Need Specifics about Theological Certainty

  • Thread starter Thread starter stephenSTOSS1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stephenSTOSS1

Guest
In a debate about Adam and Eve’s creation (no, this thread is not on that topic), I mentioned that their existence as real people was sententia certa (theologically certain). The response was: that is only a rating by theologians and has nothing to do with the Magesterium. So, my questions are:
  1. Who is responsible for assigning a particular grading;
  2. Must the assignment be “cleared” by the Vatican (if yes, who);
  3. Is the grading binding and punishable (i.e. guilty of, for example, heresy or sin) on the faithful, and;
  4. What writings are available that can document these answers?
 
Ludwig Ott’s famous book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma assigns a level of certitude based on his own assessment. He has many different levels, but the assignment to any level is usually just his opinion (except for dogma). The only magisterial levels for the certitude of a teaching are:
  1. infallible dogma
  2. non-infallible doctrine
  3. the common theological opinion
Some persons distinguish between an infallible teaching that’s divinely revealed, and an infallible teaching that is not divinely revealed, but that’s not much of a distinction. Heresy pertains to the failure to believe an infallible teaching that is divinely revealed. But it is not always clear whether a teaching is infallible or non-infallible. Sometimes it is not clear if an idea is a teaching or a theological opinion.
 
Thanks, Ron. Ott was who I quoted and he basically said that it had no bearing on how the Church feels. Is there any place I can find a list of doctrines and their magesterial level? Any good reads you can recommend? Thanks for your response, Ron.
 
There is no list. There is no agreement even on which doctrines fall under papal infallibility, and any attempted list, even by the Magisterium, would be subject to possible error.
 
Do you have Ott’s book? If not, here’s an online link - not the easiest to use, but it’s better than nothing. 🙂

Ott’s first entry under the Nature of Man (page 94) states:
The first man was created by God. (de fide)

Ott references the 4th Lateran and Vatican council which state:
“…who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual, and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body. …” (4th Lateran Council); Denz. 428 )

… “immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body” … (Vatican Council; Denz. #1783 )

These are dogmatic statements from Church councils and they definitely have “bearing on how the Church feels”.

It is important to know that the “creation out of nothing” applies just to the human soul (God “breathed” Gen. 2:7), but not to the material body.
God used previously created material to form Adam’s body (“dust of the ground” Gen. 2:7)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #293, also references the 4th Lateran quote above. Note also in #355-384 how often "God created man … " appears.
 
According to Fr. John Trigilio and Fr. Kenneth Brighenti, any teaching of the normal Magisterium of the Church may be taken as infallible.

The following may be off-topic. If so, my regrets. As a practical matter, I would assume that the OP’s debate is against atheists/agnostics(?) OK, given the measurable racial and geographic differences between the various races of mankind, how then to credibly explain their sudden, essentially simultaneous appearance on earth. Then, how to explain the lack of that mythical “missing link” between any of the races and lower primates. Then, how to explain the absolute human DNA compatibility as a mere “accident” of random evolutionary development. It seems that the pluripotent primordial ooze had a timer of some sort.

Which then begs the questions: Who made the timer and who set it?

EDIT: I see the bottom line as the catechism teaching what can reliably be known, with the faithful having a fairly broad latitude of acceptable belief within the Magisterium. Some things will remain a mystery until the end of time.
 
Last edited:
stephenSTOSS1 said:
In a debate about Adam and Eve’s creation (no, this thread is not on that topic), I mentioned that their existence as real people was sententia certa (theologically certain). The response was: that is only a rating by theologians and has nothing to do with the Magesterium. So, my questions are:
  1. Who is responsible for assigning a particular grading;
  2. Must the assignment be “cleared” by the Vatican (if yes, who);
  3. Is the grading binding and punishable (i.e. guilty of, for example, heresy or sin) on the faithful, and;
  4. What writings are available that can document these answers?
Click to expand...
After posting my previous reply, I realized it didn’t respond to your topic and questions. But decided to leave it because of the resource links (to Ott, Denzinger, & Catechism) which I felt would help when people are looking for reliable sources of Church teaching.

Ott is an excellent resource. His book includes sources for his concise statement of the doctrine/dogma. Those sources include Councils, Papal encyclicals, Scripture, early Church fathers, etc. Invaluable; it lets you know the official Church documents that contain the teaching (which you can then go about locating and reading if you so desire).
I am unaware of any other book that could compare with his as a resource for Church doctrines and their sources and history.

Regarding the person who challenged you about Ott. What or Whom does that person consider is a reliable source of Church teaching.

The Pope and Bishops are the Magisterium. They are the ones who put forth Council teachings.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I have a copy of Ott’s book. The only references I’ve seen are to Denziger. I’ll have to look more closely. Thanks for the help.
 
He only considers defined dogma as infallible truth. Everything else, in his opinion, is only opinion that can be accepted or rejected by the laity. Thus, sententia certa is only considered as an non-binding opinion of theologians, Ott, in particular. His motive is to distort the statements in Humani Generis in order to show that polygenism is an acceptable possibility to the creation of the first man (men).
 
The guy I am debating adhere’s to some guys theory that Adam and Eve are just a name to denote the general “rationalizing” of a group of “human beings.” Consequently, he has to make the case that the Church accepts the possibility that polygenism is OK.
 
Oh. From whence came that mythical “group” me wonders. A group consisting of an extremely wide geographic dispersion, genetic dissimilarity in many respects, but crucial similarities in many others. Accidental? If so, quite the accident!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top