
examine the sphere of Church teaching as it extends to three classes of
objects.
1. Primary Objects. The Pope, either in an ex cathedra pronouncement or with the
accord of an ecumenical council, may formally and infallibly teach that a
particular truth is revealed by God. Some examples are the dogmas of the divinity
of Christ, the institution of the sacraments by Christ, papal primacy, the
Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption.
The Church may also
infallibly propose a truth as revealed when the bishops in their ordinary
teaching are in union with the Pope and declare that truth to be definitive and
binding. This type of infallibility is called the teaching of the ordinary and
universal magisterium. Thus, although individual bishops cannot teach
infallibly, through their collegial union with the Pope and other bishops they
can do so even without forming an ecumenical council. Vatican II explained this
kind of episcopal teaching:
This is so, even when
they [bishops] are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining
the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while
teaching authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a
single viewpoint as the one which must be held definitively (Lumen gentium, art. 25).
Examples of this kind
of infallible teaching are the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the virginity of
Mary, and the prohibition against the deliberate taking of innocent human life
[58]. These truths have not been formally defined, but they are part of the Catholic
tradition.
The irrevocable and
unconditional assent of divine and Catholic faith is required for the primary
objects of infallibility when taught by either the Pope or an ecumenical
council or by the ordinary and universal magisterium. The doctrines so taught
then enjoy a guarantee of absolute certainty, since the ultimate reason for
believing is God as revealing. Vatican I decreed: “All those things are to be
believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God,
written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by
her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely
revealed” [59]. To dissent from infallibly proposed teachings knowingly,
obstinately, and publicly is heresy and separates the dissenter from the
Church.
2. Secondary Objects. Infallible teaching
may probably extend also to doctrines necessary to maintain or defend the
content of revelation. These doctrines are not revealed but are so connected
with revelation as to be necessary for its understanding and preservation.
These truths include: the condemnation of propositions contrary to revelation;
certain speculative truths, such as the preambles of faith; theological conclusions
derived from revelation; “dogmatic facts” both historical (Trent is a genuine
ecumenical council) and doctrinal (the teachings of Jansenius are not
compatible with revealed truth); the canonization of saints; and the final
approbation of religious orders.
Here is a question
whether there are secondary objects of infallibility at all. Some theologians
prefer to restrict the object of infallibility only to revealed truths,
pointing out that Vatican I did not teach explicitly that infallibility extends
to the secondary objects. Others, however, justify such an extension because of
Vatican ‘s use of the expression “to be held” (tenenda) in the definition of infallibility; they argue that since
the Council did not say “to be believed” (credenda),
it would appear that the object of infallibility is broader than revealed
truths. This view is supported by the discussions at Vatican I. The Deputation
on the Faith said that such an opinion was theologically certain [60].
Vatican II was in
agreement. It referred to the secondary objects in Lumen gentium, article 25, declaring that infallibility extends “as
far as the deposit of divine revealtion, which must be religiously guarded and
faithfully expounded.” Even more explicit was the 1973 declaration of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mysterium
ecclesiae: “The infallibility of the Church’s magisterium extends not only
to the deposit of faith but also to those matters without which the deposit
cannot be rightly preserved or expounded” [61].
The assent required
for secondary objects is disputed. In general, such truths require absolute
assent, internal and external, but not the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
Theologians are divided on the specific king of assent. The more common view is
that the assent required is that of ecclesiastical faith—an assent based on the
authority of the Church [62]. Others, however, propose the assent of Catholic
faith [63]. Either way, to dissent from infallible teaching on the secondary
objects would be to deny the faith, either Catholic or ecclesiastical.
3. Tertiary Objects. The ordinary
magisterium of the Pope and the bishops can also teach about a wide range of
objects, doctrinal and disciplinary. This teaching is authoritative but
noninfallible. The vehicles of such papal teaching are encyclicals, apostolic exhortations,
declarations, and other communications directly from the Pope or indirectly
from Roman congregations. The ordinary teaching of the bishops is found in
pastoral letters, preaching, and the other ways that bishops exercise their
magisterial role. As part of the ordinary pastoral care of the faithful, the magisterium
proposes its teachings as true, but not definitive in light of the promise that
the Spirit guide this kind of teaching.
The assent required
for the tertiary objects is true internal and external assent. Members of the
Church are expected to give an obediential assent, which Vatican II refers to
as “religious submission of mind and will”—“religiosum
voluntatis et intellectus obsequium” (Lumen
gentium, art. 25) [64]. Catholics are to receive those nondefinitive
teachings as safe and well-founded opinions, prudently believing they are free
from error. Even though such teachings are not absolutely guaranteed as true
and unchangeable, they are to be followed by the faithful. To dissent from this
category of teaching would be an act of disobedience, unless the justifying
reasons are personally compelling and the dissent properly circumscribed . . .
This assent is described in canon 752:
A religious
submission of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be
paid to the teaching which the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops
enunciate on faith or morals when the exercise the authentic magisterium, even
if they do not intend to proclaim it with a definitive act; therefore the
Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with
that teaching.
Notes for the Above
[57] For a balanced
and detailed study of the entire range of issues concerning the teaching
authority of the Church see Francis A. Sullivan, Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (New York:
Paulist, 1983).
[58] Karl Rahner’s
observation is instructive: “It is therefore quite untrue that only those moral
normal for which there is a solemn definition . . . are binding in faith on the
Christian as revealed by God . . . When the whole Church in her everyday
teaching does in fact teach a moral rule everywhere in the world as a
commandment of God, she is preserved from error by the assistance of the Holy
Spirit (Nature and Grace [New York:
Sheed and Ward, 1964], p. 52). Some theologians argue that the Church’s
prohibition of contraception is infallible on the basis of the ordinary and
universal magisterium: John C. Ford and Germain Grisez, “Contraception and the
Infallibility of the Ordinary magisterium,” Theological
Studies 39 (1978):258-312. For a different view see Joseph A. Komonchak, “Humanae vitae and Its Reception:
Ecclesiological Reflections,” ibid., 221-257.
[59] DS 3011; TC 38.
[60] Mansi 52.258 D. At Vatican I, Bishop
Gasser said that the secondary objects of infallibility are not simply
connected with revelation but are necessary
if the deposit of faith is to be guarded and explained (Mansi 52;1226 B).
Theologians debate whether specific moral norms can be infallibly taught. The
majority of moral theologians hold that they cannot. In Sullivan, Magisterium, p. 227, n. 46, a list of
authors favoring the position include F. Böckle, C.E. Curran, J. Fuchs, R
McCormick, B. Schüller, and others. Some moralists, however, contend that moral
norms can be infallibly proposed. See Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, vol. I: Christian Moral Principles (Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1983),
chapters 35 and 36, and “Infallibility and Specific Moral Norms: A Review
Discussion,” The Thomist 49
(1985):248-87).
[61] Acts
apostolicae sedis 65 (1973):401
[62] See Gerard Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. III: The Sources of Revelation and Divine Faith.
Trans. and rev. J.J. Castelot and W.R. Murphy (Westminster, Md.: Newman, 1961),
pp. 188, 265-70.
[63] See Ioachim Salaverri in M. Nicholau and
I Salaverri, Sacrae theologiae summa,
vol. I: Theologia Fundamentalis (Madrid:
Biblioteca de autores christianos, 1952), 788-789.
[64] The term “obsequium” is best translated as “submission.”
Bishop B.C. Butler, however, suggested that “due respect” is a more accurate
translation (“infallible: Authhenticum:
Assensus: Obsequium. Christian Teaching Authority and the Christian’s
Response,” Doctrine and Life 31
[1981]:77-89). Francis A. Sullivan has argued convincingly against Bishop Butler’s
view in Magisterium, pp. 158-160.
