Heresy Plain and Not So Simple - Part 2

As noted previously, on another web forum, I was engaged in a rather heated discussion about the documents of Vatican II.

One of the posters (Catholicam) wrote:

So you believe it was a true Council,
You then must believe it to be a work of the Church.
Which would mean that the Church can promote heresy and error.
 Original Post on Ignis Ardens

There are a number of elements in this that have been discussed here and here, but the questions that arose in my mind are:

• When is the Church Teaching?  
• Do the teachings of the Second Vatican II constitute Heresy in the first degree?

Heresy and Theological Censures

I have already summarized the various degrees of heresy in this article.

Below, I have tried to summarize the theological censures from the Catholic Encyclopedia article. A little difficult given the older form of English employed.

Introduction

Theological censures are doctrinal judgments by which the Church stigmatizes certain teachings detrimental to faith or morals.

The right of censuring adverse doctrines has ever been asserted by the church, from St. Paul, who declares anathema on them who should pervert the Gospel of Christ unto another Gospel(Galatians 1:8), and warns his disciples to avoid the profane novelties of words and the oppositions of knowledge falsely so called (1 Timothy 6:20), down to Pius X, who condemned the errors of "Modernism". It is an essential part of her magisterium which, says Newman, "acts in two channels, in direct statement of truth and in condemnation of error." See the letter "Gravissimas inter" ofPius X and the constitution "de fide" (ch. iv) of the Vatican Council (Denzinger, nos. 1524 and 1645). That right belongs to the Church herself, but she may exercise it through popes, councils,Roman congregations, universities, or special commissions. 

Censures

Heretical :A proposition goes directly and immediately against a revealed or defined dogma, or dogma de fide; 

Erroneous: A proposition that contradicts only a certain (certa) theological conclusion or truth clearly deduced from two premises, one an article of faith, the other naturally certain. 

Proximate to Heresy: A proposition whose opposition to a revealed and defined dogma is not certain, or more appropriately the truth contradicted, though commonly accepted as revealed, has yet never been the object of a definition (proxima fidei). 

Proximate to Error: Is simply a proposition which is in opposition to sound common opinion (communis), and this either for paltry reasons or no reasons at all. 

Suspect of Heresy or Error: Propositions that may be correct in themselves, but owing to various circumstances of time, place, and persons, are prudently taken to mean something which is either heretical or erroneous. 

Ambiguous, Captious, Evil Sounding and Offsenive to Pious Ears: A proposition is ambiguous when it is worded so as to present two or more senses, one of which is objectionable; captious when acceptable words are made to express objectionable thoughts; evil-sounding when improper words are used to express otherwise acceptable truths; offensive when verbal expression is such as rightly to shock the Catholic sense and delicacy of faith.

Derisive of religion, defacing the beauty of the Church, Subversive of the hierarchy, and the list goes on ...: This list, though incomplete, summarizes the third group of censures; they are directed against such propositions as would imperil religion in general, the Church's sanctity, unity of government and hierarchy, civil society, morals in general, or the virtue of religion, Christian meekness, and humility in particular.

Authority of Theological Censures

The authority of theological censures depends upon the source from which they come and the intention with which they are issued. Condemnations coming from the seat of infallibility, pope or council, and vested with the usual conditions of an ex cathedra pronouncement are themselves infallible, and consequently require both our external obedience and internal assent.

There is no reason for restricting the infallibility of the censures to the sole note heretica as some theologians would do. The difference between the note of heresy and other inferior notes is not one of infallibility, but of different matters covered by infallibility.

The note of heresy attached to a proposition makes it contradictory to an article of faith, which is not the case with other notes, even if they are infallible.

Condemnations coming from another source which, however, is not infallible are to be received with the external respect and implicit obedience due to disciplinary measures, and moreover, with that degree of internal assent which is justified by circumstances.

In every case the extent of outward compliance, or of interior submission, or both is determined by a proper interpretation of the censures:

• Sometimes, as in the condemned propositions of Pistoia, there is little room for doubt, the precise meaning of the condemnation being explained in the very tenor of it.
• When categorical propositions are condemned in their import, and not in their wording or consequences only, their contradictories present themselves for our acceptance as de fide, proximæ fidei, certæ, or communes as the case may be.
• Condemnations issued on account of bad wording or evil consequences should at least put us on our guard against the hidden falsehood or the noxious tendency of the proposition.
• Modal propositions require special attention. The principal modalities in use are in individuo, in globo, prout iacent, in sensu ab auctore intenta. Propositions are not always, as was the case for the errors of Pistoia, condemned one by one, the proper qualifications being attached to each individually (in individuo). In the case of Wyclif, Hus, Luther, Baius, Molinos, Quesnel, etc., to a whole series of propositions a whole series of censures was attached generally (in globo). This mode of general censure is not ineffectual. To each of the propositions thus condemned apply one, or several, or all of the censures employed--the task of fitting each censure to each propositions being left to theologians. Again, some propositions are censured according to their obvious tenor and without reference to their context or author (prout iacent); while others e.g. those of Baius, Jansen, etc. are stigmatized in the sense intended by their author (in sensu ab auctore intento). Obviously the Church does not claim to read into the mind of a writer. What she claims is an operative doctrinal power including the double faculty of pointing out to her children both the error of a doctrine and the fact that such an erroneous doctrine is contained in such a book written by such an author. In such cases, a Catholic is bound to accept the whole judgment of the Church, although some theologians would make a difference between the assent due to the condemnation of the error and the assent due to the designation of the book or author.
• Vague censures of this kind, Damnandas et proscribendas esse, are more in the nature of simple prohibitions than censures. They mean that a Catholic ought to keep clear of such teachings absolutely, but they do not point out the degree of falsehood or danger attached to them.
• In a general matter, censures are restrictive laws and, as such, to be interpreted strictly. A Catholic is not debarred from the right of ascertaining, for his own guidance or the guidance of others, their legitimate minimum; but the danger, not always unreal, of falling below that minimum should itself be minimized by what Newman calls "a generous loyalty toward ecclesiasticalauthority" and the pietas fidei.

Levels of Authority

In addition to the different levels of censures, there are also different levels of certainty. My understanding that denying a teaching that is defined at either the 1st or 2nd grade is heresy proper. The lower grades provide an indication of how dangerously close someone is to falling into heresy. This section is largely derived/copied from Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

The Theological Grades of Certainty

1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are "de fide definita."
2. Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
3. A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation. but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.
4. A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).
5. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.
6. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opinio tolerata). which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.

...

With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (c£ D 1839).
The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called U silentium obiequiosum." that is " reverent silence." does not generally suffice. By way of exception. the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.

Herein lies the issue with the documents of the Second Vatican Council, it is clear that the power of infallibility was not invoked before, during and after the Council.  Paul VI made this statement, while admitting that it was a supreme magisterium.

Ordinary and Universal Magisterium

All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching. (Vatican I)

What constitutes Ordinary and Universal Magisterium?

This Promulgation (of Dogma) by the Church may be made either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemne) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops. (Fundamentals of Dogma - Ott)

So looking at Catechisms that repeat the same doctrine is a good indication of the Ordinary and Universal Teaching of the Church.

Further to the point, Van Noort notes that:

However, the unanimous and constant agreement of theologians on a doctrine as revealed is a sure criterion of divine tradition.
This fact is established
(a) by the authority of Pius IX: “The actual submission which must be given to divine faith” is not restricted to matters which have been solemnly defined, but “must be extended to those matters also which are proposed as divinely revealed by the magisterium of the universal, world-wide Church, and which are consequently maintained as part of the faith by Catholic theologians in universal and constant accord.” 26
(b) By theological reasoning (hinted at in the words of Pius IX). The bond between theological schools and the Church’s magisterium is so intimate that those things which theologians with morally universal unanimity—and not during just a short period but over a considerable span of time—teach as matter calling for the firm assent of faith could not but coincide with what is taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. Would not the Catholic episcopate be clearly derelict of duty if it winked at an error in faith taking root and growing apace throughout Catholic schools? Would not an error tacitly approved by the protracted silence of the Church’s pastors end up by poisoning that Church quite thoroughly? On the other hand, how explain the constant unanimity of so many sincere and learned men if not by the fact that they follow either the Church’s public, day-to-day teaching or at least the mind of the Church, the “Catholic sense”?
Whenever theologians, with this same unanimity, teach a doc­trine belonging by its subject matter to faith and morals as true and as demanding the assent of everyone, but without calling it a revealed doctrine, their teaching is a reliable criterion of theological truth. Care must be taken, however, not to confuse such decisive and solid agreement with conjectural agreement, i.e., agreement on an opinion as such. This latter is not very common, and can be recognized by its very fluidity. (Sources of Revelation - Van Noort)

Therefore we have two guides for assessing the Ordinary and Universal Teachings of the Chruch: Agreement in the Catechisms of the various Bishops etc, and the constant teachings of theologians.

Do the teachings of the Second Vatican II constitute Heresy in the first degree?

Well as far as the SSPX is concerned, no... Looking at the four points (see below) that it holds contradict prior magisterium, we do not find anything that is at the level of Dogma - in that it directly contradicts a de fide teaching of the Church.

• "On at least four points, the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are obviously in logical contradiction to the pronouncements of the previous traditional Magisterium, so that it is impossible to interpret them in keeping with the other teachings already contained in the earlier documents of the Church’s Magisterium. Vatican II has thus broken the unity of the Magisterium, to the same extent to which it has broken the unity of its object.
• The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration 'Dignitatis humanae,' contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in 'Mirari vos' and of Pius IX in 'Quanta cura' as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in 'Immortale Dei' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Quas primas.'
• The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in 'Mystici corporis' and 'Humani generis.'
• The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of 'Lumen gentium' and no. 3 of the Decree 'Unitatis redintegratio,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the 'Syllabus,' those of Leo XIII in 'Satis cognitum,' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Mortalium animos.'
• The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' including no. 3 of the 'Nota praevia' [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution 'Pastor aeternus'."

I noted that Nostra Aetate is not included in this list and as such, believe that the SSPX holds that, while ambiguous, it is possible to assign an interpretation that is in keeping with the Tradition of the Church.

At this time, my own reading / study, has not resulted in the discovery of a teaching of the Second Vatican Council that goes against a de fide teaching of the Church.

Regarding, whether or not the Church can promulgate and erroneous document: If the infallible teaching authority of the Church (either papal or episcopal) has not been invoked, then the answer, in my opinion is yes.  The Church hierarchy are men and if they will not meet the conditions necessary for the protection of the Holy Ghost, then they may err.  To what degree the Holy Ghost will allow them to proceed before interceding to protect the Indefectability of the Church, I do not know.

These are my thoughts for now ... and my apologies for not having sufficient time to pull together a better researched article.  I dearly want to move on with the wedge series of articles.

Follow up article on Sedevacantism with good information on heresy

References

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma  - Ludwig Ott
http://archive.org/details/FundamentalsOfCatholicDogma

Infallibility http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Tradition and Living Magisterium
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

Dogma
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

Thelogical Censures
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03532a.htm

Sources of Revelation Monsignor G. Van Noort. S.T.D.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/sources.htm