Tuesday, November 4, 2025

Cardinal Fernández on doctrinal clarity

From Twitter/X today, apropos of Mater Populi Fidelis:

Posted by at

54 comments:

  1. TonyNovember 4, 2025 at 11:32 AM

    A prudent consistency is the hobgoblin of orthodox minds. We don't need no stinkin' consistency around here.

    The liberal elitigentia are well known for exercising reasonable norms when and as it advances their pet causes, not otherwise. Even here, Ferdinand overstates the issue. Where in English it is rendered with toned-down phrasing:

    22. Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it would not be appropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation. ,

    in the original Spanish it is

    Teniendo en cuenta la necesidad de explicar el papel subordinado de María a Cristo en la obra de la Redención, es siempre inoportuno el uso del título de Corredentora para definir la cooperación de María.

    "siempre inoportuno" as "always inopportune" exaggerates the concern in the title. Why would he need to issue an "always" judgment when it is not possible to know what social conditions will present themselves in the future?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David McPikeNovember 4, 2025 at 3:20 PM

      But then, by parity of reasoning, it would seem that it would also not be appropriate to use the term 'co-operation' to define the work of Mary (en este caso, siempre es inoportuno el uso del termino 'cooperacion' para definir la operacion de Maria).
      On 'siempre': I believe the sense could, besides 'always,' also be 'still' or 'at least.'

      Delete
    2. TonyNovember 5, 2025 at 11:34 AM

      On 'siempre': I believe the sense could, besides 'always,' also be 'still' or 'at least.'

      Could be. I didn't see that in google translate, but I know that's not much to go by.

      But then, by parity of reasoning, it would seem that it would also not be appropriate to use the term 'co-operation' to define the work of Mary (en este caso, siempre es inoportuno el uso del termino 'cooperacion' para definir la operacion de Maria).

      I have no clue what you are referring to. Are you indicating that Ferdinand should have - by parallel reasoning - objected to the term "co-operation" applied to Mary? The saints since at least Augustine have used "co-operation" as the role ALL of the faithful have with respect to their activity under the influence of grace: He who created you without your cooperation does not justify you without your cooperation.

      Delete
    3. David McPikeNovember 6, 2025 at 7:13 AM

      Tony, I think you are mistaken: it seems you clearly do have a clue what I'm referring to. I'm pointing out the inconsistency in saying no to 'coredemption' but yes to 'cooperation,' since 'coredemption' is just a(n indisputably correct) specification of 'cooperation' and there seems no reason to think that the arguments adduced (unreasonably, in my view) against 'coredemption' shouldn't equally apply against 'cooperation.'

      As for the Augustine, I believe the quote is just: "Qui ergo fecit te sine te non te iustificat sine te. (He then who made you without you does not justify you without you.)"

      Delete
    4. TonyNovember 6, 2025 at 10:41 AM

      But...I am NOT saying "no" to coredemption. I don't have a problem with saying coredemption.

      Because "cooperation" and "coredemption" are different words, it is initially plausible that they have different denotations, or at least different connotations. This would provide a possible ground for objecting to one and not the other. I find my own sense of them is distinct in this: "cooperation" refers primarily to a person's action going along with (not defecting from) Christ's action of grace in saving him, whereas "coredemption" refers primarily to a person's action in participating in Christ's action to save another, though in a different (and wholly secondary) mode. In both cases Christ is the primary agent of redemption, but in the second case Christ's action provides in addition a grant to that person secondary agency in the saving of a third person. The gift of the first does not necessarily imply the gift of the second. It is possible that my sense of the terms is peculiar to me, but I have read them many times in many contexts and I thought I grasped the sense of those passages.

      As stated, I don't have a problem with either usage. But it does not appear SIMPLY true that concerns about the second (and its proper distinctions and pedagogy) are wholly present also in the first, in the same way and same degree. My initial comment was mainly to highlight the questionable word "siempre" if it means "always", but if it is better translated as "at least", that too is minimized. You would think that the official translators at the Vatican would grasp the distinction.

      Delete
  2. AnonymousNovember 4, 2025 at 12:26 PM

    Interesting, after CVII putting its hope in the late European philosophy - Heidegger and so forth - Leo XIV now points to east.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Great Thurible of DarknessNovember 4, 2025 at 2:07 PM

    I mean, there are lots of doctrinal "expressions" in Christian history that have required "many, repeated explanations to prevent [them] from straying from a correct meaning"—"begotten, not made," "truly God and truly man," "proceeds from the Father and the Son," etc. I'm sure the losing factions at Nicaea or Chalcedon felt exactly the same way about those formulations being "unhelpful" and not serving the faith. Doesn't mean they were right (or wrong).

    But it does mean that, from a historical perspective (and that's what matters here), it's not a very good argument. At least, it has an inherent tendency to rebound upon the very doctrinal positions it's used to defend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserNovember 4, 2025 at 2:23 PM

      The difficulty in those cases derives from the subject matter, viz. the divine nature, which is as remote from ordinary experience and language as a topic can be. And also, of course, the formulations took centuries to hammer out precisely.

      By contrast, the topics referred to in my tweet are pretty simple and straightforward, mostly concerned as they are with everyday human life rather than abstract metaphysical questions. And they were long settled in the tradition. The difficulties arose from imprecise remarks and apparent attempts to meddle with that tradition.

      Delete
  4. AnonymousNovember 4, 2025 at 3:35 PM

    Here is that alleged “liberal” Vatican II Dei Verbum Chapter II sect.9…”This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on.” Not only does this put the last four Popes in trouble on the death penalty but it begs for an investigation of every Cardinal who voted them into office…especially the last two. Cardinal Newman said that in the 4th century the ecclesia docens was in suspension. Ask ai at google, it will say yes….he did say that. Well then…deja vu.

    ReplyDelete
  5. David McPikeNovember 4, 2025 at 7:37 PM

    "When an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful" appears to BE an expression that would require many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning. MOREOVER (there is no logical consequence here), it does not seem likely to serve the faith of the 'PoG' and is not helpful. (So perhaps not well said by Fernandez.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousNovember 5, 2025 at 12:22 PM

    Hi Ed,

    I don't know why you object to Pope Francis speaking of human beings possessing an infinite dignity, given that Pope John Paul II affirmed the same thing back in 1980:

    https://insidethevatican.com/magazine/editorial/on-the-infinite-dignityof-man/

    To be fair, Pope John Paul II seems to have held people could lose their infinite dignity due to grave sin. However, your argument that God alone possesses infinite dignity would have been rejected by Pope John Paul II. And I might point out that not all infinities are equal. God's dignity is infinitely greater than ours, and unlike ours, God's infinite dignity is wholly underived.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserNovember 5, 2025 at 1:20 PM

      First, elsewhere I've explained in detail why the phrase is problematic:

      https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2024/04/two-problems-with-dignitas-infinita.html

      The fact that JP2 once used the expression in passing in an obscure informal address doesn't somehow make it theologically significant or magically wave away the grave problems with the notion (which I set out in the article linked to).

      Second, JP2's remark does not, in any case, somehow give a foundation to the extreme claims made in Dignitas Infinita. Again, he make a passing comment in a little known informal address, that's all. It wasn't presented as some grand introduction of a revolutionary theological development. And as you acknowledge, he said this dignity could be lost. Obviously, then, it can't be intrinsic to human nature itself. As JP2 uses the phrase, it is evidently something we have only in a loose and derivative sense - which is consistent with the thesis that only God has it in a strict an inherent sense.

      So, there is no basis in JP2 for the claims made in Dignitas Infinita, which, again, are highly problematic for the reasons I set out in the article.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousNovember 5, 2025 at 4:57 PM

      Although it could be said that we have infinite dignity when we are in the state of grace, it is clear that that degree of dignity derives solely from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and is not from human nature. The fact that it can be lost indicates just this. Since it is infinite in virtue of the divine in us and not our own nature, our own person, or our own merits independent of God, JPII was not claiming what others today suggest in urging that human dignity is infinite in itself.

      The problem with Dignitas Infinita is that while it initially notes the distinction between human dignity as such, arising from human nature, and the dignity that pertains to a soul in God's favor, it then ignores applying that distinction and in effect pretends that such distinction doesn't have any place in the discussion of the proper punishments of evil-doers.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousNovember 13, 2025 at 10:07 AM

      Hi Ed,

      I had a look at your earlier post on "Dignitas Infinita" and I have to say it misses the point. Whatever "dignity" means, it does not mean "goodness," "wisdom," "authority" or "excellence." In modern parlance, it means "a thing's intrinsic worth or value, which warrants respect."

      Let me illustrate with an example: the desecration of a dead body. You maintain that dignity can be forfeited, and that a man who has willfully taken an innocent human life has none. In that case, someone who desecrated his body would not be showing a lack of respect. And yet, our intuitions tell us otherwise. There are certain things you cannot do to a murderer, dead or alive. Such a man continues to possess a certain dignity, simply by virtue of being human.

      You balk at the notion of human dignity being infinite. Consider non-human animals. I hope you will allow that some of them possess some dignity. Consider the desecration example again, and I think you will agree that dogs (even dead ones) warrant a certain level of respect. Hence they have a non-zero degree of dignity. However, if we compare the worth of a human with that of a dog, or the respect that is due to a human being with that of a dog, I think you will have to agree that humans are on a different plane. It would be absurd, for instance, to say that one human is worth 42 dogs. If there's no finite number of dogs whose value equates with that of a human being, and if dogs possess at least some intrinsic value, then humans must possess infinite intrinsic value.

      Or suppose that humans have a finite value. I would then ask: why, then, does it make no sense to set a number on that value? To me, the notion of a non-quantifiable finitude sound frankly incoherent.

      The only way to escape the logic of the foregoing argument is to profess puzzlement at the very notion of "intrinsic value" and to claim that it has no meaning. You could make this move, but I think you would have almost no philosophical company, and the man in the street would not side with you either.

      Finally, I don't think the notion of some infinities being greater than others is a piece of mathematical irrelevance. One can speak of a thing's having dimensions of value. As rational moral agents, humans have certain dimensions of value that non-human animals don't, and God has infinitely more dimensions. A cube is nothing when compared to an infinite-dimensional object, but it is still infinitely greater than a square. And are we not worth more than many sparrows? Cheers.

      Delete
  7. AnonymousNovember 5, 2025 at 1:34 PM

    Furthermore, JPII’s address was in German. I believe he actually referred to man as having “undenliche” which would have more appropriately been translated as “unending” rather than “infinite”.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousNovember 5, 2025 at 3:13 PM

    Can we assume Pope Leo approved this?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tim the WhiteNovember 5, 2025 at 7:18 PM

    This talk of having to clarify so much is a canard. The real reasons for this scandalous blasphemy is modernism, lack of belief, and false ecumenism (syncretism).

    Besides the Church doing everything short of making an infallible definition on these matters, let's not forget the the Blessed Virgin Herself is not shy about telling the faithful how She is to be venerated.
    She told St. Bernadette, "I am the Immaculate Conception."
    She told the Lucia to make the 5 first Saturdays for the conversion of Russia and of sinners.
    The intention for the 4th, is to make up for those who sow hatred for the Blessed Mother in peoples hearts.
    Most specifically, She showed St. Catherine Laboure how to make the Miraculous Metal, which shows Her acting as Mediatrix with the Grace of God flowing from her hands. She said some graces were dependent on the petitions directed to Her in order to be given.

    Mary is the exterminatrix of all heresies. The clergy of little faith, and bad will, must oppose Her in order to push their anti-Catholic and evil agenda.

    O Mary,
    Queen of Heaven,
    Our Co-Redemtrix and Mediatrix,
    Pray for us,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousNovember 6, 2025 at 12:47 PM

      Pope Leo signed off on the document that Mary is not Co-Redemptrix. I accept what the Holy Father teaches.

      Delete
    2. Tim the WhiteNovember 7, 2025 at 6:34 AM

      Is that so!?
      What about all of the OTHER, PREVIOUS Holy Fathers whom he is supposed to uphold!
      He did not invoke infallibility on this and that's on purpose. Just like all the other irreverent documents that the corrupt curia keeps putting out.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousNovember 7, 2025 at 11:53 AM

      Pope Leo signed off on the document that Mary is not Co-Redemptrix.

      DDF didn't say that the title isn't true. They said it is "inopportune", because of additional distinctions that must be made. You should at least be obedient to what the Church actually says.

      Delete
    4. KurtNovember 7, 2025 at 12:34 PM

      The magisterium has instructed the faithful to be extremely cautious with those titles and yet you defiantly shout them in an act of disobedience and dissent. If we can learn one thing from the Blessed Virgin, it is “to do what He tells you”.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousNovember 7, 2025 at 1:52 PM

      Yeah, Tim. That is so. And Pope Leo is going to have very long reign.

      Delete
    6. Tim the WhiteNovember 8, 2025 at 8:36 AM

      Kurt,

      These last popes and these cardinals are defying what the Magisterium has taught and done for millennia, as the professor and so many others have been pointing out for as long as it has been going on, on almost every aspect of the Faith.

      The Curia has not been doing as He told them.

      Delete
    7. Tim the WhiteNovember 8, 2025 at 9:03 AM

      A pious defense of the doctrine for those wo are interested.

      https://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2025/11/a-note-on-our-ladys-title-of.html

      Delete
    8. AnonymousNovember 8, 2025 at 11:21 AM

      @Tim the White
      Where has the magisterium previously defined those titles? The point of the recent document is to clarify precisely what hadn’t been clarified in the past despite previous popes having used the title. In fact, in response to Pope John Paul II using the title, then Cardinal Razinger said,

      >>“The formula ‘Co-redemptrix’ departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings… Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him. The word ‘Co-redemptrix’ would obscure this origin.”<<

      Again, this was in response to Pope John Paul II using the title. In other words, the magisterium had no intention of dogmatizing the title. The current magisterium has simply further clarified and thus in giving our submission of intellect and will to the ordinary magisterium we must refrain from using those problematic titles.

      Delete
    9. HughNovember 15, 2025 at 5:42 AM

      Tim the White: "She told St. Bernadette, 'I am the Immaculate Conception.'"

      Precisely, and I think a point which reinforces the view that it is important to keep this title (Co-Redemptrix) front and center in our discussion of Our Lady with others, Catholics and non-Catholics alike. In my humble opinion.

      Our Lady is THE Immaculate CONCEPTION.

      Adam and Ever were for a time immaculate, but they weren't conceptions.

      Our Lord was conceived. And He was immaculate. So He was indeed an immaculate conception.

      But Our Lord was both human and divine.

      Our Lady was human, but not divine (sorry, Collyridians). (My spell-check wants "Floridians" but I think that's going too far.)

      So while both Our Lady and Our Lord were Immaculate Conceptions, Our Lady was the only mere human that was immaculately conceived. That is to say, of all mere humans Our Lady was THE Immaculate Conception.

      Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix. Of course, all humans who "make up for the lack of sufferings in Christ" are thereby co-redemptors/trixes. And again: they, along with Our Lady, are by no means on the same level as Christ, the sole Redeemer. But equally, they are not on the same level as Our Lady. Our Lady's work as Co-Redemptrix is without fault or imperfection. She is our exemplar as a mere human, in this respect. She is, in this sense The (not just 'a') Co-Redemptrix

      Now, to complete the circle: Why is Our Lady the perfect merely human Co-Redemptrix? Because of her entirely sinless state ... stemming from her Immaculate Conception.

      To shove the title of "Co-Redemptrix" behind a curtain is to obscure the link between the two Marian titles: The Immaculate Conception and (The) Co-Redemptrix.

      Far from preventing confusion, this act only ensures it. How sad. This connection between between two beautiful truths of our faith is, I submit, something which could be understood and appreciated by a child in primary school.



      Delete
  10. Michele ArpaiaNovember 6, 2025 at 2:02 AM

    "Watchman, what is left of the night?"

    ReplyDelete
  11. grodriguesNovember 6, 2025 at 3:50 AM

    Want to be a loyal son of the Church, but at this point this is just malice.

    We have what we deserve and this our cross to bear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerNovember 6, 2025 at 6:43 PM

      grodrigues,

      You are a loyal son. If things were too easy I'd be goofing off.

      Delete
  12. AnonymousNovember 8, 2025 at 3:09 PM

    @Anonymous Nov. 7, 11:53am
    The title is more than just "inopportune." The document speaks for itself. It is you who should be obedient to what the church actually teaches and not what you want it to teach.
    "The Vatican’s doctrinal office said Tuesday the title of “Co-Redemptrix” is not an appropriate way to describe Mary’s participation in salvation.

    In Mater Populi Fidelis (“The Mother of the Faithful People of God”), the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) said when an expression requires frequent explanation to maintain the correct meaning, it becomes unhelpful.

    “In this case, the expression ‘Co-redemptrix’ does not help extol Mary as the first and foremost collaborator in the work of Redemption and grace, for it carries the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus Christ,” according to the doctrinal note, released Nov. 4.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousNovember 9, 2025 at 12:22 PM

      In Mater Populi Fidelis (“The Mother of the Faithful People of God”), the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) said when an expression requires frequent explanation to maintain the correct meaning, it becomes unhelpful.

      Obviously, the document assumes as true that "when the same expression is given the explanation to maintain the correct meaning," it doesn't distort truth. It's the absence of the explanation (with the use of the expression) that makes it "unhelpful". So, the document EXPRESSES NO PROBLEM about using the title with all of the ancillary explanation that maintains the correct meaning.

      “In this case, the expression ‘Co-redemptrix’ does not help

      Right. The expression "Co-redemptrix" alone and unaided does not help express Mary's role as a role secondary and only because of, through and in cooperation with Jesus' redemptive act. The title expressed WITH the full explanation, does not carry the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus. The document does not express rejection of using the title WITH its proper explanation that correctly places Jesus's exclusive role in the spotlight.

      Obedience to the Church entails accepting both the overt teaching AND the manner in which it is delivered. It is here delivered in a non-definitive, lower-level Vatican Curia determination as to a potentially confusing expression, clarifying how it is potentially confusing and how it is correct. Acceptance of the manner of this teaching includes acceptance that the expression is not unlawful when the context prevents confusion.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousNovember 12, 2025 at 1:42 PM

      I think the person who wrote that document knows way more that you do.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousNovember 15, 2025 at 2:54 PM

      Whether the person who wrote the document knows more than me is not relevant: Each Catholic's response to a non-infallible teaching of prelates properly includes a consideration of the manner in which this teaching authority means for it to be taken, through how it is expressed, its venue, etc.

      Delete
  13. Miguel CervantesNovember 11, 2025 at 6:46 PM

    Well said. I have never met a Catholic, even the most uninstructed, who thought Our Lady was the redeemer, rather than co-redemptrix. As this post points out, various documents of Pipe Francis, on the other hand, have needed endless explanations to avoid grave misunderstandings. And this problem goes back to many documents of Vatican II. Archbishop Lefebvre was right on that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AnonymousNovember 12, 2025 at 1:52 PM

    …when we love the Pope, we do not dispute whether he commands or requires a thing, or seek to know where the strict obligation of obedience lies, or in what matter we must obey; when we love the Pope we do not say that he has not yet spoken clearly — as if he were required to speak his will in every man’s ear, and to utter it not only by word of mouth but in letters and other public documents as well. Nor do we cast doubt on his orders, alleging the pretext which comes easily to the man who does not want to obey, that it is not the Pope who is commanding, but someone in his entourage. We do not limit the field in which he can and ought to exercise his authority; we do not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of other persons — no matter how learned — who differ from the Pope. For whatever may be their learning, they are not holy, for where there is holiness there cannot be disagreement with the Pope
    .
    Pope St. Pius X,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousNovember 12, 2025 at 8:59 PM

      So, St. Catherine didn't love the pope when she corrected him? St. Paul shouldn't have taken St. Peter to task? The theologians of Paris should not have written to Pope John XXII when he was in error? Why is it we have never heard the Church condemn these individuals for their lack of piety?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousNovember 14, 2025 at 5:07 AM

      St Peter was an administrator, not a teacher.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousNovember 15, 2025 at 2:51 PM

      He was the pope. Since you are clearly not Catholic, you haven't any dog in this race.

      Delete
  15. Saint PaulNovember 12, 2025 at 5:02 PM

    I can't quite agree with that. While on earth I had to respectfully tell Peter to pull his head in a couple of times. I understand exactly the dilemma Marcel Lefebvre had.

    ReplyDelete
  16. BenNovember 13, 2025 at 8:17 AM

    A few Magisterial texts that are relevant here, on being able to ‘move on’ in non-essentials (such as the preferable way to express some doctrinal truth), while remaining faithful to the essential, unchanging and perennial Tradition:

    ‘The dogmatic formulas of the Church's Magisterium were from the beginning suitable for communicating revealed truth, and that as they are they remain forever suitable for communicating this truth to those who interpret them correctly. It does not however follow that every one of these formulas has always been or will always be so to the same extent…

    ‘It often happens that ancient dogmatic formulas and others closely connected with them remain living and fruitful in the habitual usage of the Church, but with suitable expository and explanatory additions that maintain and clarify their original meaning.

    ‘In addition, it has sometimes happened that in this habitual usage of the Church certain of these formulas gave way to new expressions which, proposed and approved by the Sacred Magisterium, presented more clearly or more completely the same meaning.

    ‘As for the meaning of dogmatic formulas, this remains ever true and constant in the Church, even when it is expressed with greater clarity or more developed.’

    (CDF ‘Mysterium Ecclesiae’ (1973) 5)

    ‘Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.’

    (Pope Pius XII, ‘Mediator Dei’ (1947) 63)

    ‘It is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

    ‘On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge.’

    (Pope Leo XIII, ‘Epistola Tua’ (1885))

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousNovember 13, 2025 at 5:23 PM

      So, St. Catherine didn't love the pope when she corrected him? St. Paul shouldn't have taken St. Peter to task? The theologians of Paris should not have written to Pope John XXII when he was in error? Why is it we have never heard the Church condemn these individuals for their lack of piety?

      Delete
    2. BenNovember 14, 2025 at 3:37 AM

      Quite a few popes you're criticizing there - who, if you're correct, have been misunderstanding some basic theology of how the Magisterium works for quite a while.

      But maybe the issues can be resolved upon closer examination. It doesn't at all appear that St Catherine or St Paul were disobeying any official papal command or teaching that was binding upon them, by making the criticisms that they did.

      Nothing in my papal quotations (or the earlier quote from St Pius X given by Anonymous, November 12, 1:52 PM) rules out, or indeed has any bearing upon, respectful and charitable criticism of the words and actions of popes outside of what they formally state in official teachings or directives, with the intention of binding to obedience.

      Regarding the Paris theologians: it seems to me at least questionable that the faulty sermons of John XXII that they were challenging were ever intended by him as magisterial statements binding on the whole Church.

      Whereas papal homilies these days, accessible around the world and maybe published in the official Acta Apostolicae Sedis, can be considered as being intended as low-level Magisterium, this seems more doubtful in medieval circumstances. And if not, then as with St Paul and St Catherine, the Paris theologians were not challenging anything that came to them in the first place as requiring acceptance on any level.

      And if (as seems less likely) John XXII's sermons were in fact intended as magisterial, one possibility is that the criticisms by the Paris theologians would fit anyway into what the Church permits in the CDF document Donum Veritatis (1990) regarding theologians respectfully criticizing non-infallible magisterial documents (anachronistic as it might be to apply the criteria of Donum Veritatis to events nearly 700 years before they were written).

      But also, nothing obliges us to regard the actions of the Paris theologians as sinless anyway - even if their actions did have the beneficial consequence of clarifying the teaching in the end.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousNovember 15, 2025 at 12:16 AM

      Regarding the Paris theologians: it seems to me at least questionable that the faulty sermons of John XXII that they were challenging were ever intended by him as magisterial statements binding on the whole Church.

      Professor Roberto de Mattei asserts that

      the Pope tried to impose this erroneous doctrine on the Faculty of Theology in Paris,
      and that

      St. Robert Bellarmine who dealt amply with this issue in De Romano Pontifice (Opera omnia, Venetiis 1599, Book. IV, chap. 14, coll. 841-844) writes that John XXII supported a heretical thesis, with the intention of imposing it as the truth on the faithful, but died before he could have defined the dogma, without therefore, undermining the principle of pontifical infallibility by his behavior.

      It was not defined, but he apparently did more than propose it as speculation. Furthermore, many errors - about which no definitions have been made - are sufficiently known in the Church that to even propose them is imprudent and may be censurable. That the next pope defined it dogmatically only 13 months later suggests that this truth was in that category.

      But also, nothing obliges us to regard the actions of the Paris theologians as sinless anyway

      Possibly: anyone can have an evil intent while doing an outwardly righteous act. However, another theologian Thomas Waleys was imprisoned for resisting John XXII's error, (which indicates that John's thesis was used not as speculation but as teaching), and he was released after Benedict XII defined the doctrine rightly, suggesting the conclusion that (according to the relevant authorities) the resisting in itself was ultimately understood not to be wrongful.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousNovember 15, 2025 at 2:48 PM

      Nothing in my papal quotations...rules out, or indeed has any bearing upon, respectful and charitable criticism of the words and actions of popes outside of what they formally state in official teachings or directives, with the intention of binding to obedience.

      One of the problems lies in your words "with the intention of binding to obedience". Popes of the last 60 years have regularly made use of ambiguity in the way they issued teachings and decisions so that it is NOT CLEAR what kind of "binding to obedience" is actually meant. Take the instant case: Is a document by the DDF and signed by the pope but not signed "in forma specifica", in which the "censure" given is a soft "inappropriate" in certain contexts, meant to be taken as binding, or not: it's FUZZY. It's certainly "less binding" than if the conclusion were "this is wrong", which would be less binding if the DDF issued that conclusion in forma specifica", which is still less binding than an encyclical, which is still less binding than a constitution. It's probably more binding than a Sunday sermon by the head of the DDF (who is a cardinal archbishop and thus part of the magisterium). On a scale of 1 to 10, how "binding" is it? (And, what does it mean for a teaching to be "less binding" than some other teaching which itself is non-infallible?)

      These questions are - in this case - actually easy compared to many others of recent vintage. For example, passages in the Catechism carry the authority of the source from which they are taken. Francis's new paragraph 2267 is taken from his speech to a conference: did he intend that it have no more authority than that? That's a pretty low level.

      Delete
    5. BenNovember 16, 2025 at 4:54 AM

      @Anonymous November 15 at 12:16 AM

      As you say, Professor de Mattei ‘asserts’ that Pope John XXII tried to impose this erroneous doctrine on the Faculty of Theology in Paris. In the Professor’s article that you quote, which I’ve read online, he unfortunately gives no citations supporting or explaining this further.

      The article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on Pope John XXII, written by ecclesiastical historian Johann Peter Kirsch, says this:

      ‘A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope's view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision.

      ‘John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.’

      So the attempt to ‘impose’ the doctrine on the Faculty of Theology seemingly consisted in the General of the Minorites and a Dominican trying to ‘disseminate’ the Pope’s view there. Was this dissemination carried out by argument, as the word suggests? Or was it by force and authority? Apparently the Paris theologians, in the Pope’s intention expressed to King Philip, ‘enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter.’

      I claim no expertise on the topic, but it seems that these two Church historians, de Mattei and Kirsch, give quite different spins to this. One would like to see the primary sources. For example, to support de Mattei’s assertion that John XXII was magisterially imposing his opinion on the Faculty of Theology, one would want some sort of papal document above and beyond his three Sermons, by which he attempted to make this imposition. Then we could assess its wording and meaning.

      Delete
    6. BenNovember 16, 2025 at 4:56 AM

      One would think, from de Mattei’s words that you quote, that St Robert Bellarmine and he are basically of the same mind on John XXII. However, if we go to the actual passage of St Robert that he cites, we find the following:

      ‘John, at that time, really thought that souls would not see God unless it were after the resurrection: others so reckoned when still it was lawful without danger of heresy, since still no definition of the Church had gone before him. John, moreover, wished to define the question, but while still preparing and in consultations, died…

      ‘John Villanus relates that Pope John, before his death, partly declared and even partly recanted his opinion. First, it is on good evidence that he never had it in his mind, although he had spoken on this matter, to define the question, rather only to treat it so as to discover the truth… This retraction simply teaches that the mind of Pope John XXII was always good and Catholic.’ (De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, chap. 14)

      So there are points of agreement, but also decided points of difference, between Bellarmine and de Mattei. First, St Robert held the view, not that ‘John XXII supported a heretical thesis’ (de Mattei’s paraphrase of St Robert’s view), but that prior to the definition on the matter by John’s successor Benedict XII, John’s opinion was still ‘lawful without danger of heresy’.

      And second, St Robert considers the account of John Villanus reasonable, that John XXII only ever had it in his mind to treat the question ‘so as to discover the truth’ (i.e. speculatively). In particular, St Robert makes no mention of any attempt by the Pope to impose his doctrine on the Paris theologians.

      Delete
    7. BenNovember 16, 2025 at 6:01 AM

      'Popes of the last 60 years have regularly made use of ambiguity in the way they issued teachings and decisions so that it is NOT CLEAR what kind of "binding to obedience" is actually meant.'

      In this regard, there is no difference in style of Church documents before and after Vatican II. Search through documents of pre-Vatican II popes, and you still won't find this minute detailing of exactly what type and degree of sin you're committing if you disobey.

      As for 'in forma specifica', there is no teaching document of the CDF/DDF these last sixty years in which you'll find this phrase included in the papal approval. All that's required for a DDF teaching document to participate in the papal magisterium, according to Donum Veritatis 18, is that it be 'expressly approved' by the Pope (as is Mater Populi Fidelis). And when that happens, then yes, there is the intention to 'bind to obedience'.

      If you're looking for 'in forma specifica' among DDF documents, you'll find it used in the approval of Articles 28-29 of the 'Regulations for Doctrinal Examination' (May 30, 1997). It seems that the phrase simply isn't used for teaching documents, only legislative ones. Its 'absence' in Mater Populi Fidelis is meaningless.

      Regarding the authority of individual statements in the Catechism, I wouldn't absolutize their dependence on the authority of their quoted sources - granted that this is a valid overall guideline that's been given to us. But plenty of the Catechism's statements don't specify any source at all - and yet still get quoted as themselves authoritative, by other Church documents. The whole thing has a certain authority, just in virtue of its approval by Pope John Paul, as 'a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion'. (Fidei Depositum 3)

      The range in binding force in non-infallible teachings has existed for centuries. I surmise that the higher the authority and binding force, the less likely it is that it will ever be reversed; the higher the confidence with which the faithful should hold it; and the stronger the reasons a theologian would need if he were to legitimately criticize it, as per the criteria in Donum Veritatis.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousNovember 16, 2025 at 1:06 PM

      As for 'in forma specifica', there is no teaching document of the CDF/DDF these last sixty years in which you'll find this phrase included in the papal approval.

      As regards the doctrinal value of Decrees of the Holy Office it should be observed that canonists distinguish two kinds of approbation of an act of an inferior by a superior: first, approbation in common form (in forma communi), as it is sometimes called, which does not take from the act its nature and quality as an act of the inferior. Thus, for example, the decrees of a provincial council, although approved by the Congregation of the Council or by the Holy See, always remain provincial conciliar decrees. Secondly, specific approbation (in forma specifica), which takes from the act approved its character of an act of the inferior and makes it the act of the superior who approves it. This approbation is understood when, for example, the pope approves a Decree of the Holy Office ex certa scientia, motu proprio, or plenitudine suâ potestatis.

      So, the concept encapsulated by "in forma specifica" is that the higher authority elevates the determination of the lower authority. Alternate phrases like ex certa scientia, motu proprio, or plenitudine suâ potestatis are examples which also do that.

      In Dominus Jesus by CDF in 2000, we have "The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience of June 16, 2000, granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority, ratified and confirmed this Declaration, adopted in Plenary Session and ordered its publication."

      Delete
    9. BenNovember 17, 2025 at 4:00 AM

      @ Anonymous November 16, 1:06 PM

      Thanks for the information on 'in forma communi' and 'in forma specifica'.

      It raises the question, with regard to documents of the CDF, of the magisterial status of those explicitly approved by the pope, but without the extra phrases such as those accompanying Dominus Iesus ('with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority'). That includes the great majority of CDF/DDF documents found on the website of the Holy See - Dominus Iesus is the only one I'm aware of with anything like that wording.

      There is indeed a minority of documents listed on the website which don't mention approval by the pope at all. I've always taken that to mean that such documents are not magisterial, strictly speaking (even if, presumably, they were informally approved by the pope 'behind the scenes'). They would express the position and practice of the DDF, a 'highly expert opinion' that we would do well to accept, but without binding us to submission of will and intellect. (And they might perhaps lay down discipline that must be followed.)

      I presume that all the other DDF documents expressly approved by the pope (with published words to the effect, 'the Supreme Pontiff approved this Declaration and ordered its publication') - 'in forma communi', it would seem - are still magisterial (per Donum Veritatis 18 on those of its documents that are 'expressly approved').

      They would be without such high authority as Dominus Iesus (and other documents similarly approved 'in forma specifica', whenever in future such may be promulgated). But if they were not magisterial at all, it would mean that the 'express' approval of the pope ('the Supreme Pontiff approved this Declaration and ordered its publication') was given to no real purpose; and that the DDF has been producing numerous documents for decades, with fanfare and on very important topics, but with no actual force.

      So I think that those considerations confirm that the documents only approved by the pope 'in forma communi' are magisterial nonetheless, as long as that approval is formally and explicitly expressed (as is normally the case).

      I would be interested to learn if your sources regarding 'the doctrinal value of Decrees of the Holy Office (/CDF/DDF)' have anything more to say about this.

      Delete
    10. AnonymousNovember 17, 2025 at 11:25 AM

      I've always taken that to mean that such documents are not magisterial, strictly speaking

      I've always understood that these documents were issued under the authority of (a) the signatory bishop, usual the cardinal prefect of the dicastery, and (b) heightened (slightly) by the fact that the pope elevated this person to BE the prefect of a dicastery. All bishops participate in the magisterial office, and curial cardinal bishops have that authority plus the slight edge that the pope selected them to be his official spokesman for this kind of curial action. It gives the document an implicit and indirect participation in the papal magisterial office, which is itself simply the pope's participation in the magisterium of the Church. In effect, there are many degrees of emphasis with which the Church can speak its non-infallible teachings, some modified by the person teaching, some by the form of document, some by language used.

      Delete
    11. AnonymousNovember 17, 2025 at 11:35 AM

      But if they were not magisterial at all, it would mean that the 'express' approval of the pope ('the Supreme Pontiff approved this Declaration and ordered its publication') was given to no real purpose; and that the DDF has been producing numerous documents for decades, with fanfare and on very important topics, but with no actual force.

      I don't think that follows. When the DDF issues a document under the signature of the prefect without saying "the Holy Father approved this and ordered its publication", it still has the magisterial force of a bishop picked by the pope to be his prefect of DDF. The papal "approves and orders its publication" is a level above that but below that of its coming from the pen of the pope himself: as with any chief executive, he can order his ministers to carry out an action without his supervision (where he doesn't even see their solution), or he can do it himself with his own judgments and determinations and the minister is merely his scribe, or he can effect it by having his minister go through all of the analysis and judgment and the chief simply glances at the result to say "looks OK to me". The last is a middle path between having no direct participation of the executive, and complete involvement of the executive.

      Delete
    12. BenNovember 17, 2025 at 4:15 PM

      Thank you - that is enlightening!

      Delete
  17. AnonymousNovember 14, 2025 at 5:12 AM

    Q: Could the greatest enemies of the Catholic faith ever prove that any Pope taught any doctrine contrary to the sacred truths taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles?
    A: Never.

    Q: What are we to understanding and from all this?
    A: That it has always been the belief of the Catholic Church that the Pope, in his solemn decisions of faith and morals, is infallible.

    Q: Must we, then, believe that such decisions of the Pope in matters of faith and morals are infallibly true?
    A: Yes; because this is an article of faith which we must believe, as firmly as we believe there is a God.

    Q: If anyone should say, or even think otherwise, what would he be before God?
    A: An apostate from the faith.

    Q: Can you now tell me whose office it is to guard the doctrine of Christ, as preached by the Apostles, and proclaim and apply it always and everywhere, one and the same, and to defend the rights of God on earth, against every enemy, at all times and in all places?

    A: This is the Pope’s office.

    Q: What have the Fathers of the Church styled the Pope?
    A: The mouth of the Church, ever living and open to teach the whole world. The center of Christian faith and unity and the light of truth for the universe; The Father of souls, the guide of consciences, and the sovereign judge of the religious interests of mankind; The Prince of priests - a greater Patriarch than Abraham- greater than Melchisedech in priesthood— than Moses in authority -than Samuel in jurisdiction; A Peter in power, Christ by unction, pastor of pastors, guide of guides, the cardinal joint of all the churches, the impregnable citadel of the communion of the children of God, the immovable corner-stone upon which the Church of God reposes.

    Q: Why have the Fathers given these titles to the Pope?
    A: Because the Pope is the infallible teacher of the Church of Christ

    Q: What sentiments, then, should every Catholic express concerning the Pope?
    A: I acknowledge in the Pope an authority before which my soul bows, and yet suffers no humiliation.

    Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine Adapted for Family and More Advanced Students in Catholic Schools and Colleges; by M. Muller

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)