+
JMJ
Grades of Theological Uncertainty and Censures
I have pulled together two different sections of Ott’s explanation on Grades of uncertainty and the corresponding censures. Only they don’t quite match up – so I’ve done my best to sync them up.
Degree and Censure
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."
The highest degree of certainty applies to dogmas, for instance the Blessed Trinity or the two natures of Christ. Dogmas are truths which the Church declares to have been revealed directly by God. Our belief in dogmas is founded first of all on the authority of God, Who reveals them: therefore they are of divine faith, fides divina. Since the Church teaches us these dogmas are contained in Revelation, our certainty is also founded on the infallible teaching authority of the Church (fides catholica). If a truth has, moreover, been solemnly defined by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council, it is de fide definita.
A proposition that contradicts a dogma incurs the theological censure of heresy against divine faith.
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.
These are truths which have not been directly revealed by God, but which are closely linked to Divine revelation and have been infallibly proposed by the teaching authority of the Church ex cathedra: for example, the lawfulness of Communion under one kind. These doctrines are to be accepted on the sole authority of the Church, de fide ecclesiastica. Since the infallibility of the Church is a dogma, one who denies a doctrine of ecclesiastical faith is implicitly denying a dogma.
A proposition that contradicts a doctrine of ecclesiastical faith incurs the theological censure of heresy against ecclesiastical faith.
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.
Truths of Divine Faith are revealed by God but not formally promulgated as such by the Church in a special act: for example, the fact that Jesus claimed from the beginning of His public life to be the Messiah.
A proposition that contradicts a truth of Divine faith is censured as an error in Faith.
Note: Promoting Heresy: Certain propositions might not be directly in contradiction with a dogma but lead to a practical denial or abandonment of it. This note applies more to a practical teaching than a theoretical one.
Catholic Doctrine
A Catholic doctrine is a truth taught by the Ordinary Magisterium, but not as revealed or intimately connected with revelation, for instance the validity of Baptism conferred by a Protestant.
A contradiction of Catholic doctrine is censured as temerarious (a more severe censure may apply in some cases).
Theologica 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).
Teachings which pertain to the Faith and are theologically certain (sententia fidei pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) are doctrines on which the teaching authority of the Church has not yet pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed because they are logical conclusions drawn from a proposition that is Divinely revealed and another which is historically certain. For example, the possibility of the demonstration of the existence of God is theologically certain.
Propositions contradicting theologically certain doctrines are censured as errors in theology.
Teachings that are "Safe"
Teachings that are safe have been affirmed in doctrinal decrees of Roman Congregations. Contradiction of a safe teaching may be censured as unsafe, or as temerarious.
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.
Truths that are certain, also known as common teachings (sententia communis) are truths unanimously held by theologians, derived from revealed truth, but by more than one step of reasoning: for instance, that God can create intellectual beings without ordering them to the Beatific Vision (cf. Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis paragraph 26). These teachings sometimes overlap with theologically certain teachings.
Denial of a truth that is certain is censured as temerarious.
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.
Less certain theological opinions may be classed as probable, more probable, or well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Pious opinions (sententia pia) are considered in agreement with the consciousness of the Faith in the Church. The lowest degree of certainty is opinio tolerata, weakly founded but tolerated by the Church. There are no censures attached to contradicting such opinions.
Reference
https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/10/everything-you-wanted-to-know.html
https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/11/magisterium-and-levels-of-assent.html
https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2017/03/what-are-theological-notes.html#more
https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2013/02/heresy-plain-and-not-so-simple-part-2.html
Discussion
Grades of Heresy
In my experience, people have a habit of screaming heresy when it is in reality a lessor error. As previously noted there are grades of heresy that correspond to each grade of certainty.
The key is this:
A statement is Heretical in the clear sense that the proposition goes directly and immediately against a revealed or defined dogma, or dogma de fide;
Proving it requires a legitimate body that has the authority to make a judgement.
In the case of Pope Francis, that hasn't happened. Nor has he said something that is a clear, that is explicit, contradiction of the above. Everything that I’ve read to date has been, "You said this ... do you mean this?" or “He said this and if it means this then …”. In all cases that matter Pope Francis has not replied. So we don't "know" that Pope Francis has committed the sin of Heresy.
This is an important point, the difference between 'Knowing', 'Believing', and 'Hoping'.
Believing involves holding a conviction or acceptance of something as true, even in the absence of concrete evidence.
Knowing refers to having factual information or evidence about something that is true and verifiable.
Reference:
https://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-knowing-and-believing/
https://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-knowledge-and-wisdom/
So let's make certain we understand.
Knowing is based on evidence, facts. What is a fact?
A thing that is known or proved to be true
information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
the truth about events as opposed to interpretation.
something that actually exists; reality; truth
Ref: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/fact
Belief, from my perspective, is based on one of two things:
Trust: You trust someone who has examined the facts and evidence and made a judgement about a matter. A good example of this would be whether or not the Earth orbits the Sun or vice-versa
Emotions: I sometimes wonder if it is possible to decouple Emotion from Trust. Here's my thoughts ...
In the absence of facts and understanding, people lock on to people who they either trust or repeat and support what they already believe. This came to light during the Pandemic as so called experts opined on the media. There was so much noise that the separating Fact from Fiction, Truth from Lies, Half-Truths from Half-Lives. I ended up having a heated discussion with someone because I wouldn't listen to a YouTube 'expert' who claimed that I would die within three years because I received an mRNA vaccine. I'm well beyond the three year mark.
In the absence of understanding, people latch on to anything that reduces the confusion and / or mental pain. Here's the thing, people don't like uncertainty as much as they don't like change. That's where the emotional side comes in. People want and some need, to be right. They want this so much that the irrational appears, to them, rational. One reason, is the comfort in a group of like minded people. Humans don't like being out on the limb by themselves. They want to have company in numbers and that's where you get confirmation bias.
It's pre-programmed.
Given enough time, from a cultural perspective, these beliefs move to assumptions. Anything that violates an assumption creates an emotional response. When people "go emotional" rationality goes out the window. The worst thing about this state is that any rational argument will make the mental pain worse and deepen the person's emotionally drive irrationality.
So, what to do?
I don't know.
Pope Francis is one of those topics where people simply can't believe that God could allow someone so obviously unworthy of the office of Vicar of Christ to happen let alone remain the office wreaking havoc for years.
Just like the crisis of the Church many wait and yearn for God to intervene. Forgetting that we all have our part to play. I wonder if it isn't justice they seek but revenge. Revenge for the wrongs and pain caused to the Church for this decades long civil war.
In my direct experience, when faced with the facts of Catholic Dogma and Doctrine, people look for excuses to ignore them.
That’s a very dangerous game.
Did Pope Francis Committed the Sin of Heresy in the True Sense
How would you know?
Someone with the proper authority would have to make a judgment.
Only the See of Peter is judged by no one.
It appears that the only precident is for later Popes or a council in union with a reigning Pontiff to make a judgment.
All theories to the contrary remain just that theories, so we are in new ground on this one. So - unless someone can show me where Pope Francis explicitly stated something that is actually heretical - I treat it as nothing.
Because it is nothing .. or as my American friends call it a Nothing Burger.
If it didn't happen - then they have no way of knowing (in the true sense) that Pope Francis committed the sin of heresy in the truest sense.
... and even if he did, they also have no way of knowing if he repented and was forgiven through the power of Confession.
People aren't statues frozen in time. They can repent. They can change and more often than not they do change for the: Better or Worse. I have seen no statements that Pope Francis or any of his predecessors have made that are explicitly heretical. Let me be clear ... if you have to make an inference about what was said, you're making a private judgment that has zero weight in the argument. We need facts, not wishful thinking and weak hopes.
Inference: a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
The Dangers of Sede-Vacantist thinking
Once someone drinks the liberal coolaid and thinks that they have the authority to judge their superiors (in the true sense) - they are on a slippery slope.
After that step is taken, all authority is subject to their judgement. This is a critical error - in the moment we can judge an order and make a decision to obey or not - and I've written a whole series on my studies on the topic. Here: https://tradicat.blogspot.com/search/label/Collection%20-%20Obedience
Our Superiors are just that, our superiors. They are human and don't lose their position because they are sinful. If this were the case, then many many would have lost their authority.
No, the reality is that a person is given authority from above and that is either removed by the person who granted the authority or by the person removing themselves from it by a wilful act. To think otherwise undermines all authority and would be the end of the Catholic Church. Thank God we have Dogmas and Doctrines to serve as guardrails against this type of thinking.
So - if you think Pope Francis is a Heretic - make certain that your thinking agrees with the Dogmas of the Catholic Church - and in this case - those pertaining to the Papacy.
Comments
Post a Comment