The following excerpts come from:
Heinrich Denzinger,
Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and
Morals, ed. Peter Hünermann, Robert Fastiggi, and Anne Englund Nash (43rd
ed; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012)
Doctrinal decisions often included theologian
censures with which the condemnable nature of a doctrine is indicated. . . .
The customary distinctions are: a doctrine is of “divine faith” (de fide
divina) if it belongs either expressly or implicitly to revelation. A
doctrine is “of divine and Catholic faith” (de fide divina et catholica)
if in addition it has also been formally presented for belief by the Church’s
Magisterium. A proposition that is “close to the faith” (fide proximum)
is, in the unanimous opinion of the theologians, to be regarded as revealed
truth and is held by the Church but without being presented as revealed.
Another important qualification pertains to truths that, while not formally
included in revelation, remain so closely tied to it that they are presented by
the Magisterium as definitive truths. Traditionally, one speaks here of a “truth
of ecclesiastical faith” (de fide ecclesiastica). In addition, there are
theological opinions that are qualified differently. In its use of theological censures
and qualifications, the Magisterium is guided by the theological linguistical usage
of each respective epoch. (pp. 8-9).
When it is said of infallible definitions
that are irreformable in themselves and not because of the consent of the
Church, this means that the propositions of the pope do not require the
retroactive assent of the episcopacy in order to be binding any more than the definitions
of a legitimate council require the assent of any additional authority in order
for them to be binding. They are the final authorities, so that one cannot
appeal such a decision to another authority. Through infallible doctrinal
decisions, individual believers and the Church as the people of God, are not
deceived or led into error with respect to the gospel. This qualification does
not mean, however, that the definitions in each case represent ideal, that is, absolutely
perfect answers to the problems of faith and morals that at a later date cannot
be taken up again, clarified, and amended. If it of course the case that all
definitions are in need of interpretation. Their meaning is to be construed
through their being placed within the comprehensive understanding of the faith
and in the context of the tradition of the faith.
This possibility thus characterized
for establishing the certainty of the faith does not in any case hold
absolutely but only with regard to the content of the faith that is capable of
being defined and thereby clearly delimited and internally coherent. The Church’s
Magisterium could not define the truth of revelation in its totality. (p. 9)
