What We Must Believe on Unsettled Matters
Dec 18, 2023 9:23:09 GMT -5
marcellusfaber and John Lewis like this
Post by Pacelli on Dec 18, 2023 9:23:09 GMT -5
Forum member marcellusfaber brought up a good question in THIS thread:
Yes, I have sources, and I am happy to answer this question, as it is fundamental to understanding the crisis and there are so many mistakes that descend from misunderstanding this matter.
1. First, I think before getting into unsettled matters, one must clearly distinguish what a Catholic is bound to believe in the first place, so as to not confuse binding teaching with opinion.
On this point, I would recommend Canon Smith's excellent explanation of what must be believed by Catholics, not only as a matter of the Faith, but also because the Church obliges one to believe as well, which the theologians explain as ecclesiastical Faith as differentiated from Divine and Catholic Faith.
The article is linked HERE
2. I think that point #1 is so important to grasp in detail that I believe that every Catholic who is trying to understand this must learn what the different theological notes are so they can understand what must be believed even if it is not part of the Sacred Deposit itself. It's also worth noting that there is a distinction to be made between denying truths that are part of the Faith itself, and denying truths that we must believe but are not of the Faith itself. The former is what makes a heretic, while the latter is a matter of mortal sin, but the denier is not a heretic. A good explanation of the theological notes as to what must be believed can be found HERE
3. With that said, we can now get to unsettled matters. This encompasses everything that the Faith or the Church has not bound us to believe. This is the realm of opinion.
This is where the rubber meets the road as far as understanding this crisis. Things may seem so simple at first, we just keep believing the same Faith that existed prior to Vatican II and reject what came after. This is true, but the problem comes up with whether Vatican II and came after truly contradicted what came before it. Who settles questions such as this? As Catholics, we know who, and it must be the pope.
So, what if there is a disputed line of popes and all of this teaching and law that came from them is not settled by a pope? Then it remains unsettled, and individual Catholics must privately and non-authoritatively attempt to form certainty on all sorts of matters in order to keep their Faith and remain obedient to the Church.
4. There is a realm of thought that remains in the area of opinion. We must believe what the Faith and what the Church binds us to believe, but sometimes things come up that are not part if this category, and we are confronted with it, forcing us to make judgments about things are tying to form certainty without the lawful authority settling things.
This entire crisis, in my opinion, is one that forces us into this unpleasant situation of relying on our judgment, which by the way is a very dangerous thing to do as a Catholic, but what choice do we have? In order to keep the Faith, we are forced to judge persons who have claimed to be popes, and by that to judge laws imposed by them, teaching imposed by them, etc.
To highlight how messy this all is, let me give an example. John and Charles are both good Catholics who believe every truth of the Faith, as described in #1 and #2 above. John has formed certitude that Vatican II could not have come from the Church as there are ambiguous teachings that have over time developed since then showing them to be heretical, and John further believes that Paul VI who imposed this on Catholics could not have been the Pope as if he were, then the Church would have defected which is impossible. Charles, on the other hand, while believing completely the Catholic teaching, thinks that Vatican II can and must be interpreted in the light of Tradition and there was no rupture. He also thinks that everything that came after must be interpreted in this manner. Even though there are problems with Charles' line of thinking, and these problems can be proven, who can actually bind Charles to have the same certainty on these matters as John has?
4. This leads us to the next question, which is how do we form certainty about things not yet settled by the Church? This question highlights the importance of why the seminaries of the Church taught philosophy prior to the theology. The mind needs to be trained on complex matters to distinguish all sorts of principles and correctly apply them. Mistakes at this level lead to serious consequences.
On this subject I would recommend Monsignor Paul Glenn's excellent book, Criteriology, linked HERE
For any readers who don't have the time to read the entire book, the W.M Review did a great article on this focused on moral certainty, linked HERE
We form certainty on all sorts of things in life, whether we realize it or not. When we go to mass, how do we know that the priest doesn't have a contrary intention and we are truly worshipping Our Lord and receiving Him in Holy Communion? We make all sorts of subtle judgments about these things without thinking too deeply, and then just generally presume all is as it's supposed to be. The Catholic rite is used, and the priest has not given us any reason to think that, so we should just trust and have certitude that the sacrament is truly confected.
I will leave off with one last point on this: the moral certainty that we have formed on whether or not the men claiming to be popes are heretics, whether Vatican II came from the Church, whether the new "mass" came from the Church or is valid, whether the new ordination and episcopal consecration rites are valid, whether the new confirmation rite is valid, etc. are all private judgments we have made on our own without the authority of the Catholic Church telling us what we must believe on these matters. Some seem to confuse the certainty they have in their judgment on these matters with what must be believed by Catholics, thereby blurring individual moral certainty on unsettled matters with the Catholic Faith or what the Church has bound us to believe.
This mistake leads to grave consequences and in practice leads one very easily to schism. To avoid this pitfall, one must very clearly distinguish between what one knows is true from their own judgment, from the status of the truth affecting all Catholics to by obliging them to believe something is true. We are certain about the truth that Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, the new holy order rites didn't come from the Church, but the Catholic Church has not yet bound anyone to believe this, nor has it bound anyone to believe that Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis are not popes. We are on all of these questions relying on our own judgment, by forming moral certainty on each and every point, based on the evidence that we have, and in no case are we relying on what the Church has settled on any of these points, which has yet to happen.
Pacelli, do you have any sources to recommend on this question of differences of opinion and only those who have reached moral certainty on these questions being bound by the conclusion? It makes sense to me and I have been repeating it, but it has occurred to me that I should have some authority to cite.
Yes, I have sources, and I am happy to answer this question, as it is fundamental to understanding the crisis and there are so many mistakes that descend from misunderstanding this matter.
1. First, I think before getting into unsettled matters, one must clearly distinguish what a Catholic is bound to believe in the first place, so as to not confuse binding teaching with opinion.
On this point, I would recommend Canon Smith's excellent explanation of what must be believed by Catholics, not only as a matter of the Faith, but also because the Church obliges one to believe as well, which the theologians explain as ecclesiastical Faith as differentiated from Divine and Catholic Faith.
The article is linked HERE
2. I think that point #1 is so important to grasp in detail that I believe that every Catholic who is trying to understand this must learn what the different theological notes are so they can understand what must be believed even if it is not part of the Sacred Deposit itself. It's also worth noting that there is a distinction to be made between denying truths that are part of the Faith itself, and denying truths that we must believe but are not of the Faith itself. The former is what makes a heretic, while the latter is a matter of mortal sin, but the denier is not a heretic. A good explanation of the theological notes as to what must be believed can be found HERE
3. With that said, we can now get to unsettled matters. This encompasses everything that the Faith or the Church has not bound us to believe. This is the realm of opinion.
This is where the rubber meets the road as far as understanding this crisis. Things may seem so simple at first, we just keep believing the same Faith that existed prior to Vatican II and reject what came after. This is true, but the problem comes up with whether Vatican II and came after truly contradicted what came before it. Who settles questions such as this? As Catholics, we know who, and it must be the pope.
So, what if there is a disputed line of popes and all of this teaching and law that came from them is not settled by a pope? Then it remains unsettled, and individual Catholics must privately and non-authoritatively attempt to form certainty on all sorts of matters in order to keep their Faith and remain obedient to the Church.
4. There is a realm of thought that remains in the area of opinion. We must believe what the Faith and what the Church binds us to believe, but sometimes things come up that are not part if this category, and we are confronted with it, forcing us to make judgments about things are tying to form certainty without the lawful authority settling things.
This entire crisis, in my opinion, is one that forces us into this unpleasant situation of relying on our judgment, which by the way is a very dangerous thing to do as a Catholic, but what choice do we have? In order to keep the Faith, we are forced to judge persons who have claimed to be popes, and by that to judge laws imposed by them, teaching imposed by them, etc.
To highlight how messy this all is, let me give an example. John and Charles are both good Catholics who believe every truth of the Faith, as described in #1 and #2 above. John has formed certitude that Vatican II could not have come from the Church as there are ambiguous teachings that have over time developed since then showing them to be heretical, and John further believes that Paul VI who imposed this on Catholics could not have been the Pope as if he were, then the Church would have defected which is impossible. Charles, on the other hand, while believing completely the Catholic teaching, thinks that Vatican II can and must be interpreted in the light of Tradition and there was no rupture. He also thinks that everything that came after must be interpreted in this manner. Even though there are problems with Charles' line of thinking, and these problems can be proven, who can actually bind Charles to have the same certainty on these matters as John has?
4. This leads us to the next question, which is how do we form certainty about things not yet settled by the Church? This question highlights the importance of why the seminaries of the Church taught philosophy prior to the theology. The mind needs to be trained on complex matters to distinguish all sorts of principles and correctly apply them. Mistakes at this level lead to serious consequences.
On this subject I would recommend Monsignor Paul Glenn's excellent book, Criteriology, linked HERE
For any readers who don't have the time to read the entire book, the W.M Review did a great article on this focused on moral certainty, linked HERE
We form certainty on all sorts of things in life, whether we realize it or not. When we go to mass, how do we know that the priest doesn't have a contrary intention and we are truly worshipping Our Lord and receiving Him in Holy Communion? We make all sorts of subtle judgments about these things without thinking too deeply, and then just generally presume all is as it's supposed to be. The Catholic rite is used, and the priest has not given us any reason to think that, so we should just trust and have certitude that the sacrament is truly confected.
I will leave off with one last point on this: the moral certainty that we have formed on whether or not the men claiming to be popes are heretics, whether Vatican II came from the Church, whether the new "mass" came from the Church or is valid, whether the new ordination and episcopal consecration rites are valid, whether the new confirmation rite is valid, etc. are all private judgments we have made on our own without the authority of the Catholic Church telling us what we must believe on these matters. Some seem to confuse the certainty they have in their judgment on these matters with what must be believed by Catholics, thereby blurring individual moral certainty on unsettled matters with the Catholic Faith or what the Church has bound us to believe.
This mistake leads to grave consequences and in practice leads one very easily to schism. To avoid this pitfall, one must very clearly distinguish between what one knows is true from their own judgment, from the status of the truth affecting all Catholics to by obliging them to believe something is true. We are certain about the truth that Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, the new holy order rites didn't come from the Church, but the Catholic Church has not yet bound anyone to believe this, nor has it bound anyone to believe that Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis are not popes. We are on all of these questions relying on our own judgment, by forming moral certainty on each and every point, based on the evidence that we have, and in no case are we relying on what the Church has settled on any of these points, which has yet to happen.