Have we misunderstood what these theologians were talking about?
Image: Photo by Jason Dent on Unsplash
Vatican II and the decades following seemed to bring a wholesale transformation of the Catholic religion, along with a tidal wave of errors and even heresies. This transformation and tidal wave have had all the hallmarks of having come “from the top”.
In the face of this, some traditionalists turned to the distinction between infallible and non-infallible acts as a means of explaining the situation, and of justifying their rejection of the new religion, in favour of true religion which they had always practiced. Conservatives and other self-styled “moderates” have done something similar, in favour of their unhappy compromise with the religious revolution.
The distinction between infallible and non-infallible acts is a true one. Not everything that the Pope says is an ex cathedra definition or infallible. The famous nineteenth century Jesuit theologian, John Baptist Cardinal Franzelin, wrote:
“No Catholic has ever actually denied, or could do so, that it is necessary to distinguish between ex cathedra definitions and other statements, even of a doctrinal nature, made by both the Popes themselves and the Pontifical Congregations.
“The enemies of the Holy See and the opponents of infallibility alone have always tried to eliminate this necessary distinction contained in the decree of the definition of the Vatican Council.”[1]
An implication of the argument mounted in response to Vatican II is that, so long as errors and novelties are not presented to us as ex cathedra definitions or as assisted with the charism of infallibility, they may contain or entail any manner of heresy or error.
This is proposed as a full and satisfactory explanation of what is going on in our current period, and further conclusions (such as the illegitimacy of recent papal claimants) are deemed unnecessary.
Infallibility extends further than ex cathedra definitions
However, limiting infallibility to ex cathedra definitions is itself questionable. It seems to forget that the universal ordinary magisterium is also infallibly assisted under the conditions mentioned by Vatican II.[2] It also seems to forget that certain objects deemed to fall under the secondary object of infallibility are normally proposed to us without a direct ex cathedra definition – for example, dogmatic facts and the well-established doctrine of the “infallible safety” of universal disciplinary laws.[3]
However, even if we were to concede that infallibility is limited to ex cathedra definitions, it still seems wrong to think that the Church and popes can, for a period of sixty years, authoritatively give the Church oceans of heresy and errors against divine revelation and Catholic theology.
Such an idea makes it very hard to understand the purpose of having a Church, papacy and magisterium in the first place – and seems to make a mockery of Our Lord’s promise to be with the Church until the end of time, and of the Holy Ghost guiding and protecting her.
So what should we make of it all?
Infallible safety
Some have tried to mitigate this idea – that non-infallible papal teaching can contain errors and perhaps even heresies – as follows.
While not every doctrinal instruction given authoritatively and universally by the Church or the Pope is infallibly true, it is however “infallibly safe” by virtue of the Church’s “charism of safety”; and this means that all the faithful can and must give an absolute religious assent to everything presented to us by Rome; and that one will not be able to lose one’s soul in so doing.
In other words, universal but non-definitive and non-infallible papal teaching may be able to contain errors; but it cannot contain dangerous errors which will take us off the way of salvation. This is because (as is indisputably true, and must be accepted by all parties to this discussion) the Church is governed and protected by the Holy Ghost. This protection has in turn been dubbed “doctrinal providence”.
While this idea sounds similar to the infallible safety of universal disciplinary laws, it is quite distinct, for reasons which we will address in due course.
Recently, Dr John Joy wrote an article on this idea, which has prompted a range of responses.[4] In an article critiquing Dr Joy, Mr Michael Lofton cited and accepted Dr Joy’s definition of the idea, with a suggested clarification of terms:
“Dr. Joy begins by defining terms. He notes the ‘infallible safety thesis’ means ‘the pope may teach some errors in his non-infallible magisterium, but not dangerous errors.’
“He also explains that if this teaching were true, then it would mean the pope could not teach heresy in his magisterium – though he could be a heretic as a private theologian.
“This definition is acceptable, but the term infallible in this context can be easily misunderstood […] I think it is better to refer to the Church’s doctrine as a charism of safety in order to avoid all of the unnecessary rabbit trails the term infallible may lead to.”[5]
We should be clear that everyone agrees that the Church enjoys a “charism of safety”, and of “doctrinal providence”, in that, at least in some general sense, the execution of her mission in the world is guided by the Holy Ghost. The idea expressed above under the name of “infallible safety” is a particular interpretation of this. Therefore, with all due respect to Mr Lofton, I shall continue to use “infallible safety” as a way of demarking the specific interpretation we are discussing.
This interpretation has several different kinds of proponents, and they end in different places.
Some sedevacantists argue that, because Vatican II and the post-conciliar claimants to the papacy have taught errors which are dangerous or even heretical, neither Vatican II nor the claimants have been legitimate. As such, this understanding of the “charism of safety” is presented as proof that Francis and his recent predecessors have not been legitimate popes.
Others, such as Mr Lofton himself, use this to promote the idea that, underneath all the supposed spin, Vatican II and the post-conciliar claimants are in fact all orthodox, and that we must assent to everything which they teach us.
These latter proponents – who have been dubbed “popesplainers” and “post-trads” – justify their position with post-conciliar documents such as Donum Veritatis. But both these and the former proponents refer to a shared set of authorities.
But do these authorities really teach this idea?
Franzelin
The standard authority cited for this interpretation of the Church’s “charism of safety” is the nineteenth-century Jesuit theologian John-Baptist Franzelin. The phrases “infallible safety” and “doctrinal providence” seem to have been popularised by the extract which these proponents cite from his work.
Here is the text:
“The Holy Apostolic See, to which God has entrusted the preservation of the deposit of faith and has imposed the task and duty to shepherd the Universal Church for the salvation of souls, can not only prescribe theological statements or those related to theological statements as acceptable or condemn them as unacceptable to definitively clarify the truth with an infallible judgment.
“It can also do this out of the necessity and intention to assure, either in general or under certain circumstances, the safety of Catholic doctrine.
“Even if in such declarations the truth of the doctrine is not infallible because no decision is intended, there is still infallible safety. This pertains to both the objective safety of the doctrine presented (in general or under the appropriate circumstances) and the subjective safety, insofar as it is safe for all to follow it, while it is not safe and cannot be done without violating due subordination to the divinely established teaching office to not comply with it.”[6]
A closer look at the extract in question shows that his text is by no means addressing “everything coming from the Holy See” (as is held by the proponents of “infallible safety”), but rather a very specific exercise of teaching authority by the Roman congregations.
What is this exercise of teaching authority? There was a time, even quite recent, in which the Roman congregations issued authoritative decisions, judgments and decrees which ruled that given doctrines were (or were not) safe to hold and be taught. Such declarations and prescriptions can be found in a collection such as Denzinger.[7]
The key question is whether what Franzelin refers to as “declarations” and to the “prescri[ption of] theological statements” refers to the whole body of authoritative but non-defintive papal teaching, or the specific decrees, declarations and prescriptions of the Congregations mentioned. It seems clear from the text and context, as well as those theologians who followed him, that he is referring to the latter.
Franzelin’s point in the text cited is that such judgments of safety are infallible, even if the truth or falsity of the doctrine could not be guaranteed. In other words: when the Holy Office decreed that a particular doctrine was unsafe to hold, we can be sure that the Holy Office is right: the doctrine really is unsafe to hold until further notice.
This text addresses these declarations in contradistinction to infallibly-assisted ex cathedra definitions by the pope or council. Even if this text may imply points relevant to exercise of the merely authentic papal magisterium in documents such as encyclicals, we must recognise that this famous text is not clear on the matter itself.
Billot
Louis Cardinal Billot cites Franzelin at length on this topic. He explains why it is that we must accept these declarations of safety, and what it means for them to be reformable:
“[W]hen the Sacred Congregations declare that some doctrine cannot safely be handed on (that is, it is not safe) [emphasis added], we are bound to judge that this doctrine is, I do not say in itself erroneous or false or anything like that, but simply that it is not safe, and so in the future not to adhere to it because it is not safe.
“And if they declare that some other doctrine cannot safely be denied (that is, it is safe), we are bound to judge that this doctrine is, not only safe, but also to be followed and embraced as safe (and I am not saying that it is in itself certain precisely in virtue of this decision).
“But strictly speaking, that which now is not safe, especially in the composite sense of the decision, afterwards can turn out to be safe, if perhaps the competent authority, having discussed the matter again and in the light of new reasons, promulgates another decision…”[8]
It is clear from the relevant section of his De Ecclesia that Billot is primarily discussing the decrees and decisions of the Roman Congregations, and not the content of documents such as encyclicals (which he addresses differently elsewhere).
(Article continues below)
Sorry to interrupt! We would like to keep providing our articles free for everyone. If you have benefitted from our work, then please do consider supporting us financially.
A monthly donation helps ensure we can keep writing and sharing at no cost to readers. Thank you!
Choupin
After quoting the above text from Cardinal Billot, Salaverri notes that “Dieckmann and Choupin embrace this same explanation.”[9]
But as we have seen, “this explanation” is not justifying the interpretation of “infallible safety” under discussion, and so cannot be marshalled in its favour.
Choupin does extend Franzelin’s principle to decrees from the Holy Office as to whether a proposition is true or false (rather than just whether it is safe or unsafe):
“For example, if the Holy Office, by an authentic sentence, declares a proposition to be true or erroneous, I must say and believe inwardly, not that the proposition is true or erroneous absolutely, as if it were a definitive judgment, of itself irreformable, but that it is not imprudent, that it is safe to regard this proposition as true or erroneous, or rather that this proposition is sure, or is not sure.”[10]
But throughout this section, Choupin is clearly talking about the authentic (authoritative) sentences, decisions and judgments of the Congregations. Extending it further to the whole body of the Roman Pontiff’s non-definitive teaching would require further premises and argument.
Ward
We could also consider the example of Dr William George Ward, who could not be called a minimalist with regards to the rights of the Holy See (or indeed, it seems, with regard to anything at all). He too explains, in now familiar terms, the same interpretation we have seen throughout: that Franzelin was discussing the prescription of theological opinions to be followed or avoided, rather than the general body of papal teaching:
“… Cardinal Franzelin lays down the principle that the Holy Apostolic See may prescribe theological opinions, or opinions bearing on theology, as to be followed, or proscribe them as to be avoided; and that, too, not solely with the intention of deciding the truth by a definitive sentence, but even without any such intention, from the need it has and the design it entertains of looking to the security of Catholic doctrine, whether absolutely, or relatively only to particular circumstances.
“Now, although in declarations of this sort there is not infallible truth of the doctrine, since the supposition is that there is no intention of definitely deciding such truth, still there is infallible security, both objectively, as regards the teaching so put forth, and subjectively, inasmuch as it is safe for all to embrace it; whereas to refuse to embrace it would not be safe, and would be a violation of the law whereby Christians are bound to be submissive to the teaching authority which has been instituted by God.”[11]
Fenton
Even Mgr Joseph Clifford Fenton himself – who argued for a wide extension of this idea, and is often cited by its proponents – granted that Franzelin was talking decrees of safety, rather than the safety of everything coming from Rome. After giving a summary of Franzelin’s teaching, he adds:
“The explanations developed by Franzelin and by Palmieri are adequate and exact. The first gives an excellent account of those teachings presented by the Holy See as propositions which can be taught safely.
“Palmieri, for his own part, offers a fine exposition of the status of propositions taught by competent authority, yet not presented as infallibly true. Both explanations can be employed profitably in dealing with some of the pronouncements of the various Roman congregations and with much of the teaching of the encyclicals.
“It would seem, however, that it would be a serious mistake to imagine that they can properly be applied to the entire body of doctrine set forth in these papal documents. It must be noted that neither Franzelin nor Palmieri made such an explicit application in the development of their own theories.”[12] (Emphases added)
In other words, Fenton clearly states that Franzelin did not apply his idea of doctrinal providence “to the entire body of doctrine set forth in these papal documents [such as encyclicals].”
Supporting The WM Review through book purchases
As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Reading List (with direct links for US and UK readers).
Salaverri
Salaverri’s treatment of the matter in his De Ecclesia is along the same lines as the other authorities mentioned.
In an article on the authority of encyclicals, he explicitly rejects the idea that a non-definitive assertion of a doctrine calls only for us to assent to the implicit statement that the doctrine is safe. He also draws attention to the existence of the decrees of safety discussed:
“Secondly, to claim that the Pope, in non-infallible direct assertions in Encyclicals, only intends that they be accepted, not necessarily as true or false, but as secure or not secure, seems insufficient.
“This might apply in cases where the Magisterium explicitly affirms that a doctrine is secure or not secure.
“However, in those cases, since what the Magisterium formally teaches is precisely that, namely, that such a doctrine is secure or not secure, the mental assent required from the faithful cannot extend to more than what it authentically affirms.”[13] (Emphasis added)
He goes on to state that when the Pope proposes a doctrine in an encyclical, he normally proposes it as true; and that our assent is given to the doctrine itself, based on the doctrinal authority of the teacher and the magisterium proposing it – not to the idea that it is safe.
Conclusion
To summarise, Franzelin’s comments on doctrinal security pertain to an exercise of authority – that of Roman congregations issuing judgments of safety – which is defunct in the Novus Ordo milieu. Today few realise that Roman congregations ever made such judgments – and perhaps this explains how treatments of “quasi-definitive” judgments of safety have come to be understood as referring to the safety of non-definitive teaching.
But as we have seen, Franzelin was not saying “Everything coming from Rome is necessarily infallibly safe”; rather, he was saying: “When Rome (either through the Pope or the Congregations) prescribes something as safe, it truly is safe.” This is what he meant by “infallible safety”; and as we have seen, this is borne out by theologians, of varying degrees of authority, who followed Franzelin in this doctrine.
Once this is understood, some obscure and strangely-phrased elements in the relevants texts become clear.
I have suggested throughout that the idea of “infallible safety” may be inferred from the authorities cited. But it is necessary that we recognise that these authorities cannot simply be cited in support of this idea, as if they directly taught it themselves.
Often, it is merely assumed that the clear decrees and judgments of the Roman Congregations, and what theologians have written about the Congregations “prescribing” propositions, can be treated as equivalent to every passing statement of doctrine in a papal encyclical. These assumptions may or may not be true, but further premises and argumentation are necessary to establish it; and such a conclusion will only be as secure as the argumentation upon which it is based.
But this may raise a number of questions. If these authorities cannot simply be cited in support of “infallible safety”, does this mean that the authoritative but non-definitive teaching of the popes can be full of errors?
Does it mean that we can disregard such teaching at will – recognising the legitimacy of the teacher, whilst resisting the teaching which we hold to be false?
Where does this leave the doctrine taught by Pius XII in Humani Generis, on our obligation to assent to the merely authentic exercise of the papal magisterium?
And does this mean that the Church is in fact capable of teaching a host of dangerous doctrines for sixty years, so long as they aren’t proposed with the hallmarks of an infallible definition?
These vexing questions will be the subject of subsequent parts.
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing our articles free for everyone. If you have benefitted from our content please do consider supporting us financially.
A small monthly donation, or a one-time donation, helps ensure we can keep writing and sharing at no cost to readers. Thank you!
Monthly Gifts
Single Gifts
Subscribe to stay in touch:
Follow on Twitter and Telegram:
Footnotes (Click to Expand)
[1] Ioannis Bapt. Franzelin, Tractatus de Divina Traditione er Scriptura, 1882, Sectio I., Caput II., Th. XII., Princ. VII. Translated by a friend of The WM Review, available at https://wmreview.co.uk/2023/11/09/infallible-safety/
[2] Vatican I taught: “All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed.” Vatican I, Dei Filius, Ch. 3, “Concerning Faith”, Dz 1792, trans. J.S. Daly
[3] Salaverri describes the secondary object of infallibility as “all the truths that are connected necessarily with per se revealed truths” – which he lists as follows:
“Truths of this kind necessarily connected with revealed truths are usually reduced to three kinds, which are: A. Speculative truths logically connected either consequently or in a presupposed way with the revealed truths; B. Dogmatic facts whether simply such or especially doctrinal; C. Dispositive decrees about discipline in general, and in particular on the canonization of Saints and on the approbation of religious Orders, which are said to be connected with revealed truths in a purposeful way, because they help very much to obtain the end of revelation which is the sanctification of souls.”
Joachim Salaverri, ‘On the Church of Christ,’ in Sacrae Theologia Summa IB (based on the version with the imprimatur dated 1955) 2015, n. 700. Trans. Kenneth Baker SJ, Keep the Faith.
[4] John Joy, ‘Is There a Charism of Infallible Safety?’ in One Peter Five, December 27 2023. Available at https://onepeterfive.com/is-there-a-charism-of-infallible-safety/.
[5] Michael Lofton, ‘A Response to Dr. John Joy: Is There a Charism of Infallible Safety?’ in Where Peter Is, Jan 10 2024. Available at: https://wherepeteris.com/a-response-to-dr-john-joy-is-there-a-charism-of-infallible-safety/
[6] Franzelin, Ibid.
[7] Cf. for example the list of propositions entitled “Errors of the Ontologists” from the decree of the Holy Office, Sept. 18, 1861, of which the Holy Office judged that: “they cannot be safely taught” (nn. 1659-1665).
Cf. also the Dubium on Craniotomy and Abortion, n. 1889-90s, and from the Biblical Commission in n. 2175. Cf. also nn. 2183-5, 2198, 2296. Denzinger, published as Sources of Catholic Dogma, available online at http://patristica.net/denzinger/
[8] Billot, De Ecclesia (1927) th. 19 p.445-47, cited in Salaverri n. 663.
[9] Salaverri n. 663.
[10] Lucien Choupin, Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siège, pp 83-6. G. Beauchesne, Paris, 1913.
[11] Dr. William George Ward, “The Assent due to certain Papal Utterances”, The Dublin Review, Volume XXXI (New Series), July 1878, p 155. Available at https://archive.org/details/sim_dublin-review_1878-07_31/page/155/mode/1up
[12] Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, ‚The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals – Part I‘ in American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August 1949, pp 136-150. Available at: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
[13] Joaquín Salaverri, Value of the Encyclicals in the light of the “Humani Generis”, 1951, published in Miscelánea Comillas XVII. Translated by a friend of The WM Review.
S.D. Wright
Thanks for your comments below, Mike. But I think you may have misunderstood what I have been arguing here. I have commented throughout your message as the easiest way to clarify.
Dear S.D. Wright,
this second redaction is better than the first, but it is still seriously flawed.
I’m not sure what you mean by “second”? This is the first time this piece has been published.
Quote from you above, where Msg. Fenton is speaking of the comments of Palmieri and Franzelin on the authority of Papal documents, states the following:
Fenton: Both explanations can be employed profitably in dealing with some of the pronouncements of the various Roman congregations and with much of the teaching of the encyclicals. It would seem, however, that it would be a serious mistake to imagine that they can properly be applied to the entire body of doctrine set forth in these papal documents. It must be noted that neither Franzelin nor Palmieri made such an explicit application in the development of their own theories.””
Now your understanding is that Fenton is denying that the “doctrinal safety” of Papal documents can be extended to all Papal pronouncements indiscriminately:
S.D. Wright: Even Mgr Joseph Clifford Fenton himself – who argued for a wide extension of this idea, and is often cited by its proponents – granted that Franzelin was talking decrees of safety, rather than the safety of everything coming from Rome. After giving a summary of Franzelin’s teaching, he adds:”(What follows above)
But this is misinterpreting Fenton; Fenton is arguing AGAINST limiting the Papal Encyclicals to “non-infallible” portion of Church documents,
I have not suggested that papal encyclicals or similar documents cannot contain definitions which are infallible. In fact, I think the opposite. Quanta Cura, for example.
Please also note that I am nor engaging with Fenton’s personal thought here, or the merits of the “infallible safety” idea itself – a crucial point which I think you comment has missed. I am showing that Fenton himself agreed that in the section often cited, Franzelin was not talking about the entire body of everything coming from Rome.
Here is Msgr. Fenton in the very next paragraph that you cited:
Fenton: “Several of the most influential modern theologians teach explicitly that some of the teaching in the papal encyclicals come to us as parts of the Church’s infallible doctrine. ”
I agree, but this is a statement that encyclicals can contain propositions which are taught with the assistance of infallibility, not that they are all infallible taken as a whole, still less “infallibly safe”.
Fenton in his three articles definitely argues for the 1.”infallible safety” of the Papal Magisterium, including the decrees of the Congregations.
He may well do, but he grants that Franzelin doesn’t teach that, and that is the point here.
2. The doctrine of “Doctrinal Safety”
As above.
3. The religious assent due to these decrees.
We all agree that assent is owed. There is a debate about the nature of this assent, though, as we shall address in due course, and the debate is not going to be settled by Fenton, nor until this crisis is over.
In effect “everything coming from Rome is safe and has to be assented to” in the degree specified by Rome, not the opinions of individual Catholics.
I think you need to re-read what Msgr. Fenton wrote.
Thank you for the suggestion. As you can see, we are talking at cross purposes here, and I am making a different point to what perhaps you may think I am.
Sincerely,
Mike
Thanks again for your comment and ongoing support, especially your readiness to disagree. That is very valuable even if we remain in disagreement.
Thanks for your comment again, Mike. I’ll be replying in bold as before. SDW.
S.D. Thanks again for your response,
You stated: “I’m not sure what you mean by “second”? This is the first time this piece has been published. ”
You published a piece on this Topic with the same title a few months ago, to which I responded citing Franzelin on Sacred Tradition.
Oh I see, I thought you meant something else by “redaction”.
you stated: ” I am showing that Fenton himself agreed that in the section often cited, Franzelin was not talking about the entire body of everything coming from Rome.”
I don’t see how you can read what Fenton & Franzelin wrote, and come up with this conclusion.
I’m surprised to see you say that, Mike. Fenton says exactly that – even if he (by his own arguments) extends it further himself. Here, again, is Fenton saying directly that “neither Franzelin nor Palmieri made such an explicit application in the development of their own theories.””
‘The first gives an excellent account of those teachings presented by the Holy See as propositions which can be taught safely.
‘“Palmieri, for his own part, offers a fine exposition of the status of propositions taught by competent authority, yet not presented as infallibly true. Both explanations can be employed profitably in dealing with some of the pronouncements of the various Roman congregations and with much of the teaching of the encyclicals.
‘“It would seem, however, that it would be a serious mistake to imagine that they can properly be applied to the entire body of doctrine set forth in these papal documents. It must be noted that neither Franzelin nor Palmieri made such an explicit application in the development of their own theories.”‘
I don’t know what else to say. Fenton might elsewhere develop his own thinking along these lines, and he might even be correct. But it doesn’t effect the point, or rather now two points, in question, namely:
1. Did Franzelin extend the idea of infallible safety to every doctrinal utterance from Rome? I say no, that this section is discussing decrees of the Holy Office about doctrines which are/not safe to teach and hold.
2. Did Fenton agree that this is what Franzelin was discussing, no matter what he himself thought? I say yes, and have given the text with him saying exactly that.
Here is Fenton, citing Vacant a little further on:
“The most prominent commentator on this passage, the French theologian Jean Vacant, calls attention to the fact that the Council deliberately worded its admonition in such a way as to make it clear that the duty, incumbent upon all the faithful, of accepting and observing the various pontifical constitutions and decrees is founded upon the prerogatives of the Holy See itself. [61] All the Council seeks to do is to warn the members of the Church of an already existent obligation. The people are admonished to receive and to keep the doctrines proposed by the Holy Father through the documents to which the Council alludes, not because the Council teaches that such teachings are to be accepted, but rather because the Holy See, which obviously has the right to do so, has demanded such assent for its own teachings.
I agree, but it’s not to the point under question.
“The Vatican Council speaks of a duty, a moral obligation binding in conscience. All of the faithful are bound in conscience to keep, i.e., to give a continuing assent, to these pontifical documents which proscribe and forbid those errors which are more or less closely related to “heretical wickedness.” The Council specifically mentions the fact that it refers to errors not condemned explicitly in its own constitution…Vacant and Scheeben make it clear that in speaking of the Decreta (as distinct from the Constitutiones), the Vatican Council definitely included the pronouncements of the various Roman Congregations among those teachings which Catholics are bound in conscience to accept perseveringly. [62]
I agree, but it’s not to the point under question.
These pronouncements are unquestionably non-infallible statements. They have obviously less authority than those documents which emanate directly from the Holy Father, even when the Vicar of Christ does not intend to use the fullness of his apostolic teaching power. If these decrees of the Roman Congregations are mentioned as doctrinal pronouncements “to be observed” by all of the faithful, then it is perfectly clear that the Vatican Council, speaking as the voice of the entire ecclesia docens, insists that the teachings set forth in papal encyclicals must be accepted sincerely…The internal acceptance which Catholics are bound to give to that portion of the Church’s teaching not presented absolutely as infallible is described as a “religious assent.” It is truly religious by reason of its object and of its motives. The Vatican Council’s conclusion to its Constitution Dei Filius stresses the religious object of this assent. The faithful are reminded of their obligation to believe the doctrinal pronouncements of the Roman Congregations because these statements denounce and forbid definite errors which are closely connected with “heretical wickedness” and which thus are opposed to the purity of the faith. Teachings that contradict errors of this sort are obviously religious in character since they deal more or less directly with the content of divine revelation, the body of truth which guides and directs the Church of God in its worship”
I agree, but it’s not to the point under question. None of this addresses the question, which is *what did Franzelin actually teach in this famous section.* Incidentally, it is talking about the duty of giving assent, which we all accept – and not the idea of “safe doctrinal errors” in non-infallible teaching.
” I will now post a section from S.T.S. Which deals specifically with 1. The value of the declarations of the Roman Congregations. 2. The general agreement of theologians including, Franzelin, Billot, Choupin, Lercher etc. etc. 3. The necessity of internal assent to those declarations.
Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB “On the Church of Christ” by Joachim Salaverri S.J. (Translated from Latin by Kenneth Baker, S.J.
pg. 241.
I know this section well, and it is not to the point under discussion.
The Authentic Magisterium of the Holy See
Thesis 15. Internal and religious assent of the mind is due to the doctrinal decrees of the Holy See authentically approved by the Supreme Pontiff.
We all agree with what it’s saying – but it seems that some (are you?) are trying to apply it wider than the terms themselves permit.
660. Definition of terms. By the name of the Holy See is meant not only the Roman Pontiff, but also the Congregations, Tribunals, Offices, through whom the same Supreme Pontiff is wont to conduct the affairs of the universal Church (CIC 7, see 246-264 [1917])
In this thesis two terms In particular must be defined: 1) Which decrees are we concerned with; 2) What kind of assent of the mind must be given to them.
1) The decrees we are concerned with, in general, are judgments promulgated by the Roman Pontiff, as the authentic Teacher, universal and also supreme, but with a grade of authority not touching on his infallibility.
Note what I have been saying: judgments. This whole teaching of infallible safety from Franzelin and his followers turns around the quasi-definitive form of teaching of judgments of safety, or judgments from the Congregations which are not capable of being infallible per se. I really do not think that it is referring to the idea of “the Pope’s judgment to say X”, such that any doctrinal utterance would be the subject discussion. That is not what the terms mean.
….From the object, these decrees are two kinds: a) Those decrees are disciplinary whose object is some precept of discipline that must be observed. Those decrees are doctrinal whose object is some doctrine proposed to the faithful in a teaching way. In the thesis we are dealing with doctrinal decrees.
pg. 242. From the end intended by these decrees two of their qualities are distinguished: a) those are direct by which a doctrine is proposed so that the faithful should hold it as true or false. b) But those are said to be indirect by which the Church intends “to protect a doctrine of faith or morals”; therefore in these a doctrine is proposed that must be held as safe or not safe.
662……(Franzelin) “the Magisterium acts with the authority of governing given to it by God, not however with its total intensity, so to speak, nor ultimately by defining some truth, but to the extent it might seem to be necessary or opportune or sufficient to protect the doctrine; perhaps we can call this the authority of doctrinal providence…..we think that judgments of this kind also outside of a definition ex Cathedra can be considered in such a way that they demand obedience, which includes the submission of the mind, not indeed that the doctrine be believed infallibly to be true or false; but that it judged that the doctrine contained in such a judgment is safe, and for not indeed from a motive of divine faith, but from a motive of sacred authority, whose undoubted function is to provide for the purity and security of doctrine that is to be embraced with the submission of the mind and rejecting the contrary. (Franz. De divina Traditione schol. 5)
This is the section we have already discussed, I’m not sure what else there is to say here.
643. Billot agrees when he says……….(pg. 243) thus when the Sacred Congregations declare that some doctrine cannot safely be handed on (that is, it is not safe), we are bound to judge that this doctrine is, I do not say in itself erroneous or false or anything like that, but simply that it is not safe, and so in the future not to adhere to it because it is not safe. And if they declare that some other doctrinecannot safely be denied (that is, it is safe), we are bound to judge that this doctrine is,not only safe, but also to be followed and embraced as safe (and I am not saying that it is in itself certain precisely in virtue of this decision). But strictly speaking, that which now is not safe, especially in the composite sense of the decision, afterwards can turn out to be safe,…Dieckmann and Choupin embrace this same explanation. (Billot, De Ecclesia; Dieckmann, n.787-89; L.Choupin, “Le Valeur des …” pgs. 83-86)
pg. 244.
I have already commented on these.
666. 2) The assent that is to be given to these decrees of these decrees from the Holy See must be:
a) Submission of the mind, and therefore the practical conformism is not sufficient of those who, even with a mind contrary to such submission, nevertheless in practice do not act otherwise than if they showed such a submission; b) An act of intellectual judgment, and so obediential silence of the mouth is not sufficient of those who merely abstain from manifesting the contrary judgment they have;
c) Internal, whereby a person positively adheres to the proposition of the Magisterium and truly thinks what the teacher thinks, and therefore the obediential silence of the mind is not sufficient for those who merely abstain from forming a different opinion; d) Certain, although not with the absolute certitude that excludes the possibility of the opposite and which is due only to an infallible decree, with with a true relative certitude which excludes probability of the fear of the opposite, and conditioned, namely, under this condition-unless the Church decrees otherwise with a similar or greater authority. Such assent is called religious, because it is offered on account of the motive of religion or because of the reverence due to God who governs the faithful through the sacred and hierarchical authority of the Church.
pg. 245. State of the question. We say in the thesis that an internal and religious assent of the mind is due to the doctrinal decrees of the Holy See, either formally published by the Supreme Pontiff or approved in the specific from by him, although they do not reach the grade of infallibility; and they are certain at least relatively and conditionally, as was explained in the definition of terms. Regarding the other doctrinal decrees, which we have called virtual decrees, the dame thing consequently must be said, while preserving the necessary proportion.
Yes indeed, but none of this is to the point of discussion. Do note, however, the later section of this thesis in which he gives an overview of several understandings of what this assent means. Today, many people present this assent to non-infallible teaching as being absolute, and conclude from this that God must therefore make any errors “safe”, or non-doctrinal. But this does not follow, because if the assent is absolute, the teaching would be infallible because we cannot be absolutely bound by God to believe any error at all, not even “safe errors”.
If we are to define safe errors as errors which are non-doctrinal, then we are saying that non-infallible teachings cannot teach doctrinal error; but this is to say that non-infallible teaching acts are doctrinally infallible. Something there must give; either everything Rome teaches is infallibly true, regardless of whether it is a definition/judgment; or infallibility simply means that “it contains no safe errors of a non-doctrinal nature”. I might be tempted to believe the former, but the theologians do not; and the latter would be a bit of a damp squib for infallibility, really.
I think all the above is quite clear, Catholics must submit with internal assent to the decrees of the Roman congregations.
This was not under dispute.
Sincerely,
Mike
Thanks again for your comments!
S.D. Thanks again for your response:
“Do note, however, the later section of this thesis in which he gives an overview of several understandings of what this assent means. Today, many people present this assent to non-infallible teaching as being absolute, and conclude from this that God must therefore make any errors “safe”, or non-doctrinal. But this does not follow, because if the assent is absolute, the teaching would be infallible because we cannot be absolutely bound by God to believe any error at all, not even “safe errors”.
No, it is not presented as “absolute” i.e. An assent of faith; but it does insist on the obligation of an internal “religious” assent (per Salaverri et al). Which is conditioned on the possibility of a latter decision by the Church.
Yes, I agree and haven’t denied that there is an obligation of a true, real, internal “religious” assent. Salaverri in that section of STS gives the opinion that the later decision of the Church is what is meant by the condition, but he (in the article on Humani Generis mentioned) and indeed others give other conditions too, including that the non-definitive teaching is manifestly wrong or opposed to prior teaching. But that’s a question of *suspending* assent, which is irrelevant unless you’re starting with the obligation to assent. But this isn’t what’s under question here.
Franzelin: “.we think that judgments of this kind also outside of a definition ex Cathedra can be considered in such a way that they demand obedience, which includes the submission of the mind, not indeed that the doctrine be believed infallibly to be true or false; but that it judged that the doctrine contained in such a judgment is safe, and for not indeed from a motive of divine faith, but from a motive of sacred authority, whose undoubted function is to provide for the purity and security of doctrine that is to be embraced with the submission of the mind and rejecting the contrary. (Franz. De divina Traditione schol. 5)”
We agree, but you’ve cut out the first part of this quote. Look at the grammar: “he says we think that judgments of this kind”, and he is referring to his prior discussion, namely decrees of safety, rather than the whole mass of teachings “outside a definition ex Cathedra”. In fact, “outside a definition ex Cathedra” is qualifying/describing the class in the section the above text misses. And so what follows applies to that.
We also agree that there is a generalised obligation of the sort of assent discussed above to the general teaching activity of Rome, but – to labour the point – that isn’t what Franzelin is talking about in the section in question.
Next, back to the disputed quote
Fenton: Both explanations can be employed profitably in dealing with some of the pronouncements of the various Roman congregations and with much of the teaching of the encyclicals. It would seem, however, that it would be a serious mistake to imagine that they can properly be applied to the entire body of doctrine set forth in these papal documents. It must be noted that neither Franzelin nor Palmieri made such an explicit application in the development of their own theories.”
(My emphasis)
You claim that this meant that the Fenton was arguing that “doctrinal safety” or “providence” did not apply to the entire body of non infallible doctrine coming from Rome; and therefore did not require the religious assent of the faithful:
No, I claim that this means what it says – that Fenton is acknowledging that Franzelin did not apply his theory to the entire body of non-infallible doctrine coming from Rome, and therefore his comments about safety do not apply to that general class. However, in the full Franzelin extract which we published previously, we find the following:
“‘Therefore, if a Sacred Congregation ever demanded such obedience of the intellect where there was no ex cathedra definition, as in the case of Galileo, then “the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition exceeded the limits of its authority.”’ [3]
“In our view, when such judgments were issued without an ex cathedra definition, obedience that includes obedience of the intellect should be demanded and given. This does not mean adhering to the judgment that a doctrine is infallibly true or false, as our opponents seem to understand our view, but that the doctrine contained in this judgment is safe and should be accepted with obedience of the intellect and the rejection of its opposite not on the grounds of divine faith (based on the authority of God revealing or the infallible teaching Church) but on the grounds of the sacred authority whose unquestionable duty is to care for the purity and safety of the doctrine.
“We are speaking here not of decrees that sometimes simply require silence (as was the case, for example, when Pope Paul V. spoke about the means of divine grace), but of answers and decrees that prescribe or prohibit the observance of a doctrine. These are not presented to the individuals merely to remain silent on the matter but also to teach and defend it in the manner and to the extent prescribed, including the obedience of the intellect.”
It is clear, from the other theologians cited and the examples given from Denzinger in the footnotes of this present piece, what Franzelin is discussing here. It is not the generalised teaching of the encyclicals, etc. It may be possible that his comments should be extended further, but in fact he (and most of the theologians cited here) do not do so, nor do they claim that Franzelin did so. And that is the extent of my point.
S.D. “Even Mgr Joseph Clifford Fenton himself – who argued for a wide extension of this idea, and is often cited by its proponents – granted that Franzelin was talking decrees of safety, rather than the safety of everything coming from Rome. After giving a summary of Franzelin’s teaching, he adds: (the above) then what follows:
S.D. “In other words, Fenton clearly states that Franzelin did not apply his idea of doctrinal providence “to the entire body of doctrine set forth in these papal documents [such as encyclicals].”
S.D. “A closer look at the extract in question shows that his text is by no means addressing “everything coming from the Holy See” (as is held by the proponents of “infallible safety”), but rather a very specific exercise of teaching authority by the Roman congregations.”
You are quoting my own words at me, but obviously I am under the impression that they prove my point!
This is the “nub” of the question; he was arguing that what was contained in the ordinary magisterium of the Pope and of the Congregations was “non-infallible” and only demanded this “religious” non-absolute submission, [agreed] but it was indeed protected by “infallible security”; “authority of doctrinal providence. to which assent is due. i.e. “Everything coming from Rome was infallibly secure”.
[Whether Fenton was or wasn’t isn’t the question. The question is whether Franzelin was doing so or not, and whether Fenton acknowledged that he was not doing so. Please also understand, as mentioned in the piece, that we all agree that the Church is governed by a doctrinal providence and some sort of charism of safety; and what is being discussed here at present is only whether Franzelin’s words can, as they often are, be applied to justify the idea that “The whole mass of non-infallible Roman teaching can contain safe errors”, as we could put it.]
I will summarize Fenton’s document paragraph per paragraph, as this will illustrate more clearly what Fenton’s aim is as he goes through this discussion:
There’s no need to do so, because Fenton’s document, aims or beliefs are not what is in question here – except in so far as he recognises that Franzelin was not arguing for the thesis, as I have said.
All from “Papal Encyclicals part. I
par.I. # of Encyclicals from the time of Leo XIII; par. II. Not enough importance given to Encyclicals; par. III. All agree that internal assent should be given. IV. Some modern theologians disregard & oppose.
V. Treatment of Encyclicals by various authors; VI. Some take no cognizance. VII. Some classify as simply “non-infallible”. VIII. Of the above, some say that internal religious assent must be given. IX,X,XI. same. XII. Lercher, “internal”; Y de Priere ‘submission of internal obedience. XIII. Msgr. Manzoni-non infallible but submission due per Franzelin. XIV. Franzenin. 1. Infallible definitions 2. Non-infallible; “infallible security”; “authority of doctrinal providence. to which assent is due.
XV. Franzelin & Palmieri (on non infallible) CAN BE APPLIED PROFITABLY TO STATEMENTS COMING FROM CONGREGATIONS AND “Much of the teaching of Encyclicals”. However it would be a mistake to apply this to ALL the teaching found in Encyclicals. Fenton: “that it would be a serious mistake to imagine that they can properly be applied to the entire body of doctrine set forth in these papal documents.”
This text there (XV) contradicts what I understand you to be arguing.
XVI. Several of the most influential modern theologians teach explicitly that some of the teaching in the papal encyclicals come to us as parts of the Church’s infallible doctrine.
No one here denies this.
So Fenton states rightly or wrongly that Franzelin and Palmieri teach that the non-infallible teaching found in Encyclicals and Congregations is “infallibly secure” and has the “authority of doctrinal providence”;
[No, I don’t think so. He says that “Both explanations can be employed profitably in dealing with some of the pronouncements of the various Roman congregations and with much of the teaching of the encyclicals.”]
to which internal religious assent is due. [No-one is debating assent is due]
The caution that it would be a “serious mistake to imagine (that this non-infallible authority) of some of the content of Encyclicals can be applied to the entire body of these same Encyclicals of which also contain infallible teaching.
So in my opinion (maybe I’m misinterpreting what you are saying) is that you are taking the cautionary warning of not applying the rules of assent due to non infallible teaching to the entire content of Papal Encyclicals, and interpreting this as saying: “See not everything coming from Rome is infallibly safe and demands our internal religious assent.
[I don’t think that’s what I’m saying. Let me state it again, perhaps more clearly and positively: Everything coming to us from Rome even in an merely authentic, non-definitive way, has a prima facie claim on our assent, a real and true internal religious assent.]
Thank you again,
Very interesting and quality discussion,
Mike
Thanks Mike!
S.D. Thanks for your latest (and greatest);
S.D. “Everything coming to us from Rome even in an merely authentic, non-definitive way, has a prima facie claim on our assent, a real and true internal religious assent.]”
Me. O.K. But then where would you say that we disagree?
You tell me Mike, you’re the one telling me I’m wrong!
On the quote from Franzelin:
[“‘Therefore, if a Sacred Congregation ever demanded such obedience of the intellect where there was no ex cathedra definition, as in the case of Galileo, then “the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition exceeded the limits of its authority.”’ [3]]
Franzelin is quoting this unfavorably. (Which follows right after the above)
You’re quite right, that was an unconscionable oversight on my part. I don’t think it particularly changes much of the overall thrust of the discussion, however.
pg. 182 “ft. 292. Ibid, p.138, in a citation by D.Bouiz, de Papa T.II,p.194
“We, on the other hand, believe that in judgments of this sort, even published short of definitions ex cathedra, obedience is demanded and must be furnished, which includes an obsequium of the mind, but certainly that it would be infalliblly judged that a doctrine were true or false….
I don’t understand how the final clause fits into the rest.
pg. 214. ft. 333. “This exposition of the doctrine, from the worthy genius and piety of Bellarmine and Fabri, outstandingly show both the genuine sense and justice of the sacred tribunal as well as the reasoning whereby Galileo not only could but should have acquiesced sincerely to the teaching, so much so that it would be useless to think with D.Bouiz and the Utrecht Candidate that “The Congregation of the Inquisition exceeded the limits of its power.” and that that comment, and “yet it moves”, especially in that mode, which without a certain author the opinion became widespread, that it seemed devised not to the praise but to the discredit of the wise men.
Sincerely,
Mike
Ps. On par. XV we are going to have to “agree to disagree’ on this.
More on Franzelin vis a vis The Galileo Case
pg. 200. ft. 311 So that you can see how skillfully the candidate cut these petty speeches from these texts, receive the words of Cadinal Gotti (de Locis Theol. T/I.q.3, dub. 9 a 2 n.12)
pg. 201. As far as the two other citation, I freely concede the opposed position the right for its won case to appeal perhaps to D.Knox, certainly to D. Bouix, whose doctrine on this point I cannot follow. Nor do I avail myself to conciliate these two things that he asserts, a) the Holy Congregation of the Inquisition can “brand the theological notes that seem just, even of heresy,” to some opinion or doctrine; b) still no man “can be justly compelled to adhere to that judgment internally and in his own mind.” I say I do not avail to conciliate these, if the conversation were (as I have said so often) on religious adherence of a lower order. I would also not concede to D. Bouix that the Holy Congregation “exceeded the limits of its power” in the case of Galileo”.
Next, on pg. 213-214:
Corlarium 5. The authority of infallibility and supreme Magisterium of the Pope defining ex cathedra does not pertain at all to the case of Galileo Galilaei, and to the injunction imposed upon him to abjure his opinion. Therefore, there is not even a shadow of a pontifical definition intervening there, rather, in that whole decree of the Cardinals of the Holy Office, and in the formula of abjuration, the name of the Pope is not found pronounced anywhere, either directly or indirectly. Nevertheless, in the state of the question the matter has not yet been refined since the truth of that astronomic system has not in the least proved a basis for why citations of Scripture should be interpreted in other than their obvious sense. Furthermore, many of the most learned men of that age in physics and astronomy such as Tycho Brahe, Alexander Tassonus, Christopher Scheiner, Antonius Delphinus, and Justus Lipsius, judged the opinion of Galileo contrary the the Scriptures, thus it extended entirely to the authority of ecclesiastical providence to take precautions lest an interpretation of scripture were to take some detriment through conjectures and hypotheses that seemed hardly plausible to a great many men at the time.
Not only is it wrong that the Holy Congregation “exceeded the limits of its power” in the case of Galileo,” Galileo was wrong. In fact there is more empirical evidence for geocentrism than for heliocentrism.
Have you heard of “The Principle” documentary and/or the book/ articles/videos “Galileo Was Wrong”? It seems there’s actually more scientific evidence for geocentrism than for heliocentrism. Since I know we’ve been lied to about so much else: JFK, moon landing, 911, all our wars, “viruses,” “vaccines,” etc., etc., it doesn’t surprise me.
Sources:
http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/
The Principle: youtube.com/watch?v=6I6eT3jgdQU&t=862s
Robert Sungenis, Apologetics and Geocentrism: youtube.com/watch?v=nNnxeqPaIHw
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/evolution/galhrsy.htm
D.W.
Thank you for the information; I am sympathetic to the Geocentric argument, as I read allot of Robert Sungenis’ material a few years ago, and it appeared very solid,
I have to admit that I don’t have the background in science to delve any deeper or the interest. I concentrate most of my efforts in the field of Theology. Although I am a great fan of The Lord of The Rings of the books especially, but the movies were a pretty good adaptation.
Mike
S.D.
I missed your comment here:
and what is being discussed here at present is only whether Franzelin’s words can, as they often are, be applied to justify the idea that “The whole mass of non-infallible Roman teaching can contain safe errors”, as we could put it.]
Me:
I’m sorry I didn’t see this earlier as it would have saved me some time and further this is the real answer to my “duh” question. So you agree that the Church’s magisterium is covered by the protection of the Holy Ghost and is “infallibly safe”; what you are questioning is the fact that this is what Franzelin was teaching. Correct?
In this piece, I have been arguing against the idea that Franzelin was teaching the idea of infallible safety, yes.
I naturally agree that the Church’s magisterium is protected by the Holy Ghost, but I do not agree that the “infallible safety” is necessarily the true or only acceptable way of understanding this protection. I have shown that it has much less extrinsic authority than many seem to think. We will in due course consider it’s intrinsic authority, but already I think that this piece shows that we should be a lot more cautious about how this idea is used and presented to others. I am generally against constructing new theories and theses in our day that do not have clear and explicit backing from pre-conciliar theologians.
Also on your “apology” on the Franzelin quote in reference to the Galileo case; no need to, that was my first impression when I read the quote.
I thank you again for your patience and kindness; I’m sorry my responses were so “herky jerky”, as I am not used to this format, and I was confused as to who was making the responses.
Many thanks!
Keep up the good work,
Mike
Pingback: Infallible Safety: An important correction -