Editor’s note: Despite the recent death of Francis the debate over his claim to the papacy remains of importance if we are to understand recent events, and prepare for what happens next. For this reason, LifeSiteNews will continue to publish the remaining installments of this series. We ask our readers to pray for the repose of Francis’s soul.
All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed.
– First Vatican Council, Dei Filius
In this article, the third part of my reply to Matt Gaspers, I will continue the discussion of the rule of faith begun in the previous article. In particular, I will address the arguments made in the section “Two False Presuppositions,” found in the second of Gaspers’ two articles. The remaining arguments from Gaspers’ first part will be dealt with later in this series.
At the beginning of his second part, Gaspers addresses my argument that Francis does not enjoy the universal and peaceful adherence of the Church. He writes:
McCusker’s argument is based on two presuppositions: (1) it is impossible for the proximate rule of faith (Pope and bishops) to ever deviate from the remote rule of faith (Scripture and Tradition); and (2) it is illicit for the faithful to have recourse to the remote rule if and when the proximate rule fails to teach clearly or correctly. Both of these presuppositions prove to be false when considered in light of certain episodes in Church history.
Gaspers’ ‘two presuppositions’
My original article included the following statements:
- We know, because of our faith in Christ’s promises, that the teaching of the “proximate rule” will never deviate from the “remote rule.”
- To bypass the proximate rule of faith,in favour of the remote rule of faith, is inadmissible for Catholics.
Basing himself on these two statements, Gaspers has formulated “two presuppositions” which, he asserts, underpin my argument against the claim that Francis enjoys the universal and peaceful adherence of the Church.
Gaspers’ formulations are:
(1) it is impossible for the proximate rule of faith (Pope and bishops) to ever deviate from the remote rule of faith (Scripture and Tradition)
(2) it is illicit for the faithful to have recourse to the remote rule if and when the proximate rule fails to teach clearly or correctly.
Readers will note that neither of these “presuppositions” are direct quotes from my article. The first of Gaspers’ formulations reflects the meaning of my original statement if the insertion “Pope and bishops” is understood in the correct sense. The second presupposition does not reflect my position, for nowhere do I indicate that the “proximate rule” can fail “to teach clearly or correctly.” It seems clear that when Gaspers uses the term “proximate rule of faith” he has in mind a meaning which is fundamentally different to that of Catholic theologians.
For Catholic theologians the proximate rule of faith is the Magisterium proposing that which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith. That is why it is called the rule of faith.
In my original article I made this clear. I quoted theologian Joachim Salaverri S.J. stating that (my emphasis):
The rule of faith theoretically is the principle according to which in general it is determined which truths are divinely revealed and which all the faithful are bound to believe and to profess.[1]
And I quoted the same theologian saying:
Scripture and Tradition are, therefore, the remote and objective rule of faith, because from them, as from fountains, the Magisterium draws what is proposed for belief to the faithful.
The Magisterium, however, is the proximate and active proximate rule of faith, because immediately from it the faithful are bound to learn what they must believe about those things that are contained in the sources of revelation, and what they must hold about those things that have a necessary connection with the revealed truths. [2]
And I quoted Michaele Nicolau S.J. as stating:
The proximate, immediate and supreme norm or rule of faith for a Catholic is the teaching of the living Magisterium of the Church, which is authentic and traditional. For, this magisterium gives the whole revealed teaching, its genuine meaning and true interpretation, and it takes care that at all times and everywhere it proposes the infallible, authentic and revealed doctrine. [3]
Gaspers on the other hand clearly understands the term to have a very different meaning. For Gaspers the proximate rule of faith, far from being the infallible, authentic, and traditional rule of what is to be believed, is something which can fail “to teach clearly or correctly”.
Hence when he sees bishops embracing the Arian heresy in the fourth century, or John XXII preaching erroneous doctrine in a series of sermons in the fourteenth century, he thinks he has found examples in which “the proximate rule” fails “to teach clearly or correctly.”
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The cases of the Arian bishops and John XXII will be analysed in greater detail in a future instalment of this series. Here I will briefly anticipate this and note that (i) the Arian bishops, by falling into heresy, separated themselves from the Church and thus no longer shared in the exercise of her teaching authority and (ii) Pope John XXII specifically stated that he was sharing his personal opinion, not proposing a doctrine for the assent of faithful, “I say, like Saint Augustine, that if I am mistaken here, let the one who knows better correct me. This is how it seems to me, nothing else; unless someone shows me a contrary decision of the Church or an authoritative argument from Sacred Scripture that would express this matter more clearly than the above-cited authorities.” [4] Therefore, in neither case was rejecting their doctrine a case of rejecting the proximate rule of faith in favor of the remote rule of faith.
I will return to these examples but for the rest of this article I wish to focus on clarifying the nature of the proximate rule of faith in light of Gaspers’ misunderstanding of the doctrine and consequent misrepresentation of my position.
The Catholic rule of faith
The rule of faith is “the principle according to which in general is determined which truths are divinely revealed and which all the faithful are bound to believe and to profess.” [5]
The Catholic rule of faith was defined by the First Vatican Council as follows:
All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith that are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which by the Church, either in solemn judgment or through her ordinary and universal teaching office, are proposed for belief as having been divinely revealed. [6]
The proposition by the Church of all those things to be believed, “either in solemn judgment or through her ordinary and universal teaching office,” is the proximate rule of faith. The sources of revelation, “written or handed down,” constitute the remote rule of faith.
We often use terms to communicate ideas which do not, in and of themselves, convey every aspect of the idea, and therefore can be misunderstood. Yet the use of such terms is legitimate and necessary because if we had to repeat every complexity and nuance of a concept on every occasion on which we spoke of it, it would be impossible to ever communicate clearly and effectively.
For example, we often hear it said that “the pope is infallible.” This is a perfectly legitimate statement if we understand the term to mean that the teaching of the pope is infallible under certain conditions. The term “ the pope is infallible” is a shorter way of expressing the doctrine defined at Vatican I that “the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised him in the blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed.” [7]
However, if someone were to understand the term “the pope is infallible” as meaning that the pope never expresses an erroneous opinion on any subject, he would reveal that he had misunderstood the meaning of the term.
In a similar manner, if someone were to understand the words “the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith,” and take them to mean that anything expressed, or even taught, by a pope or bishop constitutes “the proximate rule of faith” he would also reveal that he had misunderstood the meaning of the term.
We have already seen how Salaverri and Nicolau understand the proximate rule of faith. I will now provide some further examples of how theologians explain this term.
Wilhelm and Scannell, in their translation and revision of Scheeben, affirm:
The Rule of Faith was given to the Church in the very act of Revelation and its promulgation by the Apostles. But for this Rule to have an actual and permanently efficient character, it must be continually promulgated and enforced by the living Apostolate, which must exact from all members of the Church a docile Faith in the truths of Revelation authoritatively proposed, and thus unite the whole body of the Church, teachers and taught, in perfect unity of Faith. Hence the original promulgation is the remote Rule of Faith, and the continuous promulgation by the Teaching Body is the proximate Rule. [8]
Adolphe Tanquerey wrote:
The remote rule is the word of God, written or handed down by tradition. The proximate rule is the living and infallible magisterium of the Church, which magisterium sets forth the word of God in an authoritative and trustworthy manner. [9]
And elsewhere in the same work he confirmed:
Thus far we have proved that the Church has been instituted by Christ as a living, authentic, and infallible interpreter of revealed truth. Thence it follows that the proximate rule of faith is the infallible authority of the Church. [10]
And in Humani Generis Pope Pius XII teaches:
[T]his sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith – Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition – to be preserved, guarded and interpreted. [11]
It is therefore impossible to envision, as Gaspers does, a scenario in which “the proximate rule fails to teach clearly and correctly,” because the proximate rule of faith is the living and infallible Magisterium of the Church.
At this point, however, an important clarification must be made to ensure that what I have written above is not misunderstood.
Of the many errors that are widespread today, one of the most damaging concerns the nature and extent of the infallibility of the Church. Both liberals and traditionalists are often under the impression that the infallible exercise of the Church’s teaching authority is something which occurs only rarely. Even many traditionalists, at least in practice, equate the Church’s infallibility with the solemn definition of doctrine by a pope or by an Ecumenical Council. Thus, when they read that the “proximate rule of faith” is infallible, there is a danger that it will be assumed that the proximate rule of faith is to be identified with the solemn judgement or definitions of the Church, and not with any other form of teaching.
Thus, there are two errors that must be avoided:
- The error made by Matt Gaspers in unduly extending the proximate rule of faith, in his case even to the private opinion of popes and the teaching of heretical bishops
- The error which unduly restricts it to the solemn judgements of the Church.
The true doctrine is found in the definition of the rule of faith in Dei Filius of Vatican I:
All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith that are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which by the Church, either in solemn judgment or through her ordinary and universal teaching office, are proposed for belief as having been divinely revealed.
From this definition we can see that the proximate rule of faith is the proposition by the Church of those things which “are proposed for belief” by the Church by either:
- her solemn judgment
- her ordinary and universal teaching office
The “ordinary and universal teaching office” is very much misunderstood today, and therefore we must examine it more closely.
The ordinary magisterium
Our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted his Church with the fullness of the Divine Revelation and established an infallible teaching authority to ensure that His gospel would be preached in its fullness to each generation, from the day of Pentecost until His Second Coming.
As theologian J. M. A Vacant wrote:
Jesus Christ entrusted all His teachings to His Church, so that she might infallibly transmit them to all men until the end of time. It is therefore certain that the Church preserves the deposit of divine teachings in its integrity. [12]
The Church’s ordinary means of transmitting the truths of the faith is by the preaching and teaching of the pope and of the bishops who head the local churches throughout the world.
Vacant expressed the organic nature of the Church’s teaching operation beautifully:
This ordinary magisterium is nothing other than that, of which the whole Church continually offers us the spectacle, when we see her speaking unceasingly through the mouth of the Pope and all the Catholic bishops; placing herself throughout the universe, at the disposal and within the reach of all men, infidels and Christians, ignorant and learned; and teaching them to regulate, not only their faith, but also their sentiments, their worship and their whole conduct, according to divine revelation. [13]
He continued:
[I]t will not be useless to recall in what the Church’s life consists; for it is necessary to understand this life, in order to understand how everything in the Church and even in the world contributes to the exercise of the ordinary magisterium which we are studying.
According to the profound doctrine of St. Paul, the Church is the mystical body of Jesus Christ, made up of multiple living members and organs. In this Church, the Savior has established a head and a college of pastors, charged with continuing the work He began on earth and communicating His life to His mystical body, in all its forms and manifestations. Assisted in this work by the Holy Ghost, these ministers of Christ are the light of the world to whom they give supernatural life, and they are the salt of the earth in which they prevent this life from being corrupted. [14]
And he went on:
All the divine gifts come to us, therefore, from the hands of the episcopate. If the Church is the mystical body of Jesus Christ, the bishops united to the Pope are like the soul and the substantial form which vivifies this body, by the virtue of Jesus Christ whose place they hold here below. This explains the principle which we established earlier: that the exercise of the ordinary magisterium of the Church belongs to the college of bishops, in its own right and by divine right.
But what these bishops who form the Church Teaching have in their own right, they can communicate, in a certain measure, to the members of the Church Taught; just as the soul puts something of its life into the organs of our senses. [15]
Only the pope and the ordinaries exercise the ordinary magisterium “in its own right and by divine right” but they may call upon others, both of the clergy and the laity, to assist them in their ministry.
Vacant explained:
They have given themselves helpers by entrusting priests and clerics with ecclesiastical functions; they accept auxiliaries who offer themselves from the ranks of the laity.
Jesus Christ has made them His ministers, and they are pastors of the Church by virtue of a divine institution. They form a clergy and give themselves lieutenants, who are also pastors in the Church – but by virtue of an ecclesiastical institution. These inferior ministers receive a share of the authority of the Pope and the bishops; but, however large this share may be, they always remain instruments of the episcopal body and do not exercise a ministry instituted directly by Jesus Christ. The result is that they teach, but in the name and place of the bishops, without being part of the Church Teaching and without possessing in themselves the infallibility promised to the Pontiff and the successors of the apostles. [16]
Finally, there is that transmission of the Catholic faith which occurs under the authority of the ordinary magisterium, but not through a particular ministry:
[I]n addition to the instruments which the bishops create for themselves, there are auxiliaries who help them to fulfil their mission, while remaining duly dependent upon their authority and without having received any ministry from them. Such are the writers who submit their works to ecclesiastical approval; such are the laymen who, without being charged with instructing their brethren in the truths of religion, do so with the express or legitimately presumed approval of the pastors; such are the parents who bring up their children in the principles of the Catholic faith, and the teachers who contribute to the Christian education of youth. [17]
Thus, all these acts, from the encyclical letters of the Roman Pontiff, through to a mother teaching a small child her prayers, are encompassed in their differing ways, in one organic whole: the ordinary magisterium of the Church.
The ordinary magisterium is exercised continuously, the extraordinary magisterium on occasion
The ordinary magisterium has been exercised since the day of Pentecost and will be exercised until the end of time. The extraordinary magisterium is exercised at irregular intervals as the need requires.
In Mortalium Animos Pope Pius XI teaches the following about these two modes of teaching:
For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. [18]
And, explaining the words of the definition of Vatican I quoted above, Vacant affirmed that:
The qualifications by which our text characterises either the solemn judgement or the ordinary and universal magisterium in order to distinguish one from the other, show us, moreover, that the ordinary magisterium has nothing of the solemnity of the decrees of councils or popes; and that it is not, like them, an extraordinary event – but that it is exercised habitually and is manifested by the whole Church. [19]
He continued:
This ordinary magisterium is nothing other than that of which the whole Church continually offers us the spectacle, when we see her speaking unceasingly through the mouth of the Pope and all the Catholic bishops; placing herself throughout the universe, at the disposal and within the reach of all men, infidels and Christians, ignorant and learned; and teaching them to regulate, not only their faith, but also their sentiments, their worship and their whole conduct, according to divine revelation. It is easy to show that this mode of teaching, which is exercised today, everywhere, and on all things, has always been exercised in the same way and that its infallible authority has always been recognised.
Thus, we can see that the Church exercises her teaching office in two ways, one is “daily,” “habitual,” “continual” and “unceasing.” It is “exercised today, everywhere, and on all things.” The other exercised when she defines “any truth with solemn rites and decrees” and as “an extraordinary event.”
This distinction has been recognized for centuries but it was the nineteenth century theologian Joseph Kleutgen who coined the terms “ordinary magisterium” and “extraordinary magisterium.” He wrote:
The Church exercises a twofold magisterium. The one is ordinary and perpetual…The other is extraordinary, used only at special times, namely when false teachers disturb the Church, and it is not simply a teaching office but also a judging office. With the latter, the Church only fends off the hostile attacks upon the sanctuary she preserves; with the former, she opens to her children the rich treasure deposited with her. [20]
The entirety of the Divine Revelation is perpetually transmitted by the ordinary magisterium. On the other hand, only certain truths have ever been proposed by the extraordinary magisterium, either whether under attack by heretics or because it was judged to be for the good of the Church to do so, as in the cases of the definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and of the Assumption in 1954.
From this we can see that the proximate rule of faith can never be reduced to the proposition of truths by the extraordinary magisterium but must extend also those proposed for our belief by the ordinary magisterium.
Bishop Gasser, in his official relatio to the Fathers of the First Vatican Council, explained that extraordinary definitions have never been absolutely necessary for the truth of the Catholic faith to be known to men of good will:
For they were able to know the truth through the ordinary magisterium of the Church, that is, through the bishops having communion with the Apostolic See: for where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God is, there is truth. [21])
And Vacant notes that:
It was by this [ordinary] teaching that the Church was established and the doctrine of Jesus Christ was made known to the world; and this was before the solemn definitions of the Councils and the Holy See; and it is the first rule of faith whose authority the holy Fathers invoked. [22]
It would therefore be false to suggest that the assent of divine and Catholic faith ought to be given only to those truths which have been defined by the extraordinary magisterium.
As Kleutgen states:
If nothing belongs to the faith except what has been fixed by the Church through an explicit judgment, then one could, in the Church, make no act of faith for many centuries about the most important mysteries and moral doctrines of the religion, and each one could follow the view which seemed to him to be the most correct. [23]
A concept of the rule of faith “which recognizes nothing as a dogma other than what has been explicitly determined by the Church” must, writes Kleutgen “be referred to as thoroughly erroneous.” [24]
This same point was made by Archbishop Simor, the Primate of Hungary, during the thirtieth general congregation of the Vatican Council (18 March 1870). He noted that the paragraph of the decree Dei Filius, which I have quoted twice already, “is directed against those who say that only what has been defined by a council needs to be believed, and not also that which the dispersed teaching Church preaches and teaches with unanimous consensus as divinely revealed.” [25]
And he said:
Thus if one wants to restrict the teaching of the Church by which we know with certainty what is revealed to those propositions by which she has rejected false doctrines or expressed her faith in documents, so one establishes thereby in the first place an assertion unheard of up until our times. [26]
He also noted:
When the shepherds of the Church, whether through the instruction which they impart themselves or through that which is imparted by the clergy in their name and under their supervision, universally proclaim a doctrine as a doctrine of faith, we then have in this a factual testimony of the universal Church that this doctrine is contained in the transmitted revelation, in the depositum fidei, and it would be purely arbitrary to acknowledge this testimony as fully valid only under the condition that it is at the same time formulated by the Church in documents. [27]
And Archbishop Martin of Paderborn stated:
All of you, most reverend fathers, know that before the Council of Nicaea all the Catholic bishops believed in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ: yet before the Council of Nicaea this dogma was not openly defined and openly declared. Therefore, at the time before the Council of Nicaea this dogma was taught by the ordinary magisterium. [28]
Before the Council of Nicaea a dogma as fundamental as the divinity of Christ was taught only through the ordinary magisterium, but nonetheless all Catholics were bound to hold it by divine and Catholic faith. Therefore, it is clearly erroneous to suggest that a doctrine as fundamental as this was to be believed only after 325 AD, almost three hundred years after Our Lord’s death, burial, and resurrection.
Therefore, the true doctrine is that outlined by Bishop Leo Maurin, titular bishop of Ascalon, during the same session:
There is in the Church a double proposition and a double magisterium: one is a solemn judgment, which is rarely exercised, and is therefore also called by many an extraordinary judgment; but the other is the perpetual magisterium, by which the faithful are instructed under the vigilance of their pastors, and which is therefore called ordinary. For there are many truths (e.g. concerning the love of one’s enemies) that are objects of faith and yet have never been defined as articles of faith, neither by councils nor by the pope: they are de fide catholica non definita. Thus also facts of the greatest importance in the life of Christ (e.g., the flight of Christ into Egypt) or in the Acts of the Apostles that are not defined by the Church are nevertheless de fide catholica. [29]
When the pope and the bishops dispersed throughout the world propose a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed – as they did in the case of the divinity of Christ – it is to be given the assent of divine and Catholic faith, even though it has not been defined by solemn, extraordinary judgment.
It is clear therefore that the ordinary magisterium, when exercised in this universal and binding manner, must be infallible.
The infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium
The pope and bishops transmit the entirety of the Divine Revelation, in its complete integrity, with neither an iota added, nor an iota lost. This transmission is infallible.
However, the infallibility of the pope and bishops as a united body – the Apostolic College – does not exclude error on the part of an individual bishop. This occurs when a bishop, mistakenly or willfully, departs from the doctrine proposed by the pope. When a bishop departs from the unity of profession, he acts individually, and his teaching is no longer “the proximate rule of faith.”
As Vacant writes:
[I]t is clear that dispersed bishops acting individually have never had the authority to impose any doctrine except to the extent that it was imposed by the universal Church or by the Pope. [30]
He further outlines the absolute unity that must exist between pope and bishops, which extends not only to the doctrine proposed, but also to the theological note of the doctrine proposed:
It may happen that in their personal opinion, the majority or even the unanimity of bishops regard this point as true and certainly revealed, without the Holy See yet imposing it on our assent. However, in the exercise of their episcopal authority, they will always teach this point as the Holy See teaches it, and they will never condemn the opposing doctrine except to the extent that the Holy See condemns it.
This was evident during the definition of the Immaculate Conception. All the bishops of the Catholic world considered this privilege of the Blessed Virgin as true; most believed it was formally revealed, and they wanted to see it defined. But as long as Pius IX had not issued his definition, they did not propose it as a dogma of the Catholic faith.
Any doctrine taught as obligatory by the majority, especially by the unanimity of Catholic bishops, is therefore obligatory for the entire Church, to the extent that they affirm it. For we can be assured that they propose it for the belief of the faithful in union with the Sovereign Pontiff, and that therefore this doctrine is taught infallibly by the entire body of bishops – that is, by the pope and the bishops united with the pope.[31]
Therefore, it is clear that we must look for the infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium not by having recourse to the individual teaching of this or that bishop alone but to that doctrine proposed by the united body of bishops teaching in unity with the pope.
Thus, we say that the universal and ordinary magisterium is infallible.
Discerning what belongs to the universal ordinary magisterium
The next question which arises is: how do we discern which truths have been proposed in this manner?
There are occasions on which it is very obvious that a doctrine has been so proposed. From the very beginning the Church explicitly taught that all members of the Church must assent to the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation of Our Lord, as divinely revealed truths which have been proposed as such by the Church. Nobody could have been in any position to doubt that the Catholic Church was a society which required assent to these two fundamental doctrines.
On other occasions, it is less clear that a particular doctrine is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith due its proposition by the ordinary magisterium. This may be because an erroneous doctrine has arisen which has caused doubt and confusion, or it may be because the doctrine under discussion has been previously taught by the Church implicitly, and due to theological reflection, or in response to error, is now being drawn out explicitly. For example, while the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation were taught explicitly from the very beginning, there were aspects of those doctrines which were implicit, and which would only be brought out by generations of reflection.
As Josef Kleutgen wrote:
Although no truth can be declared as a dogma by the Church which is not contained in revelation; yet it does not follow that any truth was universally preached and believed already before the declaration so explicitly and precisely as it is now expressed. [32]
We are therefore in need of a way of discerning whether a given doctrine has actually been proposed for our belief by the ordinary and universal magisterium.
The passive infallibility of the Church
At this point I must introduce another crucial concept. Catholic theologians affirm that not only the Church teaching – the pope and the ordinaries – but also the Church taught – everyone else– is infallible. The first form of infallibility is known as active infallibility, and the second form as passive infallibility.
We have already seen in a previous instalment that the Church taught is, by its very nature, that which assents to the doctrine proposed by the Church teaching. Therefore, just as we can truly see what an object is by looking at it in a mirror, so too we can know what the Church teaching has proposed by looking at that which is held by the Church taught.
If we can discern that a doctrine is held universally by the Catholic faithful as divinely revealed, this must because this doctrine has been proposed as such by the Sacred Magisterium. This is called the consensus fidelium.
However, it is often difficult to ascertain what is held by the faithful once we move past the central dogmas of the Catholic religion. When examining more complex doctrines, such as those made explicit by theological reflection, the Church refers us to either the morally unanimous consensus of the Fathers or the morally unanimous consensus of the theologians. These both witness to the teaching of the Magisterium on these points of doctrine, in the same way, and for the same reasons, as the moral unanimity of the Catholic faithful.
Vacant explains:
[W]hen a point of doctrine is admitted unanimously, or by more or less all of the Fathers or authorised theologians, it is an unmistakable sign that it forms part of the revealed truth, taught by the ordinary magisterium. [33]
By “authorized theologians,” Vacant refers to those whose works have been written, or whose teaching has been carried out, under the supervision of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Not everyone who writes on theology can be considered a “theologian.” On this point, John Henry Newman made the following enlightening remark when explaining to a friend why he had turned down an invitation to be a theological expert at Vatican I:
Recollect, I could not be in the Council, unless I were a Bishop—and really and truly I am not a theologian. A theologian is one who has mastered theology—who can say how many opinions there are on every point, what authors have taken which, and which is the best—who can discriminate exactly between proposition and proposition, argument and argument, who can pronounce which are safe, which allowable, which dangerous—who can trace the history of doctrines in successive centuries, and apply the principles of former times to the conditions of the present. This it is to be a theologian—this and a hundred things besides—which I am not, and never shall be. [34]
The consensus of theologians refers to these genuine theologians, not to just anyone with an opinion on theology.
The Sacred Magisterium has clearly taught that both the morally unanimous consent of the Fathers and the morally unanimous consent of theologians are a source of the doctrine of proposed for our belief by the Church.
For, example both the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council make this clear as regards the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
The Council of Trent taught:
[The sacred and holy synod] decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, – whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. [35]
The profession of the faith of the First Vatican Council likewise reads:
Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. [36]
And the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith proclaims:
Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one, which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers. [37]
In this text we see that there is a unity between “that sense which holy mother church held and holds” and the “unanimous consent of the fathers.” That is to say, the “unanimous consent of the fathers” is the “sense which holy mother church held and holds.”
The same can be said of the unanimous consent of the theologians. In Tuas Libenter, Pope Pius IX taught:
If it were a question of that obedience which is concretely due to divine faith, this obedience should not be limited to truths expressly defined by decrees of ecumenical Councils or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See, but must extend also to truths which, by the ordinary Magisterium of the Church spread throughout the world, are transmitted as divinely revealed, and therefore by the common and universal consent of Catholic theologians are held to be matters of faith. [38]
All Catholics can know what has been taught by the “ordinary Magisterium of the Church spread throughout the world” to be as “held to be matters of faith” by having recourse to “the common and universal and consent of Catholic theologians.”
Conclusion
In this article, I have shown that the proximate rule of faith is the Magisterium proposing those truths which are to be believed divine and Catholic faith. The Magisterium proposes this rule either through its universal and ordinary teaching office, or by solemn judgement.
We may now consider the formulations proposed by Matt Gaspers as the “presuppositions” of my argument in this light. These formulations are:
(1) it is impossible for the proximate rule of faith (Pope and bishops) to ever deviate from the remote rule of faith (Scripture and Tradition)
(2) it is illicit for the faithful to have recourse to the remote rule if and when the proximate rule fails to teach clearly or correctly.
The first may be admitted, if understood in light of the correct understanding of the proximate rule outlined above. The second is false because the “proximate rule” never “fails to teach clearly or correctly.” Individual bishops may err when they depart from the doctrine taught by the pope, and popes may err when not exercising the fullness of their teaching authority. But in neither of these cases are we discussing “the proximate rule of faith” which is, as we have seen, “the living and infallible magisterium of the Church.”[39]
In the next installment we will examine the statements that I actually made and confirm that they are correct. Those statements are:
- We know, because of our faith in Christ’s promises, that the teaching of the “proximate rule” will never deviate from the “remote rule.”
- To bypass the proximate rule of faith, in favour of the remote rule of faith, is inadmissible for Catholics.