Catholic Principles, Doctrine, and Dogma - Anchors for a Church Caught in a Tempest

+

JMJ

Introduction

Members of the Catholic Church are being subjected to an onslaught of ambiguous and confusing statements from the Pope.

However, I have concluded that discussing these issues and positions would be of no avail without a grounding in Catholic principles, doctrine and dogma. The mere exposition of these may actually make a refutation unnecessary.

When it comes to doctrine, I think the following are key to understanding :

• Indefectibility
• Infallibility
• Marks and Aspects of the Church
• Membership in the Church
• Obedience

This is a lot of material but understanding it as the Catholic Church does will help to remain anchored in the storm that has engulfed the Church of Christ since the Second Vatican Council.

I have provided links (above) to other articles on this blog, and below deal with Obedience, Indefectibility and Infallibility.

Obedience

This is a big concept that really gets people throughout the Church confused.

St. Thomas devoted a section of the Summa to this virtue and made it quite clear that:

On the contrary, It is written (Acts 5:29): "We ought to obey God rather than men." Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

The summary of this principle is that Superiors are to be obeyed when the commands are within the scope of their authority.  It should also be noted that persons in religious life have greater obligations of obedience due to their state in life.

Consequently, if a command involves sin (immediate or proximate) then it is not lawful to obey.  In other words in this case it would be a sin to obey.

Given the simplicity of this principle, it is important to strip away any feeling or prejudices associated with the person issuing the command and examine the situation with the following checklist:

1. Is the person issuing the command in a position of authority over me? (Yes/No)
2. Is the command within the scope of that persons authority? (Yes/No)
3. Does the command contain immediate or proximate sin (Yes/No)

If you answer no to any one of these three points, there is no obligation to obey.  

If the answer to either of the first two is 'no' and you decide to humble yourself and obey, that it is of greater virtue.

If the answer to the third is 'yes' and you decide to obey, it is sinful both in act and in is compounded with false obedience.

An example is the case of the Pope (Benedict XVI) making it known by unofficial communications that he wished the SSPX to accept a regularization without compromise. 

Included in these communications was the assertion that the the SSPX would be accepted as they are, with the ability to continue to denounce errors irregardless of the person,without the necessity of accepting the points of the council that they hold contradict prior magisterium and the liturgical reform that took place after the council.

Examining the case in the light of the three questions:

1. The Pope has universal jurisdiction over all Catholics irregardless of rite, location or state of life.
2. The command to accept a regularization is within the scope of the Pope's authority. Bishop Fellay is a religious in charge of a religious congregation. As such this command of the Pope does fall within the scope of his authority.
3. Is there present within the command an immediate sin?
1. Does accepting a canonical regularization under the conditions noted above constitute an immediate sin? By Divine institution, the Catholic Church is a hierarchy. Since the Catholic Church is the Church united under the Vicar of Christ, at the time Pope Benedict XVI, (note 2), accepting a canonical solution which again places the SSPX within the hierarchy Church of Christ does not constitute a sin. 
4. Is there present within the command a proximate sin?
1. This is where it gets difficult, primarily because humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future.  The difficulty lies in determining whether or not the Pope's intentions and resolve in carrying through with them in the face of adversity.  In this light Bishop Fellay has admitted to performing a test of the Pope's resolve in order to make such a determination. The Pope was unable to stand up the pressure that resulted from this test.  So there was a proximate sin involved in the command.
2. If the Pope had not caved in to the pressure, then the command would have fulfilled the requirements of the principle and the SSPX would have been obliged to either abandon the principle or submit to a legitimate command of the Vicar of Christ.
3. Obviously, the subsequent events concerning the Franciscans, demonstrate the reason for assessing the proximate aspects of the command.

Notes

1. While some may indicate that it is not a command per se, I will indicate that if Christ wished me to do something, then I should do it. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ.

2. There are some who believe that the Church united to the Vicar of Christ, presently Pope Francis, is not the Church of Christ.  This fallacy will be discussed in the next topic - Indefectibility.

Indefectibility

It is critical to understand this term in order to not fall into errors on either sides of the Catholic spectrum of thought.

The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world. (Sent. certa.) (Ott, p296)

Ott, in his introduction prior to the above quotation, also asserts that not only will the Church of Christ continue forever, but also that it is essentially unchangable in its teaching, constitution, and liturgy.

These essential rigidity in the three elements (teaching, constitution, and liturgy) bear some explanation.

• The de fide teaching of the Church cannot be altered.
• The constitution of the Church as a hierarchical institution likewise is unalterable.
• The liturgy in its essence (meaning seven sacraments etc) are likewise unchangeable. The rites obviously vary and have been subject to change over the course of time, but not in essentials.

At this point, I want to stop my reader(s) from jumping to conclusions about what this teaching of the Church implies due to their knowledge of infallibility.  If you are not careful you will end up thinking that the Church can do no wrong and end up lapsing into sedevacantism.

Now what are the boundaries within which variation can and does occur within the Church?  This will be covered in the next section.

It suffices to say that the Church of Christ is still the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, united under the current reigning Pontiff (Pope Francis), the visible head of the Church and its invisible Head Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Infallibility

The Church of Christ is infallible, that is it protected from falling into error.

In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals the Church is infallible. (De fide.) (Ott, p297)

What Is Infallibility?

Infallibility is the impossibility of falling into error. The Catholic Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching on faith and morals (Toner, 1910).

The primary or direct object of infallibility are the formally revealed truths are the Catholic Church on faith and morals. The secondary or indirect object are truths of the Church on faith and morals that, although not formally revealed, are closely linked with the teaching of Revelation.
(Ott, 1954)

Infallibility can be exercised in a positive way by the definition of what to believe (determination of truth), and in a negative way by the condemnation of error. (Ott, 1954)

Why is Infallibility necessary?

Infallibility is necessary because if the Church could err in faith and morals, then it would have undermine on the sanctity of the Church and Her mission to save souls (Ott, 1954).

Who is Infallible?

The bearers of the gift of infallibility are the Pope and the whole Episcopate in union with their Sovereign Pontiff.

The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. (De fide.) (Ott, 1954)

The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth, propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful. (De fide.) (Ott, 1954) This is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, of which the Pope also partakes.

Where are the extents of Infallibility?

While the bounds of the primary object of infallibility is intuitively easy to grasp, the implications of the secondary object(s) reach must further that I had originally anticipated.

The Church is indefectible in that:

... we assert both her imperishableness, that is, her constant duration to the end of the world, and the essential immutability of her teaching, her constitution and her liturgy. This does not exclude the decay of individual "churches" (i.e., parts of the Church) and accidental changes.

 The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world. (Sent. certa.) (Ott, 1954)

Because of this indefectibility, that are boundaries that the Church cannot cross in its teaching, constitution and liturgy.  There are areas where, due to the foundation of the Dogmas of the Church, certain dogmatic facts are also unanimously held by the theologians as being protected by the Infallibility of the Church either, positively or negatively.

Firstly, as noted earlier the Church is infallible in defining truths of faith or morals. Revealed doctrine is the primary object and can be defined either positively or negatively.

Secondly, the infallibility extends to truths that without the protection of the gift of infallibility the deposit of faith would be exposed to corruption.

Thirdly, the infallibility of the Church extends to truths labelled as Dogmatic Facts.  Among these facts are included declarations:

1. That a person holds the office of Pope for,

... if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208) ; if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible. ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. (Hunter, 1894)

2. That a certain Council is or is not ecumenical.
3. That certain educational systems are or are not injurious to faith and morals.
4. That the principles of certain societies are immoral
5. That certain ways of life, eg Religious Orders are not only free from moral evil but are 'laudable'.
6. Of Canonizations of Sainthood.
7. Of the true sense conveyed by forms of speech, whether solitary words, propositions, and books
(Hunter, 1894)

Having reviewed the above, particularly Dr. Ott's statement on the essential immutability of the liturgy, the logical conclusion is that the Infallibility of the Church extends to the liturgy. 

This would be a correct conclusion and is the consensus amongst theologians.  However, it would be a mistake to assumed a positive infallible action within the discipline of the liturgy as firstly there are multiple liturgies (rites) within the Church. Secondly because the liturgies have experienced development.

As to moral precepts or laws as distinct from moral doctrine, infallibility goes no farther than to protect the Church against passing universal laws which in principle would be immoral. It would be out of place to speak of infallibility in connection with the opportuneness or the administration of necessarily changing disciplinary laws although, of course, Catholics believe that the Church receives appropriate Divine guidance in this and in similar matters where practical spiritual wisdom is required. (Toner, 1910)

This provides the boundary, in that the Church cannot legislate something that 'in principle' contravenes faith or morals. This protection does not prevent it from passing laws that are morally neutral.  Such as the valid but ambiguous Novus Ordo Missae.  

Conclusion

There is a great danger of falling prey to a confirmation bias, in the face of the onslaught of scandals within the Church.

The teachings of the Church provide the anchor to which Catholics can cling in this time.  I am of course referring to the teachings that are in accord with the perennial teachings of the Church not those that are novelties arising from and after the Second Vatican Council.

As Cardinal Felici said regarding those elements that are novel we must have reservations.

P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience

References

Ludwig Van Ott (1954). Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Fort Colling, CO: Roman Catholic Books. Retrieved 2012 from Internet Archive: http://archive.org/details/FundamentalsOfCatholicDogma

Toner, P. (1910). Infallibility. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved May 20, 2013 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Sylvester J. Hunter, S.J. (1894). Outlines of Dogmatic Theology. New York and Bombay: Longmans, Green & Co.

• Council of Trent (1545-1563). (1923). Catechism of the Council of Trent. Tan Books and Publishers, Inc. Rockford, Illinois 61105 (1982)

Jone, Fr. Heribert (1961). Moral Theology. Tan Books and Publishers, Inc. Rockford, Illinois 61105 (1993)

Blog Series: Everything you wanted to know about Infallibility but were afraid to ask