The Debate Occasioned by Lumen Gentium 25 Regarding the Authority of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium
In this paper I am going to examine the nature of the authority of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as it was set forth in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium by focusing my attention on a post-Conciliar difficulty that has arisen in connection with the crisis of faith that has followed the close of the council. The first order of business is to restate what the Council Fathers themselves taught about the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and that teaching can be found in paragraph twenty-five of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, which reads as follows:
Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the
privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly
the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely,
when, even though dispersed throughout the world but
preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter’s
successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative
teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in
agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively
and absolutely. [1]
This concise statement of the Council Fathers clearly enunciates the doctrine of the Church's infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium [2] as it has been understood since the close of the First Vatican Council, and it does this first by emphasizing that the bishops, “taken individually” are not infallible, but then goes on to explain how when taken as a collective whole and teaching authoritatively a particular doctrine — all the while remaining in communion with the head of the Episcopal College — the bishops, even though they are dispersed throughout the world, can teach a truth that must be “held definitively and absolutely” by all the members of the Church. [3] In other words, the text of Lumen Gentium 25 reaffirms the teaching of the Church on the nature of the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as set forth at the First Vatican Council and as constantly explicated in the pre-conciliar documents of the Magisterium during the century before the convoking of the Second Vatican Council, and which has been further explicated in the post-conciliar Magisterium over the past forty years. [4]
Now, since the close of the Second Vatican Council there has been a theological crisis that has affected many members of the Church, including some prominent theologians, and it is focused primarily upon the problem of determining when the criteria for an infallible teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium have been met. Moreover, the problem witnesses to the attempt by some individuals to reduce the content of divine revelation in a minimalistic fashion, while they simultaneously question the whole Catholic concept of magisterial authority. Clearly, if one reduces the binding doctrines and dogmas of the faith to only those things that have been solemnly defined, it follows that one has necessarily become involved in a denial of the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium itself. Nevertheless, the problem that has been raised by some Catholic theologians of the post-Conciliar period is a real one, and it is based upon what those theologians consider to be a weakness in that particular mode (i.e., the Ordinary and Universal mode of operation) of the Church's Magisterium, because as they see it, it is hard to know if a doctrine has been infallibly taught through what Cardinal Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI — calls, a non-defining act of the Ordinary Magisterium. [5] But there is a remedy available within the Church’s doctrine of the Magisterium as it is enunciated in Lumen Gentium 25 (no. 2) and in connection with Lumen Gentium's theology of the Pope as the head of the Episcopal College, both of which can ultimately bring certitude out of the present chaos, but I will deal with that in the final section of the paper.
Having briefly explained the nature of the difficulty that some theologians have in connection with the teaching authority of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, I will move on to deal with the debate that has followed the close of the Council about how one can determine whether or not a doctrine has been infallibly taught through a non-defining act of the bishops dispersed throughout the world, [6] and not merely understood in a synchronic fashion, but diachronically. This part of the paper will be divided into two main parts, in the first part I will give some of the background information regarding the theological dispute that has gone on between Fr. Francis Sullivan and Fr. Lawrence Welch and Germain Grisez, as it concerns the nature and operation of the Church’s infallible Ordinary Magisterium. [7] While in the second part of the paper I will explain the solution to the problem as set forth by Msgr. Brian Ferme, which focuses primarily upon the ability of the Pope, as the head of the Episcopal College, to issue a confirmation of a doctrine through an official declaration that is binding upon the whole Church, even though the declaration of confirmation itself is not a new solemn dogmatic definition. [8]
Now as I mentioned above, since the close of the Second Vatican Council there has been a crisis of faith centered in particular on the authority of the Magisterium in expressing infallibly, through either solemn defining acts of the Extraordinary Magisterium or through non-defining acts of the Ordinary Magisterium, the various doctrines to be held by the Catholic faithful as definitive and therefore irreformable. This crisis was first experienced in the late 1960s when large numbers of theologians and priests dissented from the declaration of confirmation of Pope Paul VI (i.e., Humanae Vitae) where he confirmed the already existing teaching of the Church on the immoral nature of artificial contraception. This crisis of authority has continued to grow over the past forty years, until it has finally reached the point where large numbers of theologians have begun to promote the idea that the Catholic faithful are only bound to accept those things that have been solemnly defined by the Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium, and that they are free to ignore those things that have been taught definitively, through non-defining acts, by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. [9]
Clearly this idea is contrary to the teaching of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council and to the various documents issued by the post-Conciliar Magisterium on the authority of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium [10] in establishing the definitive character of particular doctrinal teachings. Nevertheless this opinion has gained wide support in the Church through the use of the mass media, and other means of social communication, in order to legitimize dissent from the authoritative teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. That being said, I will now focus upon the position promoted by Fr. Francis Sullivan, who is one of the prominent theologians during the post-Conciliar period to have cast doubt upon the ability of the Catholic faithful to know whether or not the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium has definitively taught a doctrine of faith and morals in a binding fashion. [11] He has carried on a public debate concerning this issue with Fr. Lawrence Welch and Germain Grisez in various theological journals over the past decade and a half. These public debates have been centered upon two major points: the first concerns a canonical question, that is, whether or not canon 749 §2 and §3 of the Latin Church’s Code of Canon Law applies to the non-defining acts of the Ordinary Magisterium, or whether the canon applies only to the solemn definitions of faith issued by the Extraordinary Magisterium; [12] the second point concerns the consensus of Catholic theologians and whether their agreement is necessary in order for doctrine to be considered as definitively, and thus irreformably, taught.
As far as canon 749 §2 and §3 is concerned, it reads as follows:
749 §2 The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its
teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical
Council and exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges
of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church
a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals; likewise, when
the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the
bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter,
together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach
matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular
teaching is definitively to be held.
749 §3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless
this is manifestly demonstrated. [13]
Now Fr. Sullivan argues that this canon, and in particular section §3 of the canon, applies to things taught by both the Extraordinary Magisterium through defining acts, and to the non-defining acts of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. He bases this judgment upon the nature of the canonical penalty which he holds applies to both defined and non-defined doctrines and dogmas, because as he puts it, any person “. . . who would obstinately deny a doctrine that had been defined as revealed truth would be guilty of heresy and incur the penalty of excommunication.” [14] He indicates that this is so because of canon 750, [15] which declares that anyone who disputes a non-defined doctrine "sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church,"[16] and consequently would fall under the canonical penalties indicated in canon 749 §3, which means that such a doctrinal proposition must be “clearly manifested” or “manifestly demonstrated,” before it can be held to be definitively binding. But as Fr. Welch explains in his response, the technical term “clearly established” or “clearly manifested” cannot “be applied in a univocal way” to the teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. [17]
In other words, the canon cited by Fr. Sullivan actually applies to defined doctrines and dogmas alone and does not apply to the undefined doctrines and dogmas proclaimed by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. The reason that this is the case, is due to the very nature of the difference between the modes of operation of the Church’s infallible Magisterium in issuing certain doctrines through defining acts of the Pope speaking ex cathedra or of an ecumenical council, or in proposing some doctrines through non-defining acts of the bishops dispersed throughout the world (understood diachronically); thus, to apply this canon to both modes of operation of the Church’s Magisterium confuses solemn definitions of the Extraordinary Magisterium with the common definitive teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium. Now this confusion necessarily involves collapsing the Ordinary Magisterium into the Extraordinary Magisterium, because it denies that there is a real distinction between these two modes of operation of the infallible Magisterium, and ultimately reduces the doctrines and dogmas of the faith to solemn definitions alone. Thus, canon 749 §3 really involves answering the question as to whether or not something is defined or not, and a doctrine is not to be considered defined “. . . unless it is clear from the very formulation of the words, or the context.” [18] But this really has nothing whatsoever to do with the non-defined doctrines and dogmas of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which are not set forth in solemn definitions, but which are proposed in the common every day teaching of the Church, and through her constant practice in living the faith. [19]
Next Fr. Sullivan proposes a solution to the present crisis of authority in determining what has been taught infallibly by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, but his solution emphasizes merely the consensus of Catholic theologians throughout history; [20] thus minimizing the divinely instituted authority of the Magisterium, which is the sole authentic interpreter of the word of God. [21] Moreover, it has the additional drawback of allowing for a type of mutability in relation to the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium, which would ultimately admit a type of inexactness in the formulation of Catholic doctrine, by allowing a later generation to reject something that was held as definitive by an earlier generation.
Fr. Sullivan holds that the teaching of the Church on contraception was universally acknowledged prior to the Second Vatican Council, but that it is no longer accepted universally, for as he puts it, "To fulfill the conditions required for the infallible teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, the consensus must not only be universal; it must also be constant." [22] But this formulation would allow things that have been definitively held by the Magisterium, and which have been peacefully accepted as true by the Church for generation after generation, to be denied at any given moment by one generation and held as non-binding. This understanding of how the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium operates is problematic for two reasons: first, it over emphasizes the importance of theologians in determining the infallible nature of a particular doctrine, and basically establishes a type of parallel magisterium in opposition to the Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church; and secondly, it tends to reduce definitive teaching to only those things that have been solemnly defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium, because those things proposed by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium are by their very nature mutable, since a later generation can reject something believed by an earlier generation. [23] Clearly, this way of viewing the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium undermines the very authority of the Ordinary Magisterium.
That being said, Fr. Sullivan bases his views on the importance of the consensus of theologians in determining if a doctrine has been taught infallibly through a non-defining act of the Ordinary Magisterium by referring to Blessed Pope Pius IX’s letter Tuas Libenter, in which the Holy Father taught that those things must be believed which have been “. . . defined by express decrees of the ecumenical councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to the faith.” [24] Now it is important to note that the consent of the theologians mentioned by Blessed Pope Pius IX is not the motive for the assent given to a particular doctrine, but it is rather a consequence of the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium spread throughout the world. Thus, Fr. Sullivan appears to be attributing a type of authority to theologians that is not actually accorded them in Blessed Pope Pius IX’s letter. [25]
Fr. Lawrence Welch is critical of Fr. Sullivan’s views on the importance of the consensus of theologians, because, as Fr. Welch indicates in his own articles, Fr. Sullivan appears to make that theological consensus a condition for the infallible exercise of the Magisterium, and that clearly cannot be found in the documents of either Vatican I or Vatican II, nor can it be conformed to the teaching of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its instruction Donum Veritatis. [26] Fr. Sullivan holds that the consensus of theologians is a criterion for demonstrating that a teaching is infallible, but goes even further and basically makes the consensus of theologians a necessary condition for a particular teaching being held as infallible and thus irreformable. [27] But as Fr. Welch points out, Fr. Sullivan’s views on the mutability of Catholic doctrine based upon the actions of a single generation are not supported by the documents that he cites. In fact, all that Fr. Sullivan has proven is that there can be a break down in the consensus of theologians during a particular moment in the life of the Church, but that break down cannot invalidate the truth of a specific doctrinal proposition if the doctrine in question has actually been taught as definitive by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. [28]
Now, as I admitted at the beginning of this paper, there is a real difficulty in determining which teachings have been taught infallibly by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and this is a natural consequence of that particular mode of operation of the Church’s infallible teaching authority. [29] But there is a solution to this dilemma and it is centered upon the nature of the Episcopal College itself, which as Lumen Gentium teaches is composed of both a head and a body, that is, of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. Both Fr. Welch and Msgr. Brian Ferme have proposed a solution to the problem of determining when a doctrine has been taught infallibly by the Ordinary Magisterium, and that solution is centered upon the Pope’s role as the head of the Episcopal College; and moreover, their solution appears to coincide perfectly with the teaching of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's authentic interpretation of Lumen Gentium 25, which is set forth in its document entitled, the Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei. [30]
Msgr. Ferme, in his article on the authority of the Magisterium, holds that the Pope as the head of the College of Bishops has the power to confirm, through an official declaration, that a particular teaching has been set forth infallibly by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and that the previous Roman Pontiff of blessed memory, Pope John Paul II, used this power several times during his pontificate (e.g., in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae). [31] Thus, the official acts of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium, in which he intends to confirm his brother bishops in the faith, can attest to the definitive and irreformable character of the non-defining acts of the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, [32] and that is why Cardinal Bertone has said:
Actually, if we consider the act of teaching, the Magisterium
can teach a doctrine as definitive either by a defining act or
by a non-defining act. First of all, the Magisterium can proclaim
a doctrine as definitive, and thus to be believed with divine
faith or to be held in a definitive way, through a solemn ex
cathedra pronouncement of the Pope or an Ecumenical Council.
However, the ordinary papal Magisterium can teach a doctrine
as definitive because it has been constantly maintained and
held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary, universal
Magisterium. This latter exercise of the charism of infallibility
does not take the form of a papal act of definition, but pertains
to the ordinary, universal Magisterium which the Pope again
sets forth with his formal pronouncement of confirmation and
reaffirmation (generally in an Encyclical or Apostolic Letter).
If we were to hold that the Pope must necessarily make an ex
cathedra definition whenever he intends to declare a doctrine
as definitive because it belongs to the deposit of faith, it would
imply an underestimation of the ordinary, universal Magisterium,
and infallibility would be limited to the solemn definitions of
the Pope or a Council, in a way that differs from the teaching
of Vatican I and Vatican II, which attribute an infallible character
to the teachings of the ordinary, universal Magisterium.
The particular nature of a teaching of the papal Magisterium
that is meant merely to confirm or repropose a certitude of
faith already lived consciously by the Church or affirmed by the
universal teaching of the entire Episcopate can be seen not in
the yeaching of the doctrine per se, but in the fact that the
Roman Pontiff formally declares that this doctrine already
belongs to the faith of the Church and is infallibly taught by
the ordinary, universal Magisterium as divinely revealed or to
be held in a definitive way.
In the light of these considerations, it seems a pseudo-problem
to wonder whether this papal act of confirming a teaching of the
ordinary, universal Magisterium is infallible or not. In fact,
although it is not per se a dogmatic definition (like the Trinitarian
dogma of Nicaea, the Christological dogma of Chalcedon or the
Marian dogmas), a papal pronouncement of confirmation enjoys
the same infallibility as the teaching of the ordinary, universal
Magisterium, which includes the Pope not as a mere Bishop but
as the Head of the Episcopal College. [33]
Now, it is interesting to note that many theologians have rejected Cardinal Bertone’s comments because they hold that it is impossible for the Pope to teach infallibly through his Ordinary Magisterium, but this position does not reflect the views of theologians prior to the Second Vatican Council, nor does it reflect the views of Pope John Paul II and the documents issued by the post-conciliar Magisterium. [34]
The question about whether or not the Ordinary Papal Magisterium has the power to infallibly declare [35] a teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as definitive is not a new one, and in fact it is possible to demonstrate that prior to the Second Vatican Council this idea was accepted peacefully by most theologians; for as Msgr. Fenton explained back in the late 1940s, because the Pope is the universal Pastor of the Church “. . . there is nothing whatsoever to prevent the magisterium ordinarium of the Holy Father from being considered as a magisterium universale.” [36] This power is founded upon the fact that the Pope is the head of the Episcopal College — and not merely a member bishop — and so he has the authority to confirm his brother bishops in the faith, not only in the exercise of his Extraordinary Magisterium, but even in his Ordinary Magisterium. [37]
It seems to me that the power of the Pope to declare that a doctrine has been set forth infallibly through a non-defining act of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is the proper solution to the difficulty mentioned at the beginning of this paper; because the Pope, as the head of the Episcopal College, clearly must have the power to confirm or reaffirm that a doctrine has been taught as binding upon all the faithful through a declaration that removes all doubt about the definitive status of a particular teaching. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the definitive character of a specific teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is not derived from the papal act of confirmation; rather, its infallible nature pre-exists the Pope's act of reaffirmation, and is founded instead upon the power of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium itself. Moreover, this is precisely what Pope John Paul II did, both in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, for as he said in a speech given before the members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
In the Encyclicals Veritatis Splendor and Evangelium Vitae, as
well as in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, I wished
once again to set forth the constant doctrine of the Church's
faith with an act confirming truths which are clearly witnessed
to by Scripture, the apostolic Tradition and the unanimous
teaching of the Pastors. These declarations, by virtue of the
authority handed down to the Successor of Peter to ‘confirm
the brethren’ (Luke 22:32), thus express the common certitude
present in the life and teaching of the Church.” [38]
Sadly, these Papal acts of confirmation have been rejected by many Catholic theologians, but this open dissent merely witnesses to an underestimation of the authority both of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and even the Ordinary Papal Magisterium, in settling disputed questions on matters of faith and morals. The solution to the present crisis of authority is to be found in a proper submission of theologians and the lay faithful to the authority of the Magisterium, both Ordinary and Extraordinary, and until this type of submission is given it is clear that the present state of confusion and doubt within the Church will continue.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Works Cited:
Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone. "Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent." L'Osservatore Romano (29 January 1997).
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei. Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1998.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Instruction Donum Veritatis. Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1990.
Code of Canon Law (Latin Church). Canon Law Society of America (October 1999).
Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. Canon Law Society of America (December 1996).
Roy Defarrari (Translator). The Sources of Catholic Dogma. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1957.
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton. "Humani Generis and the Holy Father's Ordinary Magisterium." American Ecclesiastical Review 125 (1951): 53-62.
Msgr. Brian Ferme. "The Response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Dubium Concerning the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: Authority and Significance." Periodica 85 (1996): 689-727.
Fr. Austin Flannery. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. New York: Costello Publishing Company, 1987.
Germain Grisez. "Questio Disputata The Ordinary Magisterium’s Infallibility." Journal of Theological Studies 55 (1994): 720-732.
James T. O'Connor (Editor). The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican I. Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1986.
Pope John Paul II. "The Magisterium Exercises Authority in Christ's Name." L'Osservatore Romano (24 November 1995).
Pope John Paul II. Motu Proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem. Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1998.
Dom Paul Nau, O.S.B. (Solesmes). "An Essay on the Authority of the Teachings of the Sovereign Pontiff" (July 1956), available in the book, Pope or Church? Essays on the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium. Translated by Arthur E. Slater, (Angelus Press, 1998).
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. "Letter Concerning the CDF Reply Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis." L'Osservatore Romano (19 November 1995).
Fr. Joachim Salaverri. Sacrae Theologiae Summa. Madrid, B.A.C., 5th edition, 1962
Fr. Francis Sullivan. Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium. New York: Paulist Press, 1996.
Fr. Francis Sullivan. "Reply to Germain Grisez." Journal of Theological Studies 55 (1994): 732-737.
Fr. Francis Sullivan. "Reply to Lawrence J. Welch." Journal of Theological Studies 64 (2003): 610-615.
Fr. Francis Sullivan. “Recent Theological Observations on Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent.” Journal of Theological Studies 58 (1997): 509-514.
Fr. Lawrence Welch. "Questio Disputata Reply to Richard Gaillardetz on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium and to Francis Sullivan." Journal of Theological Studies 64 (2003): 598-609.
Fr. Lawrence Welch. "The Infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium: A Critique of some Recent Observations." Heythrop Journal 39 (1998): 18-36.
Works Consulted:
Fr Adriano Garuti O.F.M. "Problem of Dissent in Light of the Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Profession of Faith." L'Osservatore Romano (22 July 1998): 6-7.
The Debate Occasioned by Lumen Gentium 25 Regarding the Authority of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium
by Steven Todd Kaster
Franciscan University of Steubenville
Theology 604: The Teachings of Vatican II
Dr. Schreck
13 September 2004 (I revised, expanded, and retitled this paper on 14 January 2006)
Original Version: Lumen Gentium and the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium
_____________________________________
End Notes:
[1] Fr. Austin Flannery. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. New York: Costello Publishing Company, 1987. Lumen Gentium, no. 25: page 370. This text from Lumen Gentium represents the Council Fathers teaching on the infallible authority of ". . . the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the successor of Peter" [CDF Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei, no. 9], and this idea has been clearly affirmed in Magisterial documents issued since the close of the council. See the CDF Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (nos. 3-4); the 1995 Responsum ad Dubium on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis; Cardinal Ratzinger's Letter Concerning the Reply Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis; the CDF's Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei (nos. 5-9); and the CDF's Instruction Donum Veritatis (no. 23).
[2] The technical term "Ordinary and Universal Magisterium" has been used, as indicated above in note number one, in order to describe the reality of the teaching office of all the bishops in communion with the Pope while dispersed throughout the world, and understood not merely synchronically, but diachronically. The term was first alluded to in the letter Tuas Libenter of Blessed Pope Pius IX's in order to describe the reality of the infallible teaching of the Church as it is proclaimed in the ordinary day to day teaching of the universal epsicopate, but it was not until the First Vatican Council that the precise term "Ordinary and Universal Magisterium" was used in order to convey this mode of operation of the Church's teaching authority (see note 4 below). After the First Vatican Council the term "Ordinary and Universal Magisterium" entered the theological manuals and the documents of the Magisterium itself (for an example of this see the Sacrae Theologiae Summa, volume 1, tractatus III, paragraphs 645-648; see also the encyclical Humani Generis, no. 20). In addition to the pre-conciliar texts already mentioned, the technical term "Ordinary and Universal Magisterium" is used in the 1983 Latin Code of Canon Law in canon 750 which has a notational reference to Lumen Gentium 25 and which speaks of the teaching of the bishops while dispersed throughout the world; and the term is also used in the 1989 Professio Fidei, which every theologian in the Church is required to affirm in order to receive a mandate to teach theology in a Catholic institution of higher learning; and the term is yet again found in the 1994 CDF Responsum ad Dubium in connection with the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and of course in that Responsum there is a notational reference once again to Lumen Gentium 25, no. 2. In connection with the 1994 Responsum Cardinal Ratzinger stated the following about the assent required by the faithful to the teaching set forth by the Pope, saying that ". . . it is a matter of full definitive assent, that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church. In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium (cf. Lumen gentium, n. 25)." [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. "Letter Concerning the CDF Reply Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis." L'Osservatore Romano (19 November 1995)]
[3] See Lumen Gentium, no. 25; because although the bishops are not individually infallible, they “. . . are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops’ decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind.” Clearly, the Fathers of the Council did not admit of any type of a right to dissent from even the non-infallible authentic teaching of the bishops made in communion with the Pope, and consequently a Catholic must give a submission of mind and will to the authentic teaching of the Magisterium, even when the bishops do not intend to teach something definitively (see the third paragraph of the 1989 Professio Fidei).
[4] Blessed Pope Pius IX explained in his 1863 letter concerning the infallible Magisterium, that divine faith must be given to those things taught by the Church, whether ". . . defined by express decrees of the ecumenical councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to extend also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to the faith." [Roy J. Defarrari, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, page 427] This idea was later taken up and clarified further by the Fathers of the First Vatican Council when they taught that, "Further, 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 which by the Church, either in solemn judgment or through her ordinary and universal teaching office (magisterium), are proposed for belief as divinely revealed." [J. Neuner, The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, page 45]
[5] CDF Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei, no. 9; as Cardinal Ratzinger explained: “The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph [of the Professio Fidei]) or to be held definitively (second paragraph [of the Professio Fidei]) with an act which is either defining or non-defining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an ‘ex cathedra’ pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of anon-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter.” In other words, defining acts are acts of the Extraordinary or Solemn Magisterium (i.e., a definition of an ecumenical council, or an ex cathedra pronouncement of the Roman Pontiff), while non-defining acts are the acts of ". . . the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the successor of Peter." [CDF Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei, no. 9] Moreover, in confirming the faith of his brother bishops (see Luke 22:32) the Pope does not have to consult them, although he may do that if he wishes, but he is not required to consult them, especially since he would only be using his power to confirm a teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium through an official declaration if there was confusion about the nature of a particular doctrine within the Church and the hierarchy. Finally, for the sake of clarity I should also point out that the first and second paragraphs mentioned by Cardinal Ratzinger are the first two paragraphs of the three concluding paragraphs of the 1989 Professio Fidei, which the Code of Canon Law (canon 833) and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (canons 187 §3, 644, and 897) require all theologians to affirm in order to receive a mandate to teach theology in Catholic educational institutions. For the sake of clarity, here are the Professio Fidei's three concluding paragraphs:
(1) With firm faith, I also believe everything
contained in the word of God, whether
written or handed down in Tradition, which
the Church, either by a solemn judgment or
by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium,
sets forth to be believed as divinely
revealed.
(2) I also firmly accept and hold each and
everything definitively proposed by the
Church regarding teachings on faith and
morals.
(3) Moreover, I adhere with religious
submission of will and intellect to the
teachings which either the Roman Pontiff
or the College of Bishops enunciate when
they exercise their authentic Magisterium,
even if they do not intend to proclaim
these teachings by a definitive act.
[6] See Lumen Gentium 25, no. 2, which is quoted in full at the beginning of this paper. See also note number 5 above for a definition of the terms "non-defining" and "defining."
[7] See Lumen Gentium 25, no. 2; although the technical term "Ordinary and Universal Magisterium" is not used in paragraph 25 (no. 2) of Lumen Gentium, it is clear that the Council Fathers are referring to this reality when the texts of the post-Conciliar Magisterium are consulted. See the Code of Canon Law (canon 750); the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (canon 598); the 1989 Professio Fidei (quoted in this paper's note number 5 above); the CDF Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei (nos. 5-10); the 1994Responsum ad Dubium on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis; and the CDF Instruction Donum Veritatis (no. 34).
[8] See the CDF Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei, no. 9.
[9] The technical terms "Extraordinary Magisterium" and "Ordinary and Universal Magisterium" are used in order to describe two different modes of operation of the Church's infallible Magisterium: the former concerns the defining acts of the Magisterium of the Church in which a truth is defined in a solemn (extraordinary) manner by either an ecumenical council or through an ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope; while the latter is the technical term used in order to describe the non-defining acts of the bishops, ". . . even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter’s successor the bond of communion" [Lumen Gentium 25, no. 2], while intending to binding the Church definitively to a particular doctrinal proposition "as a truth that is divinely revealed or as a truth of Catholic doctrine." [CDF Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei, no. 9]
[10] See Lumen Gentium 25, no. 2.
[11] In an article published in the journal Theological Studies Fr. Sullivan cast doubt upon the ability of the Pope, as head of the Episcopal College, to declare that a consensus on a particular doctrine has been reached by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world (understood in a diachronic sense), when he publicly questioned whether or not a Papal declaration could ". . . suffice to establish that fact," and he later went on to question whether ". . . such a papal declaration, though not an ex cathedra definition, [could] be an infallible act of the Papal Magisterium?" [Fr. Francis Sullivan. “Recent Theological Observations on Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent.” Journal of Theological Studies 58 (1997): page 513] Now, he said this in response both Cardinal Bertone's essay entitled "Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent," and in response to the concise statement issued by the CDF in the 1994 (i.e., the Responsum ad Dubium on Ordinatio Sacderdotalis), which itself stated the following: "This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of faith." Moreover, as Cardinal Bertone (then secretary of the CDF) stated, ". . . it seems a pseudo-problem to wonder whether this papal act of confirming a teaching of the ordinary, universal Magisterium is infallible or not. In fact, although it is not per se a dogmatic definition (like the Trinitarian dogma of Nicaea, the Christological dogma of Chalcedon or the Marian dogmas), a papal pronouncement of confirmation enjoys the same infallibility as the teaching of the ordinary, universal Magisterium, which includes the Pope not as a mere Bishop but as the Head of the Episcopal College." [Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone. “Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent.” L'Osservatore Romano (29 January 1997): part 1, no. 2] Msgr. Ferme, in his article in Periodica, supports this idea, for as he says, "If there is a doubt as to whether a doctrine is proposed infallibly by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church . . . then the Head of the College could declare this to be the case. In this sense he would make explicit that which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium had always taught. Here we are not talking of the creation of a new doctrine but rather the confirmation of the self-same doctrine." [Msgr. Brian Ferme. "The Response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Dubium Concerning the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: Authority and Significance." Periodica 85 (1996): 709]
[12] The distinction between defining and non-defining acts concerns the mode of operation of the Church's Magisterium, because as Cardinal Ratzinger states, a defining act concerns ". . . a truth [that has been] solemnly defined by an 'ex cathedra' pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council," after saying this, he goes on to explain the nature of a non-defining act, which is an act where ". . . a doctrine is taught infallibly by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter," and finally he goes on to say that a non-defined doctrine of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium ". . . can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it [i.e., the doctrine taught by a non-defining act] belongs to the teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed or as a truth of Catholic doctrine." The power of the Pope to confirm or reaffirm a doctrine that has been proposed by a non-defining act of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium will be given a fuller treatment in the last part of this paper, when I speak about the solution to the problem of determining when a teaching has been proposed infallibly by the bishops when they are dispersed throughout the world, understood in a diachronic and not merely in a synchronic sense. For more information on this subject, see Msgr. Brian Ferme. “The Response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Dubium Concerning the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: Authority and Significance.” Periodica 85 (1996): 701-710.
[13] Code of Canon Law (Latin Church), canon 749 §2 and §3; see also, Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 597 §2 and §3. As Fr. Welch has pointed out, part §3 of this canon applies only to defined doctrines and dogmas [see Fr. Lawrence Welch. “The Infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium: A Critique of some Recent Observations.” Heythrop Journal 39 (1998): 20-23 and 27-29].
[14] Fr. Francis Sullivan. “Reply to Lawrence J. Welch.” Journal of Theological Studies 64 (2003): 613.
[15] See the Code of Canon Law, canon 750; which reads as follows:
Canon 750 – § 1. Those things are to be
believed by divine and catholic faith which
are contained in the word of God as it has
been written or handed down by tradition,
that is, in the single deposit of faith
entrusted to the Church, and which are at
the same time proposed as divinely
revealed either by the solemn Magisterium
of the Church, or by its ordinary and
universal Magisterium, which in fact is
manifested by the common adherence of
Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the
sacred Magisterium. All are therefore
bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set
forth definitively by the Magisterium of the
Church regarding teaching on faith and
morals must be firmly accepted and held;
namely, those things required for the holy
keeping and faithful exposition of the
deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who
rejects propositions which are to be held
definitively sets himself against the
teaching of the Catholic Church.
[16] Pope John Paul II, Ad Tuendam Fidem, no. 4; See also the Code of Canon Law, canon 750.
[17] Fr. Lawrence Welch. “Questio Disputata Reply to Richard Gaillardetz on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium and to Francis Sullivan.” Journal of Theological Studies 64 (2003): 603. Fr. Welch's views on this issue are supported by what Cardinal Ratzinger has said about the way in which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium operates, for as he pointed out, the infallible teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (i.e., the teaching of the bishops dispersed throughout the world), ". . . is not only set forth with an explicit declaration of a doctrine to be believed or held definitively, but is also expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church's faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole Episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense. Furthermore, the intention of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium to set forth a doctrine as definitive is not generally linked to technical formulations of particular solemnity; it is enough that this be clear from the tenor of the words used and from their context." [CDF Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei, no. 9, notation no. 17]
[18] Fr. Lawrence Welch. “Questio Disputata Reply to Richard Gaillardetz on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium and to Francis Sullivan.” Journal of Theological Studies 64 (2003): 603.
[19] Germain Grisez. “Questio Disputata The Ordinary Magisterium’s Infallibility.” Journal of Theological Studies 55 (1994): 731; as Grisez pointed out back in 1994, “. . .Sullivan now grants (but does not seem to concede) that it [canon 749] only applies to defined doctrines. [But] he argues on theological grounds, however, for an analogous noncanonical norm ‘that no doctrines should be understood as having been infallibly taught by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium unless this fact is clearly established.’ His argument for this is based on the consequences for the faithful of a doctrine’s being infallibly taught: they are obliged to accept it with the appropriate assent and are guilty of sin if they fail to do so.” But Grisez holds that Fr. Sullivan’s conclusion is based upon a faulty understanding of the canon itself, because “. . . the canonical directive for identifying defined doctrines cannot possibly have the exact theological analogue in regard to infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium for which Sullivan argues, since, in the nature of the case, a teaching of the latter sort is not expressed in a single statement [i.e., definition], whose formulation and context could make it clear that the doctrine is being proposed infallibly.” Now as far as the responsibilities of the lay faithful are concerned in assenting to both defined and non-defined doctrines, those “. . . only take hold if and when he or she becomes aware of the teaching’s infallibility.” Thus, one must distinguish between the application of the canonical penalties for heresy and the material state of heresy, because the former applies only to one who knowingly and obstinately denies a doctrine taught through either a defining or a non-defining act, while the latter can be applied to one who is invincibly ignorant, that is, the state of material heresy which may not be imputable to the individual.
[20] Fr. Sullivan promotes the erroneous idea that the consensus of Catholic theologians throughout history can determine in a causal manner whether or not a doctrine has been taught infallibly, but as Fr. Welch points out, only the Magisterium, Ordinary or Extraordinary, can determine what has been proposed infallibly. The most that the consensus of theologians can do is witness to the definitive character of a teaching, but there is no parallel magisterium of theologians within the Church (see the CDF Instruction Donum Veritatis, no. 34).
[21] See Fr. Austin Flannery. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. New York: Costello Publishing Company, 1987. Dei Verbum, no. 10: pages 755-756.
[22] Fr. Francis Sullivan. Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium. New York: Paulist Press, 1996. Page 106.
[23] The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the instruction Donum Veritatis (nos. 32-34) has explicitly rejected the idea that Catholic theologians can form a type of parallel magisterium.
[24] Roy Defarrari (Translator). The Sources of Catholic Dogma. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1957. Page 427. It is important to note that the consensus of theologians mentioned by Blessed Pope Pius IX is not included as a pre-requisite for the infallibility of the "ordinary teaching power" of the Church, because that would ultimately involve including theologians within the Magisterium, which the Church has always refused to do; instead, it is mentioned by the Pope as one of the ways for recognizing a binding teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium of the whole episcopate, that is, of recognizing when the bishops have taught (diachronically) that a particular doctrine is divinely revealed or is to be held definitively. See the CDF Instruction Donum Veritatis, no. 34.
[25] See Fr. Lawrence Welch. “The Infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium: A Critique of some Recent Observations.” Heythrop Journal 39 (1998): 27-29; in his article Fr. Welch accepts that the consensus of theologians can be a sign of the infallibility of a particular doctrine, but it cannot be the determining factor in establishing the definitive character of the teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, because that would involve an overestimation of the authority of Catholic theologians.
[26] See the CDF Instruction Donum Veritatis, no. 34.
[27] Fr. Sullivan is not talking about the authority of the Pope and the bishops to definitively teach a doctrine; instead, he is asserting that the consensus of theologians itself is a condition for the infallibility of a doctrine of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, because as he puts it, ". . . it follows that in the absence of such a consensus among Catholic theologians, it would be difficult to maintain that a doctrine had been taught by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium as definitively to be held." [Fr. Francis Sullivan. "Reply to Germain Grisez." Journal of Theological Studies 55 (1994): 732-737] Moreover, in his book Creative Fidelity Fr. Sullivan goes so far as to say that, ". . . if it becomes evident that there is no longer a consensus on some point of doctrine about which, in former times, there was a consensus, it would seem necessary to conclude that this is not the kind of constant consensus that points to infallible teaching." [Fr. Francis Sullivan. Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium. New York: Paulist Press, 1996. Page 104] Clearly, this idea involves the overestimation of the authority of theologians, making them in a sense a parallel magisterium to the Magisterium of the Pastors, giving theologians a doctrinal veto in determining if a doctrine has been infallibly taught.
[28] See Fr. Lawrence Welch. “The Infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium: A Critique of some Recent Observations.” Heythrop Journal 39 (1998): 23-27. The Pope as the head of the Episcopal College has the authority to confirm his brothers in the faith (Luke 22:32) by an official declaration that a teaching is a part of the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (see the CDF Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei, no. 9).
[29] It is important to note that canon 749 §3 does not apply to the non-defined doctrines and dogmas of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and so it cannot be used as a solution to the problem. See Fr. Lawrence Welch. “The Infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium: A Critique of some Recent Observations.” Heythrop Journal 39 (1998): 20-23 and 27-29.
[30] CDF Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei, no. 9: as then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: “In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly. The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.”
[31] See Msgr. Brian Ferme. “The Response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Dubium Concerning the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: Authority and Significance.” Periodica 85 (1996): 703; as Msgr. Ferme explains, the original Schema of the new Code of Canon Law held that the Roman Pontiff could issue a declaration “. . . that would attest to the effective existence of the consent of the bishops on a doctrine to be held as definitive.” Now clearly a declaration of this kind does not generate the infallibility of the doctrine taught by the Ordinary Magisterium, but the official declaration of the Roman Pontiff, as the head of the Episcopal College, itself participates in the infallibility of the doctrine which has already been taught as definitive by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium [see Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone's, “Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent.” L'Osservatore Romano (29 January 1997): part 1, no. 2]. As Msgr. Ferme puts it, “If there is a doubt as to whether a doctrine is proposed infallibly by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church in the sense of canon 749 §2, then the Head of the College could declare this to be the case. In this sense he would make explicit that which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium had always taught. Here we are not talking of the creation of a new doctrine but rather the confirmation of the self-same doctrine” (Ferme, page 709); see also, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei, no. 9; which says that a “. . . declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff . . . is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.” See also, Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, nos. 34 and 36. It should be noted that in Apostolicae Curae Pope Leo XIII issued an official declaration concerning the invalidity of Anglican orders, and that this declaration, which was not a definition, was an infallible exercise of his Ordinary Magisterium, and the definitive nature of Pope Leo’s intervention is clear from Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments in the CDF’s Official Doctrinal Commentary, no. 11.
[32] When the Pope issues a declaration of confirmation concerning a specific teaching of the bishops dispersed throughout the world, understood in a diachronic and not merely in a synchronic way, it is true to say, as Cardinal Bertone himself said, that the official declaration of the Pope participates in the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, because he is acting as the head of the Episcopal College. The declaration of confirmation is not a new dogmatic formula, but is the reaffirmation of an existing infallible doctrine. That being said, Pastor Aeternus does not apply to the mode of operation of the Pope's teaching authority in this case (see Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone's essay, "Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent"), and to attempt to apply Pastor Aeternus to a Papal act of confirmation involves a confusion of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium with the Extraordinary Magisterium.
[33] Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone. “Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent.” L'Osservatore Romano (29 January 1997): part 1, no. 2.
[34] This idea was promoted in many of the pre-conciliar theological manuals, including the Sacrae Theologiae Summa (see note number 37 below).
[35] It should be borne in mind that a Papal declaration of confirmation is not a new solemn dogmatic definition, as noted above, (see the CDF Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei; and Cardinal Ratzingers "Letter Concerning the CDF Reply RegardingOrdinatio Sacerdotalis," and Msgr. Ferme's article "The Response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Dubium Concerning the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis," page 706) but is instead a confirmation of an existing infallible teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world, because as Cardinal Ratzinger explained in connection with the letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, "The Pope's intervention was necessary not simply to reiterate the validity of a discipline observed in the Church from the beginning, but to confirm a doctrine 'preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents,' which 'pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself' (n. 4). In this way, the Holy Father intended to make clear that the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved solely to men could not be considered 'pen to debate' and neither could one attribute to the decision of the Church 'a merely disciplinary force.'" [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. "Letter Concerning the CDF Reply Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis." L'Osservatore Romano (19 November 1995)] Moreover, the infallibility of the Pope's declaration of confirmation is not to be thought of as independent of the teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, but should be seen as the capstone upon a teaching already diachronically affirmed by the Church for centuries as definitive tenenda; in other words, the Papal act of confirmation participates in the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and is in some sense similar to the declaration a notary public who affirms authoritatively that something is true, or as Msgr. Ferme puts it, ". . . a declaration is not essentially required and does not generate the infallibility of the doctrine, there may be times in which the head of the college is aware of the need to declare unambiguously that a doctrine is truly taught by the bishops dispersed throughout the world in their exercise of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Given this, alongside the text of Lumen Gentium, n. 25, and canon 749 §3, it is clearly important to take into account the statements and the declarations of the head of the college in order to determine whether we can know whether the bishops dispersed throughout the world have reached accord on a doctrine to be held as definitive." [Msgr. Brian Ferme. “The Response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Dubium Concerning the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: Authority and Significance.” Periodica 85 (1996): 704] One other thing needs to be noted about this confirmatory power of the Pope, and that has to do with whether or not the Pope is required to consult the episcopate before issuing a formal confirmation of an existing doctrine. Clearly, the Pope has the right initiate a consultation with the members of the Episcopal College if he wants to, but there is no requirement that he consult with them, because his office as head of the College of Bishops means that he is the one responsible for "confirming his brothers in the faith" (Luke 22:32). Finally, it must be borne in mind that the Pope'sdeclaration of confirmation must be based not simply upon a synchronic consultation of the bishops at a given moment in history, but must be based upon the diachronic teaching of the entire episcopate, that is, it must be based on the historic teaching of the episcopate throughout every age of the Church's existence, because as Bishop Gasser pointed out at the First Vatican Council, "Indeed it cannot be denied that, in the relation of Peter to the Church, to which Christ willed that the infallibility of Peter be joined, there is contained a special relation of Peter to the Apostles and therefore also to the bishops, since Christ said to Peter: 'I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and you, once turned, confirm your brothers' (Lk. 22:32). This, therefore, is the relation of the Pontiff to the bishops which is contained in the promise of Christ. If these words of Christ are to have their necessary force, then it seems to me that one should conclude that the brothers, that is, the bishops, in order that they be firm in the faith, need the aid and advice of Peter and his successors, and not vice versa." [James T. O'Connor (Editor). The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican I. Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1986. Page 48]
[36] Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton. “Humani Generis and the Holy Father's Ordinary Magisterium.” American Ecclesiastical Review 125 (1951): 53-62. In reference to Pius XII's statement in Humani Generis about the Roman Pontiff's supreme teaching power, Msgr. Fenton explained that, “This suprema magisterii potestas is in no way limited to the solemn teaching activity of the Holy Father, to the exclusion of the doctrinal pronouncements he makes in the ordinary manner. Neither is it in any way restricted to the primary object of the Church's doctrinal competence to the exclusion of those truths which lie within what is known as the secondary object of the Church's infallible teaching power. The Holy Father actually exercises his suprema magisterii potestas whenever he issues an infallible or irrevocable doctrinal decision or pronouncement binding upon the universal Church militant. The mode or manner of such a pronouncement may be either solemn and extraordinary or ordinary. . . . [W]here the decision is final and is addressed to and binding upon the universal Church militant, the utterance is an exercise of the suprema magisterii potestas. This holds true, we must remember, whether the statement be one of solemn judgment or an utterance of the Ordinary Magisterium.” Msgr. Fenton's views on the authority of the Pope's Ordinary Magisterium are also found in Salaverri's theological manual, the Sacrae Theologiae Summa. Moreover, to promote the idea that the Pope must issue a dogmatic definition whenever a question arises in connection with a doctrine or dogma that has been taught through a non-defining act of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium itself involves the error of limiting the infallibility of the Church to the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Pope speaking ex cathedra or to the teaching of an ecumenical council. But this is clearly erroneous, because the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium teaches infallibly, and the Pope, as the head of the College of Bishops, can confirm a teaching as infallible even without recourse to a new solemn dogmatic definition, as Cardinal Ratzinger indicated in the CDF Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei (no. 9).
[37] See Fr. Joachim Salaverri. Sacrae Theologiae Summa. Madrid, B.A.C., 5th edition, 1962. Vol. 1, no. 647 (translation my own); in this theological manual Fr. Salaverri states the following: “It is asked further, whether the Supreme Pontiff exercises his infallibility also in an ordinary way or not. To this question it seems to us that we should respond affirmatively.” Thus, it is clear that the Pope in certain circumstances can exercise his Ordinary Magisterium in a way that establishes that a particular doctrine is to be held definitively, and moreover the quotations from sources prior to the Second Vatican Council shows that there is nothing new or novel in what Cardinal Bertone has said. The fact that the Pope as universal Pastor has the authority to confirm his brother bishops in the faith is a part of the Tradition of the Roman Church and this idea is clearly attested to in the magisterial documents issued prior to Vatican II. Dom Paul Nau explained this power of the Pope in another way in an article that he wrote back in the 1950s, for as he pointed out, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium itself teaches doctrines infallibly in two diachronic modes: first, through the teaching of the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him; and second, through the teaching of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium. Thus, the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff is infallible when he teaches a doctrine that has constantly been proposed by his predecessors as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed or to be held definitively. Such doctrines, whether taught by the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him, i.e., the teaching of the Universal Episcopate in communion with its head, or by the Roman See alone, i.e., by the series of Popes in succession, are to be understood as having been certainly and definitively, and thus infallibly, proposed. In other words, as Dom Paul Nau points out, there is a parity between the teaching of the Universal Church and the Roman Church. See also Dom Paul Nau, O.S.B. (Solesmes), “An Essay on the Authority of the Teachings of the Sovereign Pontiff” (July 1956), available in the book, Pope or Church? Essays on the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, translated by Arthur E. Slater, (Angelus Press, 1998), pages 12-19.
[38] Pope John Paul II. “The Magisterium Exercises Authority in Christ's Name.” L'Osservatore Romano (24 November 1995): no. 6.
Copyright © 2004-2024 Steven Todd Kaster