What does Sent. Certa mean?

[Kropotkin]

All I know is that “Sent. certa.” Is a clarification of the level of certainty The Church has in a particular theological issue. How is it distinct from De fide?

Thanks in advance

 

[Tietjen]

All I know is that “Sent. certa.” Is a clarification of the level of certainty The Church has in a particular theological issue. How is it distinct from De fide?

Thanks in advance

It means offical doctrine and having always been considered to be true but not considered to be at the same level as a dogma.

De fide is “of the faith”… IE Official dogma

 

[Kropotkin]

It means offical doctrine and having always been considered to be true but not considered to be at the same level as a dogma.

De fide is “of the faith”… IE Official dogma

Thanks Tietjen!

So what requirement does that place upon us? Are we free to have our own doubts or reservations about such an issue and still consider ourselves faithful Catholics?

 

[Tietjen]

Thanks Tietjen!

So what requirement does that place upon us? Are we free to have our own doubts or reservations about such an issue and still consider ourselves faithful Catholics?

Not in either of the two terms you asked about. De Fide is the highest “level” of truth. Basically, it breaks down something like this:

1. Dogmas - This is De Fide - This is infallible
2. Doctrines - This is Sent. Certa - This is infallible but has not been formally elevated yet to the level of De Fide
3. Teachings - Includes Sent. Communis, Sent. pia et probabilis, Sent. communior, and Sent. probabilior - These have varying degrees of certainty and are widely believed. However, they do not rise to the same level as Sent. Certa or De Fide and are therefore not infallible.

 

[Kropotkin]

Not in either of the two terms you asked about. De Fide is the highest “level” of truth. Basically, it breaks down something like this:

1. Dogmas - This is De Fide - This is infallible
2. Doctrines - This is Sent. Certa - This is infallible but has not been formally elevated yet to the level of De Fide
3. Teachings - Includes Sent. Communis, Sent. pia et probabilis, Sent. communior, and Sent. probabilior - These have varying degrees of certainty and are widely believed. However, they do not rise to the same level as Sent. Certa or De Fide and are therefore not infallible.

Thanks Tietjen,

It’s just that I’ve found an official Vatican statement, approved by the then Cardinal Ratzinger that says a particular Sent. Certa matter is “subject to revision” (Unfortunately it pertains to evolution, so it can’t be discussed here), but I’m assuming that a Sent. Certa matter can be changed by the Magisterium or Pope, but must be respected by the laity until its changed?

 

[Tietjen]

Thanks Tietjen,

It’s just that I’ve found an official Vatican statement, approved by the then Cardinal Ratzinger that says a particular Sent. Certa matter is “subject to revision” (Unfortunately it pertains to evolution, so it can’t be discussed here), but I’m assuming that a Sent. Certa matter can be changed by the Magisterium or Pope, but must be respected by the laity until its changed?

Yes, Sent Certa can be elevated to De Fide by the Magisterium or by the Holy Father declaring it ex cathedra (from the Chair). It won’t be downgraded to Sent. Communis, Sent. pia et probabilis, Sent. communior, or Sent. probabilior because if it is already Sent, Certa and it is infallible and already considered Church doctrine.

Perhaps you can PM me what it is you found?

 

[Ron_Conte]

All I know is that “Sent. certa.” Is a clarification of the level of certainty The Church has in a particular theological issue. How is it distinct from De fide?

Thanks in advance

Sententia certa means ‘a certain opinion’. This is not a doctrine promulgated by the Magisterium, but rather a secure (relatively certain) theological opinion. The theological opinion (sententia means opinion or conclusion or judgment) is called ‘certa’ because these are theological conclusions closely related to truths definitively taught by Divine Revelation (Tradition and Scripture) or by the Magisterium.

See Ludwig Ott, Fudamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 9-10.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I don’t agree with Tietjen’s answer.

material dogma is any truth of faith or morals taught explicitly or implicitly in Tradition or Scripture.

formal dogma is any truth of faith or morals in Divine Revelation and also taught infallibly by the Magisterium.

The Magisterium teaches infallibly under papal infallibility, under the infallibility of a Council, or under the universal Magisterium. All other teachings of the Magisterium are non-infallible and non-irreformable.

A doctrine is a teaching of the Magisterium. A dogma is an infallible doctrine, i.e. an infallible teaching, of the Magisterium.

Apart from Teachings of the Magisterium, numerous levels of theological opinion are distinguished. Ludwig Ott gives several different levels of opinion (sententia). None of these are per se teachings of the Magisterium, though they may be closely related and thoroughly based on magisterial teachings.

sententia fidei proxima - a teaching proximate to the Faith, i.e. regarded by theologians as found (explicit) in Tradition and Scripture, but not yet taught by the Magisterium.

sententia certa - a teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e. regarded by theologians as intrinsically connected (implicit) to the teachings of Tradition and Scripture, but not yet taught by the Magisterium.

sententia communis - a common teaching of theologians, i.e. an opinion commonly found among many theologians

other lesser degrees of opinion, in decreasing level of certitude:

sententia probabilis - a probable theological opinion (other related opinions are not probable)

sententia probabilior - a more probable theological opinion (other related opinions are also probable, but somewhat less so)

sententia bene fundata - a well-founded theological opinion

sententia pia - a pious opinion, perhaps without much theological basis, but not contrary to any doctrine or probable theological opinion

sententia tolerata - a weakly founded opinion that is tolerated as being not contrary to established doctrine, but also not probable.

 

[scameter18]

So which of these are we as Catholics required to accept, and which are open to doubt and/or rejection if we believe it to be incorrect?

 

[Nita]

So which of these are we as Catholics required to accept, and which are open to doubt and/or rejection if we believe it to be incorrect?

We are required to believe what the Church teaches. A good way to know what those teachings are is to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We are to accept the teachings contained in it.

As Vatican I declared: “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.”

I am a big fan of Dr. Ott’s “Fundamentals…”, but I think the theological classifications given in the book are in a sense Ott’s opinion or judgement. I don’t think the Church has officially assigned the various levels of certainty contained in Dr. Ott’s book.
If I’m wrong, I hope someone will correct me – and give us a link to any official Church document that lists the doctrines/dogmas and their degree of certainty.

 

[Mintaka]

Well, Ott didn’t make them up. They are old terms, and most of the time he was just repeating in English the words of older theology books written in Latin. It’s a book of synthesis, not of novelty.

There are other ways to look at the question, and Ott certainly isn’t the Bible or Tradition. But he didn’t pull this stuff out of his Butterball.

If you go back far enough into the wilds of Google Books, you’ll see Perez in 1738 lecturing on the theological opinion classifications in his Praelectiones. There’s a ton more, further back than that.

 

[Nita]

Well, Ott didn’t make them up. They are old terms, and most of the time he was just repeating in English the words of older theology books written in Latin. It’s a book of synthesis, not of novelty.

There are other ways to look at the question, and Ott certainly isn’t the Bible or Tradition. But he didn’t pull this stuff out of his Butterball.

If you go back far enough into the wilds of Google Books, you’ll see Perez in 1738 lecturing on the theological opinion classifications in his Praelectiones. There’s a ton more, further back than that.

I certainly didn’t mean Ott made up the various classification names!! Guess I wasn’t very clear in my wording. What I meant was the particular classification given to each bolded statement of doctrine in his book, wasn’t given because the Church had officially determined that statement should be assigned that classification of theological certainty. In other words, there wasn’t some official Church source that Ott could go to that would tell him what classification to assign. Thus one shouldn’t consider those classifications as infallible, so to speak. One should not go to Ott’s book as the authoritative source to determine whether or not one has to believe a particular teaching. The Catechism is a far more authoritative source. One of the very big advantages of Ott’s book is that he references official sources of the Church for a particular teaching. Those official sources do have to be believed.

As I said, I’m an Ott fan. I’m on my third copy of his book; my first two fell apart from use – and the fact that they had lousy binding .

Have a blessed Ascension Day.

 

[MPat]

So which of these are we as Catholics required to accept, and which are open to doubt and/or rejection if we believe it to be incorrect?

Maybe this article will help: ts.mu.edu/content/63/63.4/63.4.7.pdf - Harold E. Ernst, “The theological notes and the interpretation of doctrine”, Theological Studies, vol. 63, 2002…?

 

[FrancesKuffel]

I am so frustrated (not with you; this thread has been invaluable) with the indiscriminate usages of doctrine and dogma, that I must correct two things. One is that Dr. Ott wrote in German. The original manuscript is lost so Fundamentals has been translated from German to French to English. A lot can be misinterpreted that way. I just spent twenty minutes trying to translate the “Sents” and had decided on sententia meaning a decree or proclamation, for instance, and here it is translated as opinion. For which I am grateful.

You check out errors in Ott at: jloughnan.tripod.com/critott.htm

Thanks for all your help – I wish it was easier to find in the site!