On Theological Positions Not Definitively Taught by the Church
I would like to address a very common misunderstanding among certain Catholics on the Internet as to the nature of dogmatics, so as to further clarify the finer details of dogmatics as understood by the Catholic Church.
1) Catholics are allowed to affirm something that the Church has not yet declared as a dogma or insisted as pertaining to Faith in its ordinary magisterium. This is in reality what theologians do: affirm speculative conclusions from the discursive interaction between revealed truths with either other revealed truths or truths known by natural reason. What Catholics are not allowed to do is impose censures for denying such a thesis where the Church has not yet imposed one. "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him" (Jn 13,16).
Bl. Pius IX condemns the following proposition in the Syllabus of Errors: “The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.” From whence it follows that Catholic teachers and authors cannot be limited to those teachings which have been declared as dogmas.
2) However, insofar as many non-definitive teachings are nevertheless taught in the Magisterium, it follows that there would be certain grades of assent to be given to them, as well as certain censures attached to dissent. These grades are called the "theological notes" which range from "probable" all the way to "de fide" (of the Faith). The censures that are attached to dissent range from "temerarious" (rash) to "error in Catholic Doctrine" all the way to heresy.
3) All "de fide" doctrines, including those classed under "de fide catholica et divina" (of Divine and Catholic faith) are infallible. The Code of Canon Law teaches the following regarding those which are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith:
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Likewise, St. John Paul II teaches the following in Donum Veritatis: “When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed” (n. 23).
4) We shall distinguish between the solemn Magisterium of the Church and the ordinary Magisterium of the Church in reference to teaching infallibly. The solemn magisterium of the Church refers to definitions made ex cathedra by a Pope, or dogmatic definitions made by an ecumenical council which are then ratified by the Pope.
The Church teaches infallibly in Her ordinary magisterium “whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held” (Lumen gentium, n. 25). On the part of the Supreme Pontiff, it is sufficient that he proposes a teaching to pertain to Revelation in his ordinary Magisterium with the intention of binding it on the faithful for it to have an infallible character (B.A.C., Sacrae theologiae summa, I, tract. 3, lib. 2, cap. 2, art. 2, n. 645).
The ordinary and universal Papal Magisterium can also teach infallibly by means of habituation, i.e., the habitual teaching of a doctrine by means of various acts of the ordinary magisterium which, when considered as singular instances, are not infallible. This was the case in John Paul II’s promulgation of Ordinatio sacerdotalis, as discussed by Cardinal Ladaria, In Response to Certain Doubts Regarding the Definitive Character of the Doctrine of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith):
It is important to reaffirm that infallibility does not only pertain to solemn pronouncements of a Council or of the Supreme Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, but also to the universal and ordinary teaching of bishops dispersed throughout the world, when they propose, in communion among themselves and with the Pope, the Catholic doctrine to be held definitively. John Paul II referred to this infallibility in Ordinatio sacerdotalis. In this manner he did not declare a new dogma, but, with the authority conferred upon him as the Successor of Peter, he formally confirmed and made explicit, so as to remove all doubt, that which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium has long considered throughout history as belonging to the deposit of faith. This manner of declaration reflects a mode of ecclesial communion, since the Pope did not want to act alone, but as a witness listening to an uninterrupted and lived tradition.
5) The refusal to assent to teachings “de fide Catholica et divina” is given the censure of heresy: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith” (CIC, can. 751).
Heresy pertains, and only pertains, to the denial of a truth already proposed as pertaining to faith by the Church. If a person denies a particular truth which, at that particular moment, has not yet been infallibly taught, he would not be guilty of the specific sin of heresy; even if said doctrine was infallibly proposed the next day. Otherwise medieval theologians who denied the Immaculate Conception would be classified as heretics. But this is absurd.
6) Doctrines proposed “de fide” are to be distinguished from doctrines of the merely authentic Magisterium. St. John Paul II states: “When the Magisterium, not intending to act ‘definitively’, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith” (Donum veritatis n. 23).
Doctrine of the merely authentic magisterium requires a “religious submission of intellect and will” which is distinguished from an assent of faith (CIC, can. 752). One must recall that faith is a certain knowledge that a proposed truth is in fact true and free from any error whatsoever. Doctrines of the authentic magisterium do not demand certitude from the faithful that what is taught is both true and free from any error whatsoever.
Dissent from the merely authentic teachings of the Magisterium are condemned under various censures, but not under heresy. These range from “temerarious” to “error in theology.” There are many other censures which can be found by looking up the theological notes.
7) Hence, it is imprecise to say that the Church cannot teach error (something wrong) in its ordinary magisterium. It, however, cannot teach an error as “de fide” or binding upon all the faithful, whether in its solemn or ordinary Magisterium. Furthermore, there is a probable opinion which posits that the Church has a charism of “infallible safety.” This thesis should be viewed in light of the promise of Christ made to Peter: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Lk 31,32).
Infallible safety means nothing other than this: the Church (and therefore the Pope), by a special charism, is protected from teaching heresy (something against Divine and Catholic faith) in Her magisterial acts. Hence, the Church (and the Pope) can neither teach against a defined dogma, nor against a doctrine infallibly taught by the ordinary magisterium. Finally, due to the nature of habitual teaching, it would follow that the Church cannot habitually teach the same error. In short, the Church cannot teach damnable error.
Daniel Tyler Chua is the founder and president of the Collegium Perulae Orientis. He is also a contributor to the Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Sentinel PH.
