Dear brother Greg,
Thank you for all your incisive questions.
Beng:
Gregdaly:
Mardukm, can you offer a response to this?
I just said it, “even if the official relatio of +Gasser confirmed mardukm’s theory (which I don’t think it is) it wouldn’t be infallible and definitive”
Dogmatization only occurs when conflict arises to such an extent that it must be settled once and for all. In such cases, the Church’s infallibility is used in an
extraordinary manner – i.e., to JUDGE on Faith/morals. But the infallibility of the Church is also utilized in another way – to faithfully transmit the day to day teaching of the Church on Faith/morals. In the latter, the Church’s infallibility is utilized in its
ordinary manner.
Brother Beng seems to think he can ignore the evidence form the
Official Relatio or
Pastor Aeternus’s historic Proem, because they are not “infallible and definitive.” That’s another one of his errors. The CCC teaches:
Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
So is a faithful Catholic bound to accept by religious assent the teachings contained in the
Official Relatio and the rest of
Pastor Aeternus apart from the definitions? YES, INDEED!!! The very excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia given by Beng proves it, for though what is not in the definition are not considered “infallible and definitive,” they are nevertheless “
true and authoritative.” That Absolutist Petrine advocates constantly ignore the non-definitive portions of V1 indicate that they are not faithful to the Ordinary Magisterium of the CC.
You might wonder: What’s the difference between “
religious assent” and “
assent of faith.” The difference lies in three interrelated particulars:
(a) The object of assent. The only things requiring an “assent of faith” are matters that are infallibly defined. “Religious assent” is given to things
not infallibly defined. NOTE: One can
not presume that matters requiring “religious assent” are not infallible teachings, since they might, at some future date, obtain a formal definition if some conflict requires it. Recall that infallibility protects not only the Church’s judgment on disputed matters, but also the Church’s transmission of
undisputed matters since the time of Christ. In such cases, it is a matter of the degree of certainty, which is discussed in
(c) below.
(b) The acknowledged source of the teaching. Things requiring an “assent of faith” are understood to come from God Himself. Those requiring merely “religious assent” are considered to come from the Church. For example, theological expressions and disciplinary matters are regulated by, and thus have their source in, the Church, while Faith and morals are said to come from God Himself. It is the task of the theologian (lay or religious, amateur or professional) to properly distinguish the two. Failure to do so can lead to division in the Body of Christ.
(c) The degree of certainty. The Ordinary Magisterium is just as much the subject of infallibility as the Extraordinary Magisterium. The primary difference is that infallible teaching per the Extraordinary Magisterium is
more easily and readily identified. Through the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Church can determine what
IS infallible teaching with
all certainty. The important thing to remember is that this determination in no way presumes to claim what is
not infallible – except, of course, the opposite of the matter that has been infallibly judged. The most concise explanation I have ever read is from a Latin Catholic here on CAF - using terms from jurisprudence, “
religious assent” can be considered belief due to a “
preponderance of the evidence,” while “
assent of faith” can be considered belief “
beyond a shadow of a doubt.”
In truth, when the CC asserts “
this teaching is infallible” (or similar statements), she is more often than not referring to the Church’s
certainty of a teaching’s objective infallibility. The Church has absolutely no authority to impose objective infallibility on a teaching – she can only ever formally
recognize what is objectively infallible. Two other ways to express this are:
(1) The Church has no authority to create new doctrine. She can only recognize/affirm what is infallibly true.
(2) What the Church recognizes/affirms as infallibly true was the Truth
even before the Church recognized/affirmed it to be infallibly true, because it is the
eternal Truth from God Himself.
Please, please, please. Keep this in mind when I address the “other question” to which you refer below.
P.S. I look forward to your response to my other question – whenever you have the time.
Coming soon (also, per brother FoneBone’s request).
Blessings,
Marduk
) is a highly intelligent and learned man. Do you really think he could with any honesty maintain an Absolutist Petrine view in light of Constance, High Petrine first millennium ecclesiology, the conditions under which the council fathers at Ephesus received the Tome of Pope St. Leo, etc.?
And then it would have to be explained to him.