Inallible safety?

Dr. Joy: “In the first place, the thesis [of infallible safety] necessarily posits a distinction between errors that are dangerous to believe and errors that are safe to believe. But in matters of faith and morals, how could it be safe to embrace any error at all? That some errors are more dangerous than others is easy to concede, but that some errors are safe? That is hard to accept. [Emphasis in original.]”

Louie: “There appears to be a misunderstanding on Dr. Joy’s part insofar as the infallible security “thesis” (as he calls it) does not concede the possibility of “error in matters of faith or morals” in the non-infallible authoritative papal magisterium. In fact, as we shall see, numerous holy popes, saints, catechisms, and venerable theologians have consistently indicated that such is not possible. [Me: As to the latter contention, the consistent indication claimed can only be made by implication, as there is no direct confirmation of “infallible safety”.]

Does that mean that no error of any kind whatsoever is possible in the non-infallible authoritative papal magisterium?

For an answer, let us turn for insight to the eminent moral theologian Benedictus Merkelbach, O.P., who writes [in about 1938]:

‘Where the Church does not teach with infallible authority, the proposed doctrine is not of itself irreformable, that is why, if per accidens in an hypothesis (albeit very rarely); after the most careful examination, there seems to be very grave reasons against the proposed teaching, it would be licit without temerity to suspend internal assent… Benedictus Henricus Merkelbach O.P., Summa Theologiae Moralis, Vol. I, p. 598.’

NB: The phrase per accidens serves to provide a crucial distinction. It suggests that the possibility of “very grave reasons to suspend internal assent” to a non-infallible teaching may be due to something in the doctrine as proposed that is accidental, extraneous, or nonessential; this as opposed to error per se, that is, a doctrine that is erroneous in and of itself.  

Now that we are clear as to what the potential for error in non-infallible teachings entails vis-à-vis infallible safety, let’s return to Joy’s arguments.“

“In our view, when such judgments were issued without an ex cathedra definition, obedience that includes obedience of the intellect should be demanded and given. This does not mean adhering to the judgment that a doctrine is infallibly true or false, as our opponents seem to understand our view, but that the doctrine contained in this judgment is safe and should be accepted with obedience of the intellect and the rejection of its opposite not on the grounds of divine faith (based on the authority of God revealing or the infallible teaching Church) but on the grounds of the sacred authority whose unquestionable duty is to care for the purity and safety of the doctrine” (WM Review, Does everything coming from Rome enjoy an “infallibly safety”? – Franzelin’s text).

It would appear that Benedictus Henricus Merkelbach O.P is suggesting that in cases of error in a proposed doctrine, the accidental error itself may be grave enough to warrant a licit suspension of internal assent, whereas Johannes Baptist Franzelin [approx. 60 years previous] disagrees and posits that “obedience of the intellect should be demanded and given” because there can only be theologically “safe” errors - based on the sacred authority of the non-infallible magisterium.

But what surpasses the order of nature and human comprehension is, that as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word, the most sacred body of Christ was immediately formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time. 'Roman Catechism Article III'

Payday loans range in size from $100 to $1,000, depending on state legal maximums. The average loan term is about two weeks. Loans typically cost 400% annual interest (APR) or more. The finance charge ranges from $15 to $30 to borrow $100. For two-week loans, these finance charges result in interest rates from 390 to 780% APR. Shorter term loans have even higher APRs.  Rates are higher in states that do not cap the maximum cost (How Payday Loans Work).

“For most of the first 1500 years of Christianity, the lending of money at interest was unanimously condemned by the Fathers of the Early Church, and by popes, councils and saints, as a damnable sin equivalent to robbery and even murder. Any interest on loans of money, not just exorbitant interest, was defined de fide as a grave transgression against God and man” (Hoffman, Usury in Christendom.

MRyan wrote:Again, Louie Verrecchio posits that “the infallible security ‘thesis’ … does not concede the possibility of ‘error in matters of faith or morals’ in the non-infallible authoritative papal magisterium.”

The air quotes around “thesis” suggest Louie believes “infallible safety” is not a reformable thesis, but a theologically certain (infallibly safe?) doctrine enjoying the moral universal consensus of theologians. I thin not.

I wrote:

It would appear that Benedictus Henricus Merkelbach O.P is suggesting that in cases of error in a proposed doctrine, the accidental error itself may be grave enough to warrant a licit suspension of internal assent, whereas Johannes Baptist Franzelin [approx. 60 years previous] disagrees and posits that “obedience of the intellect should be demanded and given” because there can only be theologically “safe” errors - based on the sacred authority of the non-infallible magisterium.

In his reply to my comments, Sean (WM Review), as he hopes to make clear, suggested that there is no real difference between Franzelin and Merkelbach for the former, concerning non-infallible acts, is making a necessary distinction between “degrees of safety”, e.g., with “a passing statement of doctrine without any hallmark of judgment or ‘definitiveness’” on one end of the safety spectrum (one may legitimately withhold assent to error), and at the other end, “a judgment [reformable or not] that a particular doctrine is safe to teach and hold”, even if erroneous (Franzelin: “the doctrine contained in this judgment is safe and should be accepted with obedience of the intellect.”)  

One possible example of a "safe error" that Franzeling might consider a provisional doctrine demanding intellectual assent, is the “error” found in the Catechism of Trent:

But what surpasses the order of nature and human comprehension is, that as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word, the most sacred body of Christ was immediately formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time. 'Roman Catechism Article III'

Franzelin might argue that because the doctrine of immediate ensoulment was not yet “judged” to be settled (Pius XII, Humani Generis), the proposed doctrine is nonetheless “safe” and would have demanded intellectual assent, even if it was in error.

But, couldn’t any Catholic at the time, while respecting the authority of the Catechism, have legitimately withheld intellectual assent, even silently, if, e.g., they followed the doctrine of John Duns Scotus on the Immaculate Conception to its logical end (as the Church would soon hold), by believing that the union of soul and body occurs at the first moment of conception?  I say, yes.

...thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.

Hello Michael, I have read some of your forum posts. (My ears were burning.) I think you may have misunderstood my position. I think the infallible safety theory is quite problematic, at least as commonly argued.

Well, Sean, it’s nice to know your “ears were burning” with my speculations on where you might be going with the “infallible safety” hypothesis. If I am incorrect in both of my proposals, so be it, it was more an exercise in explaining the rationale for my own opinion, which, if you don’t mind, was made even more “certain” by the esteemed theologian, Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, whose body of work I’m sure you’re familiar.  

In the subject study provided by Tradition in Action, Brazil (Translated by John Russell Spann), in chapters IX and X de Silveira concludes:

In consideration of the reasons expounded, we do not see how to exclude, in principle, the hypothesis of [error or] heresy in an official document of the pontifical or conciliar Magisterium which does not include the conditions which would make it infallible.

After citing Franzelin’s tract on “infallible security”, de Silveira writes:

Thus, then, these authors sustain that in the non-infallible pronouncements the Magisterium does not compromise itself with an affirmation of the truth of the doctrine which it proposes, but sustains only that such doctrine does not offer any danger for the faith, in the circumstances of the moment.

Such theologians [e.g., Franzelin and Billot] recognize clearly that the teaching contained in these documents can be false:

‘the doctrine in favor of which there exists solid probability that it is not opposed to the rule of faith, MAY BE PERHAPS THEOLOGICALLY FALSE ON THE SPECULATIVE PLANE, that is, if it were taken in relation to the norm of faith, objectively considered’ (2) (Billot, Tract. de Ecc. Christi, tome I, p. 430).

It becomes patent, therefore, that even these authors admit the possibility of error in respect to the doctrine contained in documents of the supreme ordinary Magisterium.

What is one to think about the theory that the non-infallible pronouncements only aim to declare that a doctrine is safe or not safe? – Such a theory does not seem to agree with the terms of the majority of the documents of the Holy See. In some, it is clear that it is only a question of the safety or the danger of a certain doctrine. But in many others – in the Encyclicals, for example – the intention of presenting teachings as certain, and not merely secure is manifest. Moreover, the authors in general have abandoned this theory (3).

(3) See Herve, Man. Theol. Dogm. Vol. I, p. 513; Cartechini, Dall’Op. al Domma, Passim; Salaverri, De Ecc. Christi, p. 726; Journet, L’Eglise du Verbe Inc., vol. I, pp. 455-456, who, appealing to the opinion of Card. Franzelin, in reality gives, to the words of the old professor of the Gregorian University, an interpretation which modifies his thinking entirely.}

Keep up the good work.

CHAPTER X Can There Be Heresy in Documents of the Pontifical or Conciliar Magisterium?

4. A Hypothesis which Still Stands

  In consideration of the reasons expounded, we do not see how to exclude, in principle, the hypothesis of heresy in an official document of the pontifical or conciliar Magisterium which does not include the conditions which would make it infallible.

  Consequently, if some time a heresy were found in an official non-infallible pontifical or conciliar document, one would not have to conclude, with that, that the Holy Spirit and failed his Church. Nor would the absurdity of the hypothesis oblige one to find, at whatever cost, a non heretical interpretation for the text indicated as being opposed to the faith. Nor would one apply the celebrated saying of Saint Ignatius in these circumstances:

“that which appeared to us as white, we would hold to be black, if the Holy Church declared it so” (1). Saint Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, rule n. 13 for thinking with the Church.).

In conclusion: the admirable Ignatian principle, complete expression of faith in the infallibility of the Magisterium which involve infallibility. But he would be wanting in the very “feeling with the Church” who attributed to this saying a comprehension which Catholic doctrine does not justify – interpreting it for example, in the sense that one must accept always and unconditionally, even against the evidence, each and every non-infallible teaching on the ecclesiastical Magisterium.

MRyan wrote:Sean Wright (editor) at the WM Review posted a reply to my forum posts (what - and we thought this forum was read by just three people as we attempt to revive it from its 6 year slumber!):

Hello Michael, I have read some of your forum posts. (My ears were burning.) I think you may have misunderstood my position. I think the infallible safety theory is quite problematic, at least as commonly argued.

My response to Sean (awaiting review) was taken substantilly from a Tradition In Action (Brazil) study by Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira:

Well, Sean, it’s nice to know your “ears were burning” with my speculations on where you might be going with the “infallible safety” hypothesis. If I am incorrect in both of my proposals, so be it, it was more an exercise in explaining the rationale for my own opinion, which, if you don’t mind, was made even more “certain” by the esteemed theologian, Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, whose body of work I’m sure you’re familiar.  

In the subject study provided by Tradition in Action, Brazil (Translated by John Russell Spann), in chapters IX and X de Silveira concludes:

In consideration of the reasons expounded, we do not see how to exclude, in principle, the hypothesis of [error or] heresy in an official document of the pontifical or conciliar Magisterium which does not include the conditions which would make it infallible.

After citing Franzelin’s tract on “infallible security”, de Silveira writes:

Thus, then, these authors sustain that in the non-infallible pronouncements the Magisterium does not compromise itself with an affirmation of the truth of the doctrine which it proposes, but sustains only that such doctrine does not offer any danger for the faith, in the circumstances of the moment.

Such theologians [e.g., Franzelin and Billot] recognize clearly that the teaching contained in these documents can be false:

‘the doctrine in favor of which there exists solid probability that it is not opposed to the rule of faith, MAY BE PERHAPS THEOLOGICALLY FALSE ON THE SPECULATIVE PLANE, that is, if it were taken in relation to the norm of faith, objectively considered’ (2) (Billot, Tract. de Ecc. Christi, tome I, p. 430).

It becomes patent, therefore, that even these authors admit the possibility of error in respect to the doctrine contained in documents of the supreme ordinary Magisterium.

What is one to think about the theory that the non-infallible pronouncements only aim to declare that a doctrine is safe or not safe? – Such a theory does not seem to agree with the terms of the majority of the documents of the Holy See. In some, it is clear that it is only a question of the safety or the danger of a certain doctrine. But in many others – in the Encyclicals, for example – the intention of presenting teachings as certain, and not merely secure is manifest. Moreover, the authors in general have abandoned this theory (3).

(3) See Herve, Man. Theol. Dogm. Vol. I, p. 513; Cartechini, Dall’Op. al Domma, Passim; Salaverri, De Ecc. Christi, p. 726; Journet, L’Eglise du Verbe Inc., vol. I, pp. 455-456, who, appealing to the opinion of Card. Franzelin, in reality gives, to the words of the old professor of the Gregorian University, an interpretation which modifies his thinking entirely.}

Keep up the good work.

End of Response.

FYI, here is an additional extract from the same study, Chapter X:

CHAPTER X Can There Be Heresy in Documents of the Pontifical or Conciliar Magisterium?

4. A Hypothesis which Still Stands

  In consideration of the reasons expounded, we do not see how to exclude, in principle, the hypothesis of heresy in an official document of the pontifical or conciliar Magisterium which does not include the conditions which would make it infallible.

  Consequently, if some time a heresy were found in an official non-infallible pontifical or conciliar document, one would not have to conclude, with that, that the Holy Spirit and failed his Church. Nor would the absurdity of the hypothesis oblige one to find, at whatever cost, a non heretical interpretation for the text indicated as being opposed to the faith. Nor would one apply the celebrated saying of Saint Ignatius in these circumstances:

“that which appeared to us as white, we would hold to be black, if the Holy Church declared it so” (1). Saint Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, rule n. 13 for thinking with the Church.).

In conclusion: the admirable Ignatian principle, complete expression of faith in the infallibility of the Magisterium which involve infallibility. But he would be wanting in the very “feeling with the Church” who attributed to this saying a comprehension which Catholic doctrine does not justify – interpreting it for example, in the sense that one must accept always and unconditionally, even against the evidence, each and every non-infallible teaching on the ecclesiastical Magisterium.

Consequently, if some time a heresy were found in an official non-infallible pontifical or conciliar document, one would not have to conclude, with that, that the Holy Spirit and failed his Church.

2 Thessalonians  2

6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time.

7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh: only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed . . .

tornpage wrote:
I'll focus on the "additional extract" from de Silveira:

Consequently, if some time a heresy were found in an official non-infallible pontifical or conciliar document, one would not have to conclude, with that, that the Holy Spirit and failed his Church.

Failed? No. Never. Abandoning purposely (removing His protection) in the fullness of the time, acting in union with the Father and Son, thereby fulfilling the divine Word and prophecy:

2 Thessalonians  2

6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time.

7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh: only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed . . .

MRyan wrote:

tornpage wrote:
I'll focus on the "additional extract" from de Silveira:

Consequently, if some time a heresy were found in an official non-infallible pontifical or conciliar document, one would not have to conclude, with that, that the Holy Spirit and failed his Church.

Failed? No. Never. Abandoning purposely (removing His protection) in the fullness of the time, acting in union with the Father and Son, thereby fulfilling the divine Word and prophecy:

2 Thessalonians  2

6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time.

7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh: only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed . . .

So, are you saying God is abandoning the protection of the Pope, the very proximate rule of faith for the Catholic Church? If so, is the constant stream of herseies from Francis, who, allegedly, remains Pope, the proximate rule of faith for all Catholics? If so, where then is your visible governing unity? The cast of characters running the Vatican?

Asking for a friend.

Docentes eos servare omnia quæcumque mandavi vobis: et ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus, usque ad consummationem sæculi. \

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

St Jerome. Latin Vulgate Bible: Matthew to Revelation (SPQR Study Guides Book 26) . Paul Hudson. Kindle Edition.

we are in a prophesied end times that is sui generis and departs from the norm of an indefectible governing body that held always prior to the age of the consummation, and the final return of Our Lord. This is a "miracle" (a rather dark one) and an outlier, like a miracle by God in the physical realm that doesn't disprove the laws of physics, even when it departs from them . . .

recognizing another true and accurate understanding of "indefectiblity" that accords with the facts and evidence of the Conciliar reality, or recognizing that this is an aberration that was divinely planned, and therefore its departure from the laws proper to its existence do not make false the laws, but only shown a departure by a power having the authority to suspend and depart from them - a theological miracle or anomaly wrought by God, like a natural miracle that suspends the laws of physics, or the rules governing nature under normal circuмstances, without thereby falsifying the laws under the usual, normal circuмstance . . .

My position is that the Conciliar phenomenon is a sui generis departure from the usual governing spiritual reality called the Great Apostasy, prophesied in Scripture. Like the sun standing still in the sky at Jericho, which is a similar sui generis phenomenon in the physical sphere. There's nothing in the laws of physics that account for that, and nothing in the Church's formal dogma or doctrine that accounts for the Great Apostasy. It's a theological or spiritual anomaly, as the sun standing still is a physical one.

Since God determines truth, and He revealed this in Scripture, this departure doesn't violate truth, or pose a contradiction. This situation corresponds with what the determiner of truth, God, has said is truth. Thus, a correspondence between the ideal and the factual, between the "theory" and what is.

Now, I have repeatedly challenged Sedes to explain how the Church remains indefectible after V2 under the same terms or understanding of indefectibility as it was defined by theologians and manualists such as Salaverri, which understanding requires a continuing Catholic hierarchy with real authority and the power of order/jurisdiction, and which would have precluded the possibility of a total usurpation of the papacy and hierarchy by a non-Catholic entity "as long as there are men on earth" (Salaverri).

Like you, I've never gotten a response that addresses the issue.

So let's say it's 1-1 in the top of the 9th . . .

Except I have an explanation or "answer" to your challenge - but, again, I don't consider myself R & R.

I recall Mario Derksen giving an excellent talk/presentation on the Great Apostasy. I'd have no problem with a Sedevacantist who rejects the current hierarchy, indeed I reject it in a similar sense, and who simply says we're in the Great Apostasy, and on new ground that makes the old understanding re indefectibililty irrelevant in this, the "consummation of the age," the times of the "abomination of desolation."

I'm not a home aloner, so I have no problem with Sedes who continue to receive the sacraments from Trad priests with "supplied jurisdiction."

My problem with most Sedes, like Derksen, is that they want to argue that the Church remains indefectible precisely as it was when described by theologians like Salaverri, and that the current circuмstances of the Church don't contradict that understanding or description. But it does.

Sedes like to have their cake and eat it too, and thus contort themselves into the contradiction of the last paragraph.

Sorry, but Catholicism is truth, and "indefectibility" as understood by Salaverri and the manualists prior to V2 has been shown to be false.

Truth matters if one holds Catholicism to be truth, and I do.

What shall we say then? All these things have to be understood spiritually in this manner: “Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains” and “So when you see the desolating sacrilege … standing in the holy place.” That is to say, when you see a godless heresy, which is the army of Antichrist, standing in the holy places of the church, at that time “let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,” that is, let those who are in Christianity hasten to the Scriptures. For just as the real Jєω is a Christian, as the apostle says (“For he is not a real Jєω who is one outwardly.… He is a Jєω who is one inwardly”), so also the real Judah is Christianity, whose name is understood to mean “confession.” But the mountains are the Scriptures of the apostles and prophets, concerning whom it is said, “Glorious are you, more majestic than the everlasting mountains.” And again he says about the church, “On the holy mount stands the city he founded.” And why does he order all Christians to hasten to the Scriptures at this time? Because at this time, ever since a heresy lay hold of those churches, there can be no other test of true Christianity or any other refuge of Christians who want to know the truth of the faith than the divine Scriptures. For previously he was showing in many ways what the church of Christ is and what heathenness is, but now those who want to know what the true church of Christ is can know it in no other way than only through the Scriptures. Why? Because also the heretics in their schism have all these things that are rightly Christ’s in truth: they likewise have churches, the divine Scriptures also, bishops and the rest of the ranks of clergy, baptism, the Eucharist in other respects, and all the other things, and finally Christ. Therefore, if someone wishes to know what the true church of Christ is, how will he know it amid the confusion of such similarity unless he learns it only through the Scriptures?

Thomas C. Oden and Gerald L. Bray, eds., Incomplete Commentary on Matthew (Opus Imperfectum), trans. James A. Kellerman, vol. 1 & 2, Ancient Christian Texts (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2010), 382–383.

tornpage wrote:https://catholiceclipsed.com/2023/01/19/even-to-the-consummation-of-the-age/

I suspect the author, B.E. Strauss, is "Struthio." I believe he was an engineer, and German. Also, the site is of the "home alone" view, as I believe Struthio was.

Nota: I am not "home alone." That does not, in my view, derogate from the merits of the argument, as I also would not dismiss an argument coming from a Sede, a Baptist, an Eastern Orthodox apart from the merits of the argument itself.

I hope all who frequent this site are in agreement with that.

@TheWMReview
There is a unity of faith and morals among basically all sedes, as well as basically all trads, inc indult - and many conservatives too. Exceptions may well be non-Catholics. Disagreements over practical questions and matters not revealed do not constitute a rupture of faith.

tornpage wrote:You should really review that CI thread with some close attention. IMO, it would be time very well spent.

tornpage wrote:Hey, we don't toss off insults and engage in apologetics for a particular Catholic brand here, whether R & R, Sede, Indult (is it still called that?), etc. We be about serious theological reflection in search of truth.

tornpage wrote:Take your time.

tornpage wrote:Oh for cryin' out loud!! You have a blind spot regarding links:

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/



https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/

MRyan wrote:

tornpage wrote:Oh for cryin' out loud!! You have a blind spot regarding links:

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/



https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vatican-council-says-there-will-be-shepherds-'usque-ad-consummationem-saeculi'/

Yes, I do! Especially when the links are barely discernable, you need to put the cursor on them before they appear. I was just going to tell you that I finally spotted the link in your other thread - we have two threads covering much of the same subject. That's OK, but it can get confusing at times.

tornpage wrote:
Yeah, but we're just kidding around. There's a real antagonism behind those CI insults. Trust me.