Magisterium and Levels of Assent

+

JMJ

Understanding the levels of assent to be given to the teachings of the Church is a critical success factor in walking the knife's edge during this crisis of the Church. 

The levels of assent are generally associated with the theological grades of certainty, which are not surprisingly mirrored by the censures for contravening the teachings of the various levels.

The Theological Grades of Certainty

1. De fide definita, fides divina and fides catholica: 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. Fides ecclesiastica: 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. Sententia fidei proxima: 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. Theologice certa: 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. Sententia communis: 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. Sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata: 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.

Grade #1 are usually referred to collectively as 'de fide' or more properly as 'dogma'.  If a Catholic denies a teaching proposed with level of authority, in-spite of correction (demonstrating pertinacity), then they commit the sin of heresy as exclude themselves from the Church of Christ by their actions.  

It is important to note that while all dogma is doctrine, not all doctrine is dogma.

The lower grades, while potentially sinful, do not have the same effect of separating oneself from the Church.

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.

The sources of the Magisterium are few and simple:

1. Pope
1. Extra-Ordinary: Ex Cathedra (Infallible)
2. Ordinary: Specific documents such as Bulls, Encyclicals etc are generally not Infallible, although if the Ex Cathedra conditions are met, they can be - in other words be careful. Quanta Cura's key teachings are believed to have met the criteria for  Ex Cathedra teachings.
2. Bishops
1. General Council ratified by Pope (Infallible and Extra-Ordinary)
2. Dispersed all teach doctrine to be held ( infallible Ordinary and Universal )
3. Ordinary: Bishops on their own in their dioceses teaching on their own authority to the faithful under their care. ( non-infallible)

A key element is that the conditions for a teaching to be raised to the level of Dogma is must be proposed for belief by the Church as a whole not just a portion of it.  

The teaching of the ordinary and universal teaching was repeated in the Second Vatican Council:

... four conditions must be  met for an 

infallible exercise of the ordinary magisterium of bishops around the world. These  are:

 1. That the bishops be in communion with one another and with the pope.
 2. That they teach authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals.
 3. That they agree in one judgment.
 4. That they propose this as something to be held definitively by the  faithful.

More specifically:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly 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.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*) (Lumen Gentium)

While some will automatically reject this, it would be a mistake as it is consistent with pre-conciliar teaching:

Since it was established in the volume, Christ’s Church, that the Church’s infallible teaching power extends to matters connected with revelation and that its infallible authority deserves an absolutely firm assent, the only question which remains is what name to give that assent and how to describe its nature. These points will be discussed in just a moment.
Meantime, notice that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matter in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call “ecclesiastical faith,” the following theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held (tenendas). So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter”; similarly (and as a matter of fact if this following point is something “formally revealed,” it will undoubtedly be a dogma of faith) one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.” For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession. (Van Noort)

Now some assert that, contrary to what Pope Paul VI stated, the Second Vatican Council is the infallible on the basis of the Ordinary and Universal Teaching Authority of the Church. The reasoning is that since all the bishops taught with the Pope etc, it must be infallible.

This is wishful thinking.

First, logically, it makes no sense that the Ordinary and Universal automatically applies to an Ecumenical Council because a council has its own degree of teaching authority and an extraordinary one at that.

Second, if the Bishops in an Ecumenical Council Teach propose authoritatively an article to be held by definitively by the faithful - then it is an exercise of the  Extra-Ordinary Magisterium - not the Ordinary and Universal.

Ordinary and Universal Teaching is just that - ordinary -it is not exercised in an extra-ordinary setting such as an Ecumenical Council.

In essence when all the Bishops, in their Sees (where they teach with authority) teach unanimous something is to be held by the faithful, then it is considered infallible.

Another key point is that once something is infallible in this manner, it is irreformable.  So anything that contradicts prior-magisterium is simply not infallible.

Something to consider in these times of wanton confusion caused by the Pope and Bishops in their humble pride shirking what is their God-given duty.

Pray for them, they will have much to answer for ...

P^3

Further Reading

DETERMINING THE CONTENT AND DEGREE OF AUTHORITY OF CHURCH TEACHINGS Religious Liberty - John RT Lamont

Tradicat: Heresy Plain and Not So Simple II

Tradicat: Weight of Magisterial Documents


Pope Paul VI's declaration on the theological note of the council:

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”