The ordinary Magisterium, however, may involve infallibility in another way. This is the case where the same doctrine is taught by the ordinary Magisterium continuously and for a long time to the whole Church. Accordingly, in regard to the Marian Co-redemption, Fr. Joseph de Aldama, SJ, says:
Though the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff is not infallible in itself, if, however, it teaches constantly and for a long time a certain doctrine in the entire Church as occurs in our case [the Co-redemption], its infallibility must be absolutely aditted; otherwise, it would lead the Church into error. (Josephus A. de Aldama, S.J., “Mariología in Sacrae Theologiae Summa [Madrid: Biblíoteca de Autores Cristianos, 1961], 3:418)
Therefore, according to Father de Aldama, the doctrine of the Marian Co-redemption is now considered to be infallibly taught by the Church, even though it has not been the object of any statement of the extraordinary Magisterium, either pontifical or universal.
This case illustrates the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium through the continuity of a teaching, an extremely important principle usually forgotten by many Catholics who study our faith.
The doctrinal foundation of this claim to infallibility is the one pointed out by Father de Aldama: If the Popes and the universal Church could be wrong in a long and continuous series of ordinary documents on the same subject, the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Bride of Christ. (Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, “What is the Doctrinal Authority of Pontifical and Conciliar Documents,” Catolicisimo, no. 202 [October 1967], reprinted in Can Documents of the Magisterium of the Church Contain Errors? Can the Catholic Faithful Resist Them? [trans. John R. Spann and José Aloisio A. Schelini; Spring Grove, Pa.: The American Society For the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, 2015], 15)
The many reasons for infallibility we have indicated should not be confused with the so-called passive infallibility of the faithful. This expression, current in sacred theology, means that the children of the Church, by following what she teaches, will certainly know the true faith. But they have no official mission of Magisterium at all, that is, their role in this matter is merely passive. (Ibid., 22)
A Proposition Close to Heresy
A proposition that is said to be close to heresy when it opposes a truth that has not yet been defined, but will be defined soon. For example: To deny the Immaculate Conception some time before its definition.
Note that, on the eve of the definition by Pius IX, the Immaculate Conception was already a doctrine infallibly proposed by the ordinary Magisterium. Therefore, to reject it at that point would be to fall into heresy, not just to be close to heresy. But between the 12th century, when Saint bernard could deny it without meriting censure, and the moment in which it was defied by the ordinary Magisterium, there was a time span during which to deny it was to place oneself close to heresy.
We also call close to heresy that proposition which “not all, but many theologians call heretic, for good reasons.” For example: That without grace, man can durably keep all the precepts of natural law and avoid all mortal sin. This proposition is close to heresy because many theologians, though not all, sustain that the opposed truth has been defined by the church. (Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, “Not Only Heresy Can Be Condemned by Ecclesiastical Authority, Catolicismo, no. 203 [November 1967], reprinted in ibid., 38)
“Rejoice, O Crusher of All Heresies”
We pray in the Little Office of Our Lady: “Gaude, Maria Virgo, cunctas haereses sola interemisti in universo mundo”--Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, for Thou alone hast crushed all heresies in the whole world.”
Let us ask her the grace to have a pure and ardent faith, knowing how to avoid not just destructive heresy, but anything that could stain it. (Ibid., 46)
A Dogma of the Ordinary Magisterium
A frequent notion in Catholic circles is that the only dogmas are those which have been the object of solemn definitions by Popes or Councils. This notion is false and dangerous. Indeed, there are also numerous dogmas defined by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, that is, by the continuity of the teachings of the Popes and Bishops in the daily exercise of their teaching mission, through encyclicals, papal allocution, collective pastoral documents, etc. if a doctrine of faith or morals is taught without controversy for a long time by the whole Church, there is no way one could doubt that it is infallible. If it were not, the Spouse of Christ would have been transformed into a teacher of error and would be leading souls to hell. This explains how theologians teach that Mary’s Co-redemption is now a dogma, for even though it has not been the object of a solemn definition, it was nevertheless taught by the Popes without interruption for one hundred years.
Now then, the condemnation of artificial contraceptive practices dates from the early centuries of the church. Progressives themselves recognize it.
In this regard, there are definitive texts by Clement of Alexandria, Saint Epiphanius, Saint Jerome, Saint Augustine, Saint Cesaire of Arles, Saint Martin of Braga, Saint Gregory the Great, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and other medieval Doctors, Sixtus V, Gregory XIV, and Saint Alphonsus Liguori, as well as the Roman Catechism, the Confession Manuals, and the old canon Law.
Also on the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, the doctrine condemning artificial contraception stands firm and uncontested among theologians; and above all, it is sanctioned by about twenty documents of the Holy Office and the Sacred Penitentiary, as well as by grave pronouncements by Pius XI and Pius XII.
In view of the clarity of Tradition on this matter, theologians unanimously sustained, already at the time of Pius XI, that the issue had been closed by a dogmatic definition of the ordinary magisterium. Only with the progressive offensive were doubts raised about the issue. But such doubts are entirely unfounded.
And, as a consequence of this fact, the statement also imposes itself, that the sentence favorable to artificial contraception is heretical. (Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, “Can a Catholic Reject Humanae Vitae?” Catolicismo, nos. 212/214 [August/October 1968], reprinted in ibid., 101-2)
Can There Be Error in a Doctrinal Document by a Bishop, the Entire Episcopate of a Nation, or of a Part of the World?
Out of reverence for the Sacred Hierarchy, many of the faithful hesitate to admit that doctrinal episcopal documents can contain some error (this hesitation practically no longer exists in regard to disciplinary measures). Although this attitude is often born from a true love for the Church, it can nevertheless lead Catholics to difficult and even insoluble situations, placing their very faith at risk. (Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, “Can There Be Errors in Documents of the Magisterium?” Catolicismo, no. 223 [July 1969], reprinted in ibid., 106)