On assenting to the faith and varying levels of theological certitude

  • Thread starter Thread starter RobNY
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RobNY

Guest
Basically, I was having a discussing with a Catholic friend of mine, and this came up.

The issue is with what teachings we as Catholics must accept. I was arguing that we normatively have to accept everything that has to do with faith, but he seemed to think that while it is good to obey everything that is taught, only that which is infallible must be assented to.

I have seen varying levels of certitiude, if that’s the correct way to say it, for instance, when people quote from Ott, showing the ‘de fide’ or ‘sententia certa’ markings.

It would be very helpful if you could give me examples of truths of the faith that must be held, but nonetheless are not infallible.

I can talk about the specific subject later, but for now, I’d rather abstract it so that people dont’ start arguing about the subject, and not about what i need help with. 🙂

-Rob
 
We must believe all things posited for belief by the Church no matter the level of theological certitude.

Ott explains this further in pages 8-10. Some of the statements he makes are:
Corresponding to the purpose of the Teaching Authority of the Church of preserving unfalsified and infallibly interpreting the Truths of Revelation the primary object of the Teaching Office of the Church is the body of immediately revealed truths and facts. The infallible doctrinal power of the Church extends, however, secondarily to all those truths and facts which are a consequence of the teaching of Revelation or a presupposition of it. Those doctrines and truths defined by the Church not as immediately revealed but as intrinsically connected with the truths of Revelation so tat their denial would undermine the revealed truths are called Catholic Truths or Ecclesiastical Teachings to distinguish them from the Divine Truths or Divine Doctrines of Revelation. These are proposed for belief in virtue of the infallibility of the Church in teaching doctrines of faith and morals.
Click to expand...
Theological opinions are free vies on aspects of doctrines concerning Faith and morals, which are neither clearly attested in Revelation no decided by the Teaching Authority of the Church. Their value depends upon the reasons adduced in their favor (association with the doctrine of Revelation, the attitude of the Church, etc.).
Click to expand...
A point of doctrine ceases to be an object of free judgment when the Teaching Authority of the Church takes an attitude which is clearly in favor of one opinion. Pope Pius XII explains in the Encyclical “Humani Generis” (1950): “When the Popes in the Acts intentionally pronounce a judgment on a long disputed point then it is clear to all that this, according to the intention and will of the these Popes, can no longer be open to the free discussion of theologians” (D 3013).
Click to expand...
There is further discussion on other issues such as stuff posited by the CDF and the Biblical Commission and the like which he states that at least an external silence in obedience must be maintained but discussion can continue until the Church acts in a more definitive way.
 
An example would be:

With Christ and the Apostles General Revelation concluded.

This is listed as (sent. cert.) in Ott but we know as Catholics that this must be believed.
 
Thank you for reply Mosher, I appreciate it.

However, I anticipate a response: Mr. Ott is not infallible.

How do I respond to this?

Next, some clarification if you would:
"When the Popes in the Acts
Click to expand...
What are the Acts? Acta Apostolica Sedis? What does that even mean? What type of documents have more authority than Acts? Less? Where on the scale does a papal encyclical lie?

Any and all help is much appreciated.

-Rob
 
RobNY said:
Thank you for reply Mosher, I appreciate it.

However, I anticipate a response: Mr. Ott is not infallible.

How do I respond to this?

Next, some clarification if you would:

What are the Acts? Acta Apostolica Sedis? What does that even mean? What type of documents have more authority than Acts? Less? Where on the scale does a papal encyclical lie?

Any and all help is much appreciated.

-Rob
Click to expand...
Obviously that is an objection which can always be countered with the the statement that prior to the definition at Vatican I it was clear that we are to make interior assent to all things posited for belief by the Church. Post Vatican I we have a clearer sense of how the role of the Pope and the Magesterium act in this further and deeper understanding of the faith but in essence there is no difference in what we must assent to prior or post Vatican I.

To define an act of the pope we must look at the various ways in which he can act. The average person acts all the time when we do something. With the pope it is a little different because of his teaching role as Universal Doctor of the Church. So, we can see that there are both material and formal acts. A material act is the regular day to day actions of the pope that are either said in common setting or perhaps at mass. However, a formal act is that which is more solemn in that it comes in the form of a document such as a Moto Proprio, Exhortation, Encyclical or Juridical Bull. In all forms we see a formal act of the Pope acting as Pope in a formal sense. Thus in each of these methods and their like we find a formal act. An example of a material act would be the Holy Father commenting on a topic with the press or at an audience or in private with another person. Even personal correspondence between him and another Bishop if not intended as a formal act is only a material act.

The AAS which you mention is a catalogue or record of all formal acts that take place at the Holy See from Papal Bulls or some sort to Dubiums submitted to a Dicastery. It is here that you can find papal acts but the whole volume of the collection do not carry the same weight as that is determined by who promulgated and how it was promulgated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top