The Bishop's Weekly Column from the Parish Bulletin

OUR LADY OF FATIMA

CATHOLIC CHURCH

The Tail that Wags the Dog

(Part Two)

March 19, 2007

Prior to publishing the first part of this series, we conversed at some length with the poster of the original message discussed in the last column. During our conversation some debate swirled over the nature of the theological qualification that is to be given to teachings of an ecumenical council. We agreed that definitions are infallible, but what were we to make of Vatican II that contains no definitions per se ? I maintained that they are still connected with issues of Faith and therefore covered by the Church's infallibility. Apparently the celebrated Moral, Dogmatic and Ascetical and Mystical theologian Fr. Adolphe Tanquerey agrees with me. In our ever diligent efforts to bring to light the teachings of Holy Mother the Church we offer this for your consideration:

ARTICLE I

THE OBJECT OF THE POWER OR AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

1. THE OBJECT OF THE DOCTRINAL MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH

State of the Question: This magisterium comprises all the rights which are necessary for teaching revelation and for guarding and defending the deposit of faith: for example, the power of defining--infallibly, of setting up schools, of prohibiting certain books.

Thesis: The direct object of the infallibility of the Church includes all the religious truths and each individual truth which are formally contained in the sources of revelation; the indirect object embraces all those things which are required in order that the deposit of faith may be preserved entire. The first part of this thesis is de fide; the second part is certain.

1. Explanation and proof of thesis. The Church was given infallibility for the purpose of protecting Christ's teaching. And the object of this infallibility is either direct or indirect.

a. It is a matter of faith that the Church is infallible in defining revealed truths. It is certain that it is infallible also in regard to truths that are closely joined to revealed truths. Otherwise the prerogative of infallibility would be purposeless and ineffectual since the Church would not be able to preserve, to defend, and to set forth the deposit of faith.

b. There is a vast distinction between the direct object of infallibility and the indirect object: if a truth formally revealed is defined by an infallible authority, it is the object of divine and of Catholic faith because this truth is believed on the authority of God Who is revealing. When infallible power is exercised in respect to truths connected with revelation, truths of this kind are the object of ecclesiastical faith only.

2. The direct object of infallibility. This object is to define what has been revealed, to decide on the words of the definition, to establish the canon of Scripture, to condemn heresy, etc.

3. The indirect object of infallibility. This comprises all that is intimately united with what has been revealed.

The Church is infallible:

a. In regard to truths of the natural order connected with dogma, which are necessary for protecting the deposit of faith; for example, the existence of God.

b. The Church is infallible in regard to theological conclusions. (This is certain.) A theological conclusion is one which is certainly and manifestly deduced from two premises, one of which is formally revealed and the other is known naturally. It is necessary that the Church be infallible in regard to these theological conclusions in order to preserve the deposit of faith. If false theological conclusions are propagated, dogma is endangered because of the logical connection which the mind naturally perceives between the principles and the conclusions deduced from these principles. (...)

c. The Church is infallible when it condemns a certain proposition with some doctrinal censure. A doctrinal censure is "a qualification or restriction which indicates that a proposition is opposed, in some way, to faith or morals ". It is de fide that the Church is infallible when she specifies that a doctrine is heretical; it is certain that the Church is infallible when she states that a doctrine approaches heresy, or that a doctrine errs in a matter of faith, or that it is false. All this is apparent from the consensus of theologians, and from the practice of the Church since its earliest days. The Church always made judgments against false propositions and also imposed upon the faithful the obligation of adhering to these judgments. Many assert that in all doctrinal censures the Church is infallible.

d. The Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts. A dogmatic fact is one which is so much connected with a doctrine of the Church that knowledge of it is necessary in order to understand the doctrine and to preserve it safely.

Dogmatic facts can be threefold: historical, doctrinal and hagiographical. Thus, dogmatic facts are the legitimacy of the Holy Pontiff, the ecumenical (universal) nature of a Council.

That the Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts is certain. For if the Church could make a mistake concerning the authority of the Holy Pontiff or of a Council, then there would always be grounds for doubting whether their decisions were infallible and accordingly for rejecting these decisions. So, too, for the question of whether a certain book contains orthodox teaching or heretical doctrine. Theologians commonly teach that the Church can infallibly determine what sense or meaning the words of a book convey once the context has been considered a; also whether this sense is orthodox or not. Otherwise, the Church would not be able to prevent heretics from spreading their errors and from avoiding condemnation. The heretics could say that the meaning of the book has not been correctly understood.

Thus Clement XI declared "the sense (or meaning) conveyed by the five afore-said propositions of Jansenius' book is condemned; this sense, as is evident, must be rejected and censured as heretical by all Christ's faithful not only by word of mouth but also in the heart.

e. The Church is infallible in regard to moral precepts since general laws for the universal Church cannot be in opposition to the natural or positive divine law, for the Church has received the obligation of leading souls to salvation. Therefore, it can enjoin nothing which has not been approved by God.

f. For a similar reason the Church is infallible in the matter of giving definitive approbation to a religious Order.

g. The Church is infallible in regard to canonization of saints, but not to beatification. This opinion is true and common: truly the Church cannot make a mistake in matters

which concern a profession of faith and morals, when she is making known a definitive judgment and is imposing a precept on the faithful.

A Manual of Dogmatic Theology Adolphe Tanquerey Desclee, 1959, pp. 144 - 47

Regarding ecumenical councils specifically, Tanquerey continues:

B. The power of the bishops considered as a body, but spread through the world

Thesis: The Bishops, dispersed throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming a moral body, are infallible when they propose Catholic doctrine.

Proof of this thesis:

1. Proof from Scripture, (Gospel according to St. Matthew XXVIII, 18-20). Divine assistance was promised to the College of the Apostles and to their successors, namely, the Body of Bishops, when, spread through the universe, they are teaching all nations.

2. Proof from Tradition. Among the Fathers the sign of error was separation from the teaching which was handed down in the universal Church through the succession of Bishops; in the Councils that faith which was held by the pastors spread through the world was regarded as the foundation for definitions.

3. Proof from reason. If the corporate Body of Bishops dispersed throughout the universe could spread harmful errors, then the faithful would be grievously injured; for, far removed from the Center of unity, they would easily be led into mistakes and deceptions.

C The power of the bishops united in Council.

Introductory observations. A council is the legitimate assemblage of the Pastors of the Church for the purpose of making judgments or handing down decisions in regard to ecclesiastical doctrine or discipline . A council is :

1. provincial, when the Bishops of one province gather together;

2. plenary when the Ordinaries (Bishops or Archbishops) of many ecclesiastical provinces assemble, with permission having been obtained from the Holy Pontiff, who appoints his own Legate for the purpose of calling the Council together and of presiding over it;

3. general or ecumenical, when the universal Church is represented at it, with the approval of the Holy Pontiff.

A. Conditions Required for an Ecumenical Council. In order that a Council may be ecumenical in all ways, it is required:

1. in the matter of the assembling, that the Bishops come together by order of the Roman Pontiff, who alone has power over all other Bishops, and who alone, consequently, can command them to gather together.

Those who must be called to the Council because they have the right of decisive vote are:

a. Cardinals, even though they are not Bishops;

b. Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops in residence, even though they have not been consecrated;

c. Abbots or Prelates nullius;

d. An Abbot Primate, Abbots Superiors of the Monastic Congregations, and Supreme Moderators of Exempted Religious, but not of other religious, unless the decree of assembling permits or requires it.

Titular Bishops called to the Council possess a deliberative vote unless it be expressly decreed otherwise in the convocation. Theologians and those skilled in a knowledge of the sacred canons who have been invited to the Council have no vote unless a consultative vote.

2. In the matter of the assembling it is required that the Roman Pontiff himself, or through delegates, preside over the sessions, because it is his responsibility to determine and to regulate the matters that are to be discussed and the order that is to be observed, because it is his privilege to transfer the Council, to suspend it, to dissolve it. It is not required that all the Bishops of the Catholic world be present at the same time, it is sufficient that the entire Church (in a moral sense) be represented. It is not necessary that all the Bishops be in unanimous agreement: if they are not in accord, that group of the Bishops, even if it be smaller, will be infallible which adheres to the Holy Pontiff, since he cannot err.

3. In regard to confirmation, it is required that the Holy Pontiff approve of the decrees of the Council because they do not possess the definitive force of binding unless they have been confirmed by the Pope and promulgated by his order. This confirmation the Pope may give in various ways: either by accepting and promulgating the decrees given to him (this is an instance of subsequent confirmation), or by stating his opinion in the Council when he personally is presiding over it (this is concomitant or concurrent confirmation); on the other hand, it may be given by sending legates to whom instructions are given concerning matters which should be defined: then, if the legates conform to the instructions they have received and the council is carried on accordingly, the decisions of the council are estimated as confirmed (this is antecedent confirmation; some think that it is sufficient).

Some of these conditions, for example, the regular (according to rule) convocation and the number of bishops, can be supplied sometimes through the subsequent approbation of the Pontiff.

B The Power of an Ecumenical Council.

1. An ecumenical council is infallible in defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals. This thesis is de fide because it is proposed by the universal and ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

2. The question arises - is such a Council above the Pope? The Council without the Supreme Pontiff is certainly inferior since it does not enjoy infallibility. The Council with the Pontiff is not superior to the Pope since the Pope by himself possesses the same jurisdiction as the Council with the Pope. Thus, the Supreme Pontiff can modify the disciplinary decrees of the Council just as he can modify his own decrees; an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Pontiff to a General Council has been deservedly condemned on many occasions.

C. The Usefulness of an Ecumenical Council.

General councils are not absolutely necessary, but are, nevertheless, of great benefit.

1. They offer and they show a greater human power, being a gathering of holy and learned men whose testimony can more effectually convince minds than can the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff alone.

2. They offer a means through which the Roman Pontiff may investigate revealed doctrine and may seek out the opinions of the Bishops concerning the best ways of correcting abuses or of furthering virtue. From this we must not conclude that the Bishops united in Council are only counsellors to the Pope; they are true judges who, by the power of jurisdiction given to them both in cases of faith and in matters of ecclesiastical discipline, in establishing laws and in passing judgments and inflicting-penalties, have a decisive vote and, therefore, as they sign the decrees of the councils, are defining Catholic doctrine.

Now it has been stated by way of opposition to my last column that Popes John XXIII and Paul VI and the former Cardinal Ratzinger have all argued that the Second Vatican Council did not intend to define dogma, this is true. However, what are we to make of the Council Fathers being convoked to discuss matters that ultimately have to do with matters of Faith and morals ? What are we to say of the new teachings at the Council that apparently contradict the previous Magisterium ? Why has the current Pontiff indicated in his curial address of December 22, 2005 that a new hermeneutic of continuity is required ? If the Fathers were not teaching, then what is the theological degree of assent to be given the 16 documents ? Do they really exist ? Are they in a constant state of flux ? Can they in fact be known at all ? An attempted dichotomy between a "doctrinal" council and a "pastoral" council is made. "Pastoral councils don't issue doctrine." Does this mean we can freely reject what we don't like ?

The absurdity of such a position leads exactly into the error we have attempted to refute namely the negation of the following statement: the universal body of bishops cannot err. If at Vatican II error was taught (or shall we say - better put - endorsed ?), then the Church erred - a contradiction in terms.

How shall we solve this mess ? All of this will no doubt lead us to attempt to bring about a "new hermeneutic of continuity" between the Second Vatican Council and the prior Magisterium for which, of course, we would need the interpretation of the Holy Father, who is the chief guardian of the Deposit of Faith and not a pair of hack priests, some would-be "theologians" who couldn't even begin to tie the shoe laces of someone as gifted as the author of Introduction to Christianity.

+TF