"Resistance and Fidelity to the Church in times of crisis"
Prof. Roberto de Mattei
From a conference given in Florence -
October 2, 2016
1.The infallibility and
indefectibility of the Church
The Church has been through the
gravest crises in the course of Her history: external persecutions like those
which characterized the first three centuries of Her life and since then have
always accompanied Her; internal crises, such as Arianism in the fourth century
and the Great Western Schism. However, the process of the Church’s
“self-demolition” “struck by those who belong to Her” which Paul VI spoke of as
far back as 1968[1], appears to be a crisis
without precedent because of the extent and depth of it.
We say this in a spirit of deep love for the
Papacy, rejecting every form of anti-infallibility, Gallicanism and
conciliarism; in a word, every error that would diminish the role and mission
of the Papacy. We profess with the entire Church, that there is no higher
authority on earth than that of the Pope, since there is no mission or office
more elevated than his. Jesus Christ, in the person of Peter and his successors
conferred to the Roman Pontiff, the mission to be the visible head of the
Church and His Vicar[2]. The
dogmatic constitution Pastor aeternus
of the First Vatican Council defined the dogmas of the Roman Primacy and papal
infallibility[3]. The first asserts that the
Pope has supreme power of jurisdiction, both ordinary and immediate, over individual
Churches, individual pastors and all the faithful. The second dogma teaches
that the Pope is infallible when he speaks “ex
cathedra”, which is to say when in his function as Supreme Pastor, he
defines that a doctrine in matters of faith or morals must be held by the
entire Church.
The authority of the Pope has precise limits however, which cannot be ignored. Javier Hervada in his well-known manual on Constitutional Canon Law, writes: “The power of the pope is not unlimited: it is circumscribed within determined limits. The limits may regard the validity or lawfulness in his exercise of power. The limits regarding validity are given as: a) of the natural law: b) of the positive Divine law; c) of the nature and the ends of the Church”[4].
The authority of the Pope has precise limits however, which cannot be ignored. Javier Hervada in his well-known manual on Constitutional Canon Law, writes: “The power of the pope is not unlimited: it is circumscribed within determined limits. The limits may regard the validity or lawfulness in his exercise of power. The limits regarding validity are given as: a) of the natural law: b) of the positive Divine law; c) of the nature and the ends of the Church”[4].
If
the Pope oversteps these limits he deviates from the Catholic Faith. It is
common doctrine that the Pope as a private doctor, may deviate from the
Catholic Faith, falling into heresy[5]. The hypothesis of a
heretic Pope is treated as [a]“scholion”
in all theological treatises[6].
It should be emphasized that the expression
“private doctor” does not refer to the Supreme Pontiff’s acts of a private
nature, but to his “public” function as supreme Pastor of the Church[7]”. In
his final relatio on the dogma of
infallibility at the First Vatican Council, Monsignor Vincenzo Gasser
(1809-1879), representative of the Deputation of the Faith, stated precisely
that as a “public person” it must be
understood that the Pope is speaking ex
cathedra, with the intention of binding the Church to his teaching[8]. The
theological hypothesis of a heretical Pope does not contradict the dogma of
infallibility, since the infallibility concerns the person of the Pope only
when he acts ex cathedra. Further,
also those who deny that the Pope can fall into heresy admit the possibility
that he can express himself in an erroneous, misleading or scandalous manner.
Furthermore, if the problem of a heretic Pope poses the problem of the loss of
the Pontificate, the presence of a Pope fautor
haeresim[9]
poses equally grave theological problems.
In order to better clarify this question, we
must remember that alongside the dogma of the Roman Primacy and Papal
infallibility, a third exists, not yet defined by the solemn Magisterium, but,
in a certain sense, it is the origin of the previous two: the dogma of the
indefectibility of the Church.
Indefectibility
is the supernatural property of the Church, and thanks to this She will never
disappear, but will arrive at the end of time identical to Herself, with no
change in Her permanent essence, that is, Her dogmas, Rites (the Mass and the
Sacraments), and the Apostolic succession of Her hierarchy. The Augustinian
theologian Martin Jugie (1858-1954), in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia entry dedicated to indefectibility, writes that this is a
truth of the faith clearly contained in Holy Scripture and taught by the
Ordinary Magisterium[10].
Modernism opposed the indefectibility of the Church, and had, and still has,
theological, philosophical evolutionism as its basis[11].
Indefectibility
includes not only the infallibility of the Pope, but of the entire Church. The
Pope is, under certain conditions, infallible, but not indefectible. The
Church, which includes the Pope, bishops and ordinary lay-people, is infallible
and indefectible. Theology differentiates between essential or absolute
infallibility and shared or relative infallibility: the first is God “qui nec falli
nec fallere potest”[12]
; the second is the charisma from God bestowed on His Church.
From
the First Vatican Council onwards the infallibility of the Pope has been
discussed a lot, both affirming or denying it. Little to nothing has been said
about the indefectibility and the infallibility of the Church. Yet, the
combination of papal infallibility and the infallibility of the Church, notes
Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, is conformable to Tradition and was confirmed by
Vatican I: “Definimus Romanum Pontificem... ea
infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam... instructam esse
voluit”[13].
“Two infallibilities which are added
or subtracted from each other are not at stake here, – specifies the Roman
theologian – ; but [it is] the one and the same charisma, which has, in the
Church, in the Pope and in the bishops, collegially considered in communion
with the Pope, its lawful authority. This charisma is expressed in a positive
form, prior to and perhaps more than a negative form. It is at work when the
Magisterium in announcing the Christian truth or settling eventual controversies,
remains faithful to the ‘depositum fidei’
(I Tim. 6, 20; 2 Tim. 1,4) or discovers new implications up until that moment
unexplored”[14].
Theologians
refer to the infallibility of the Church when they speak of an infallibility in docendo and an infallibility in credendo. The Church, in fact, is
made up of a teaching part (docens)
and a taught part (discens). It is
only for the Church docens to teach
revealed truth infallibly, whereas the Church docens receives and conserves this truth. However, alongside the
infallibility in teaching, there is also the infallibility in believing, since
neither the corpus docendi, invested
with the power of teaching the entire Church, nor the universality of the
faithful in believing, can fall into error. If, in fact, the flock of the
faithful, as a whole, could fall into error, believing something to be of
Revelation which is not, the promise of Divine assistance to the Church would
be frustrated. St. Thomas Aquinas refers to the infallibility of the Church as
a whole, when he affirms: “it is impossible that the judgment of the universal
Church is wrong in that which is referred to the faith[15]”.
The
‘Church learning’ in so far as it believes, belongs not only to the faithful,
but also to priests, Bishops and the Pope themselves, since everyone is
required to believe the truths revealed by God – superiors no less than
inferiors. In the Church, there is however, only one infallibility of which all
Her members share in an organic and different way: each one according to their
ecclesial office. Individual Christians can err in matters of faith, even when
they hold the highest ecclesiastical offices, but not the Church as such – She
is always immaculate in Her doctrine.
This infallibility
is expressed in the so-called “sensus
fidelium”[16],
of which the entire people of God enjoy infallibility not only by reflex, but
also pro-actively, as often they anticipate Church definitions, or contribute
in making them clearer: for example, this occurred before the Council of Ephesus
proclaimed the Virgin Mary as Mother of God. St. Cyril[17]
and St. Celestine[18]
attest that the Christian populace already acknowledged belief in the Divine
Maternity as “the faith that the
Universal Church professes”[19].
In the history of the Church, devotion to the Blessed Virgin was the field
whereby the influence of the Holy Spirit on the faithful was manifested with force majeure.
2. The sensus fidei in the
history of the Church
The first author who uses the term “sensus fidei” seems to be Vincent of
Lerins (who died around 445 AD). In his Commonitorium
he proposes as normative, the Faith observed everywhere always and by all,
(quod ubique, quod semper, quodo ab
omnibus creditum est)[20].
The first historical manifestation of the sensus
fidei however, may be regarded as the Arian Crisis in which, according to
the careful reconstruction by Blessed John Henry Newman[21]
(1801-1890), the ‘Church teaching’ appeared often uncertain and lost, but the sensus fidelium preserved the integrity
of the Faith, so much so that St. Hilary was able to say: “Sanctiores sunt aures fideles populi labiis sacerdotum”[22]. Card. Newman writes: “There was a temporary suspense of
the function of the Ecclesia docens.
The body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith. They spoke
variously, once against another; there was nothing, after Nicaea, of firm,
unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years”. During this period, he adds, “the Divine tradition committed to the
infallible Church was proclaimed and maintained far more by the faithful than
by the Episcopate”[23].
All
of the great modern councils have referred to the sensus fidei. The Council of Trent made appeal repeatedly to the
judgment of the entire Church in defending articles in contrast to the Catholic
Faith. Its decree on the Sacrament of the Eucharist (1551), for example,
invokes specifically “the general consensus of the Church” (universum Ecclesiae sensum) [24].
The Dominican Melchior Cano (1509-1560), who took part in the Council of Trent,
in his treatise De locis theologicis,
for the first time treated the sensus
fidelium extensively, defending, against the Protestants, the values
Catholics recognize regarding the power of Tradition in theological argument[25].
Also
the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus
of the First Vatican Council, which defined the Pope’s infallible Magisterium,
presupposed the sensus fidei fidelium.
The original project of the Constitution Supremi
pastoris, which served as the base for Pastor
aeternus, had a chapter on the infallibility of the Church (c. IX)[26].
Nonetheless, when the agenda for the day was discussed with the aim of
addressing the question of pontifical infallibility, the discussion of this
principle was adjourned and never taken up again. In his final relatio, Monsignor Gasser, cites the
example of the Immaculate Conception to show that the Pope deemed consultation
with the Church necessary, before reaching the definition of the dogma. The
research of Father Giovanni Perrone (1794-1876), on the patristic conception of
the sensus fidelium had a strong
influence on Pope Pius IX’s decision to proceed with the definition of the
dogma of the Immaculate Conception[27].
In the apostolic constitution which contains the definition Ineffabilis Deus (1854), Pius IX uses
the language of Perrone to describe the concordant testimony of the bishops and
the faithful[28].
Like
Pius IX, also Pope Pius XII, before defining the dogma of the bodily Assumption
of Mary Most Holy, wanted to consult the bishops of the entire world, who,
besides voicing their opinion, had to testify to the devotion of their faithful[29]. In those years, the sensus fidei, was the object of some
important studies, in particular, those by Franciscan Father Carlo Balić and
the Redemptorist Clement Dillenschneider, the Dominican Claudio Garcia
Extremeno and the Servite Tommaso Maria Bartolomei[30].
Also the Second Vatican Council
dealt with the sensus fidei or communis fidelium sensus. In particular,
Chapter 12 of Lumen Gentium, asserts
in fact: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy
One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by
means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when
‘from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful’ they show universal
agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith
is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the
guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience
to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but
truly the word of God (cf. 1 Ts. 2,
13). Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once
and for all to the saints (cf. Gdc. 3),
penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully to
life”.
The fact that at times, the
progressives have used this passage to contest the ecclesiastical authorities,
doesn’t mean that it is false and that it cannot be understood, like many other
passages from the Council, in conformity with Tradition. It should be noted,
moreover, that in the modern age the doctrine of the sensus fidei, has been explored mainly by great theologians of the
Roman School, such as Father Giovanni Perrone (1794-1876) and Father Matthias
Joseph Scheeben (1836-1888) Cardinals Baptiste Franzelin (1816-1886) and Louis
Billot[31]
(1846-1931). Cardinal Franzelin
in particular, underlines the role of the Holy Spirit in forming and
maintaining the conscientia fidei communis of the Christian
people, and like Melchior Cano, judges the sensus
fidelium, as one of the organs of Tradition, to which it is a faithful echo[32].
I am reminded of Monsignor Gherardini, the latest brilliant exponent of the
Roman School, who gave me a gift in the ‘Eighties of a study dedicated to the sensus fidei, entitled Infalibilidad
del Pueblo de Dios, by Don Jesús Sancho Bielsa, published by the
Faculty of Theology at the University of Navarra[33].
There are other authors belonging to the same Opus Dei school who have given
ample space to the sensus fidei, like
the theologians Fernando Ocàriz and Antonio Blanco[34].
Nonetheless,
throughout history, the sensus fidei
has been made manifest in the minds and hearts of ordinary lay-people before
being written by theologians, as Benedict XVI recalled with these words[35]:
“Important theologians like Duns Scotus enriched what the People of God already
spontaneously believed about the Blessed Virgin and expressed in acts of
devotion, in the arts and in Christian life in general with the specific
contribution of their thought. [...] This is all thanks to that supernatural sensus
fidei, namely, that capacity infused by the Holy Spirit that qualifies us
to embrace the reality of the faith with humility of heart and mind.[...] May
theologians always be ready to listen to this source of faith and retain the
humility and simplicity of children! I mentioned this a few months ago[36]
saying: There have been great scholars, great
experts, great theologians, teachers of faith who have taught us many things. They have gone into the details of
Sacred Scripture, of the history of salvation but have been unable to see the
mystery itself, its central nucleus. [...] The essential has remained hidden!
On the other hand, in our time there have also been ‘little ones’ who have
understood this mystery. Let us think of St Bernadette Soubirous; of St Thérèse of Lisieux,
with her new interpretation of the Bible that is ‘non-scientific’ but goes to
the heart of Sacred Scripture”.
3.The nature of the sensus fidei according to the teaching
of theologians
In
2014, the International Theological Commission, presided by Cardinal Gerhard
Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith, published a study,
entitled The sensus fidei in the life of
the Church, interesting, most of all for its references to St. Thomas
Aquinas[37]. In these pages it is made clear, that
unlike theology, which can be described as a scientia fidei, the sensus
fidei is not a reflexive, conceptual knowledge of the mysteries of the
Faith, but a spontaneous intuition, with which the believer adheres to the true
Faith or refuses what opposes it[38].
It therefore derives from the Faith and is a property[39]
thereof. It is compared to an instinct since it is a type of spontaneous
intuition which comes from the innateness (connaturality) the virtue of faith
establishes between the believer subject and the object of the authentic Faith.
The theologians Ocàriz and Blanco define it as the: “capacity of the believer,
not only to believe what is presented to him by the Church as truth of the
Faith, but also and above all the facility of discerning, as if by instinct,
what is in agreement with the Faith from what is not, and also the facility of
drawing greater in-depth conclusions from the truths taught by the Magisterium,
not by way of theological reasoning, but spontaneously, through a sort of
innate (connatural) knowledge. The virtue of faith (habitus fidei) produces in fact an innateness (connaturality) of
the human spirit with revealed mysteries, so that the supernatural truth
attracts the intellect”[40].
The
doctrine of knowledge per quandam
connaturalitatem is a form of interior intelligence that springs from the
faith as instinctus or lumen fidei: St. Thomas Aquinas
explains it in the Summa Theologiae,
when he asserts that the “rectitude of judgment is twofold: first, on account of perfect use of reason, secondly,
on account of a certain connaturality with the matter about which
one has to judge. Thus, about matters of chastity, a man after inquiring with
his reason forms a right judgement, if he has learnt the science of morals,
while he who has the habit of chastity judges of such matters by a kind of
connaturality”[41].
The reason is that
the virtuous man has a stable disposition (habitus)
in exercising a certain type of behaviour. The chaste man loves instinctively
what is pure and in a likewise immediate manner experiences a repugnance for
what is turbid and impure. This “spiritual
instinct” allows him to discern how to behave in the most difficult
situations and thus resolve in practice, problems which for moralists can
remain abstract. “The habitus of faith –
explains the Angelic Doctor – possesses a capacity whereby, thanks to it, the
believer is prevented from giving assent to what is contrary to the faith, just
as chastity gives protection with regard to whatever is contrary to chastity[42]”.
Thus, in
agreement with the connaturality that comes to him from this habit (habitus), “man adheres to the
truths of the faith and not to the contrary errors, through the light of the
faith infused in him by God”[43].
The supernatural
capacity that the believer has in perceiving, penetrating and applying to his
life the revealed truth that comes from the Holy Spirit. St. Thomas takes as a
starting point the fact that the universal Church is governed by the Holy
Spirit, Who, as Jesus Christ promised “will teach (Her) the entire truth” (John 16, 13)[44].
“Showing
the truth –says the Angelic Doctor – is a property of the Holy Spirit, because
it is love which brings about the revelations of secrets”[45].
This sense of the
faith exists in all believers, including sinners, even if he who is in a state
of Grace has a deeper and more intense insight of the dogmas of faith than he
who is in sin; and among those who are in a state of Grace the insight is
proportionate to the level of sanctity. Such insight in fact is an illumination
that comes from the grace of the faith and the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the
soul, especially those of intellect, knowledge and wisdom[46].
This Christian
sense has nothing whatever to do with the religious sentiment of the modernist
type, condemned in the encyclical Pascendi
by St. Pius X and even less so with that facultas appetendi et affectandi which the encyclical Humani generis by Pius XII[47]
makes mention of. The sensus fidei,
in fact, is not a product of the sensibilities, but of the faith, grace and the
gifts of the Holy Spirit which enlighten the intellect and move the will[48].
The
Holy Spirit Who dwells in the faithful does not remain inactive. He lives in
the soul, like the sun, to illuminate it. The inspirations of the Holy Spirit
are a reality which can accompany the ordinary life of every Christian,
faithful to the action of Grace. The Divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as
Father Arnaldo Maria Lanz S.J. explains, must not be confused with interior
revelations and locutions, which communicate new ideas through an extraordinary
influence, but it is a Divine “instinct” which helps us know and act better
under the influence of God[49]. “Now – writes Father
Balić – this Spirit of the Seven Gifts Who dwells in us, not as in the midst of
ruins, but as in a temple (1 Cor. 3,
16-17; 6, 19) is the Spirit of Pentecost; He is the Spirit of Truth (John 14, 17) whose special mission
consists in revealing to the world the full substance of Christ and all the
wonders the Son of God had kept hidden or had not completely and clearly
revealed”[50].
Thanks to the sensus fidei the
believer perceives the truths preserved in the revealed deposit [of the faith].
Like this, the promise of St. John is fulfilled: “The unction from the Holy
One: that is grace and wisdom from the Holy Ghost” (1 John 2,
20).
4. Sensus fidei,
Magisterium and Tradition
Father
Balić also calls the sensus fidei
“Catholic common sense” or “Christian sense” (sensus christianus)[51]. In philosophy, ordinary
common sense is the intelligence and natural light which men are normally
endowed with: a quality which permits the understanding of the notions of good
and evil, true and false, beauty and ugliness[52].
“Catholic
common sense”, is the supernatural light which the Christian receives at
Baptism and Confirmation. These sacraments infuse us with the capacity to
adhere to the truths of the faith through supernatural instinct, even before
that of theological reasoning.
In the same way
that common sense is measured by the objectivity of the real, the sensus fidei is measured by the
objective rule of the truths of the faith contained in the Church’s Tradition.
The proximate rule of the Faith is the infallible Magisterium of the Church,
which is the task only of those, by Christ’s will, who have the right and the
office to teach: the Apostles and their successors. The mass of the faithful
have no part in this official teaching, and is limited to receiving it. “They
would err, however, – writes Father Balić – those who think that this mass is in a merely passive and
mechanical state in regard to this doctrine. And in fact the faith of the
laity, like the doctrine of the shepherds, is sustained by the influence of the
Holy Spirit, and the faithful by their Christian sense and profession of Faith,
contribute to the exposition, publication, manifestation and testimony of the
Christian truth”[53].
The faithful,
although they have no mission to teach, have the function of preserving and
propagating their faith. The theologians Ocàriz and Blanco write, citing
Cardinal Franzelin: “The infallibility of the ‘sensus fidei’, manifested by the ‘consensus fidelium’ exists even when it refers to a truth not yet
infallibly taught by the Magisterium. In this case the ‘consensus fidelium’ is certain criteria of truth since it is
criterion ‘divinae traditionis’”[54],
sub ductu magisterii, under the
control of the Magisterium. The Magisterium nevertheless is not the source of
Revelation, as opposed to Scripture and Tradition which constitute the “remote
rule” of the faith and of which the Magisterium is nourished. In this sense
Cardinal Franzelin, citing St. Irenaeus, defines Tradition as “immutable rule
of truth”, since it is nothing other than the Church’s integral doctrine which
comes to us from the successors of the Apostles with the assistance of the Holy
Spirit[55].
Cardinal Franzelin
cites St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius and St. Hilary in support of his thesis.
The latter speaks of the “conscience of the common faith”, opposed to the
“impious intelligence” of the heretics[56].
Also St. Augustine defines “the rule of faith” that “faith of which we have
been nourished”[57] and
designates it as an objective truth which is found in the Church, where we have
received it[58].
Cardinal Billot defines Tradition as “the rule of faith anterior to all the
others”, a rule of faith not only remote, but also close and immediate,
depending on the point of view which is being proposed to us[59].
Monsignor Brunero Gherardini offers this definition: “Tradition is the official
transmission on the part of the Church and Her organs which are divinely
instituted, and infallibly assisted by the Holy Spirit, of Divine Revelation in
[the] spatial-temporal dimension”[60].
It should be remembered that the Church is the Mystical Body of which
Christ is the Head, the Holy Ghost the Soul, and all the faithful, from the
Pope down to the last baptized person, are the members. The Church, however, as
a whole should not be confused with the Churchmen that form Her. The Church is
impeccable, infallible, indefectible. The Churchmen, individually taken, are
not, with the exception of the person of the Pope, or a Council gathered under
his name to define solemnly a question of faith and whose task, under the
proper conditions, has the privilege of infallibility. In the absence of the
required conditions, the Pope or a Council can err and those who consider them
always infallible, fall into the error of papolatry (or councilatry) which leads
to wrongfully attributing to the Papacy, or the Church, per se, the
responsibility of many failures, scandals and errors by some popes that have
governed Her[61].
The
Vatican Theological Commission stated that: “Alerted by their sensus fidei, individual believers
may deny assent even to the teaching of legitimate pastors if they do not
recognise in that teaching the voice of Christ, the Good Shepherd[62]”. In fact as the Apostle
John recalls “and the sheep follow him (the Good Shepherd) because they know
his voice. But a stranger they follow not, but fly from him, because they know
not the voice of strangers” (John 10,
4-5).
For St.
Thomas Aquinas, even if a believer lacks theological competence, he can and
actually must resist in virtue of his sensus
fidei his bishop, if the latter is preaching heterodox things[63]. Again St. Thomas teaches
that in extreme cases it is licit and actually right and proper to resist
publically even a papal decision, as St. Paul resisted St. Peter to his face “Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on
account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith, and, as the
gloss of Augustine says, ‘Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time
they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to
be reproved by their subjects’ (Gal. 2,
14)”[64].
The sensus fidei can induce
the faithful, in some cases, to refuse their assent to some ecclesiastical
documents and place themselves, before the supreme authority, in a situation of
resistance and apparent disobedience. The disobedience is only apparent since
in these cases of legitimate resistance the evangelical principle that one must
obey God rather than men prevails (Acts 5,
29)[65].
Legitimate
“disobedience” to an order unjust in itself, in nature of faith and morals, can
be induced – in particular cases – even to publically resisting the Supreme
Pontiff. Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, in a study dedicated to the Public Resistance to the Decisions of the
Ecclesiastical Authority[66], demonstrated this very
well, by citing quotations from the saints, doctors of the Church, illustrious
theologians and canon lawyers.
The
Code of Canon Law actually in vigour, from canon 208 to canon 223, under the
title De omnium christifidelium
obligationibus et iuribus outlines the common status to all the faithful
and ascribes to the laity the responsibility of intervening in the problems of
the Church. In canon 212 it says that the faithful “According to the knowledge, competence,
and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty
to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the
good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian
faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with
reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the
dignity of persons”.
5.
Rules to discern and foster the sensus
fidei
What is the criteria to discern and
foster the authentic sensus fidei? We
have said many times that the sensus
fidei is in no way a subjective sentiment, it is not the free examination
of the Protestants, it is not a charismatic experience. It is a supernatural
instinct rooted in the objective faith of the Church expressed by Her
Magisterium and Tradition.
The
Magisterium can be understood in two senses: as an act of the ecclesiastical
authority which teaches a truth (subjective Magisterium) or as an object
believed, a set of truths which are taught (objective Magisterium). In the
first case the Magisterium is a function exercised by the ecclesiastical
authority to teach revealed Truths, in the second case it is an objective
deposit of truth which coincides with Tradition.
The sensus fidei plays a decisive role
during times of crisis in which an evident contradiction between the subjective
Magisterium and the objective one is created, between the authorities that
teach and the truths of the faith they must guard and transmit. The sensus fidei induces the believer to
reject any ambiguity and falsification of the truth, leaning on the immutable
Tradition of the Church, which does not oppose the Magisterium, but includes
it.
The
ultimate rule of the faith is not the contemporary ‘living’ Magisterium, in
what it contains as non-defining, but Tradition, or rather the objective and
perennial Magisterium, which constitutes, along with Holy Scripture, one of the
two sources of the Word of God. Ordinarily the Magisterium is the proximate
rule of faith, inasmuch as it transmits and applies infallible truths contained
in the deposit of Revelation, but in the case of a contrast between the
novelties proposed by the subjective or “living” Magisterium and Tradition, the
primacy can only be given to Tradition, for one simple motive: Tradition, which
is the “living” Magisterium in its universality and continuity, is in itself
infallible, whereas the so-called “living” Magisterium, meant as the current
predication by the ecclesiastical hierarchy, is only so in determinate
conditions. Tradition, in fact is always divinely assisted; the Magisterium is
so only when it is expressed in an extraordinary way, or when, in ordinary
form, it teaches with continuity over time, a truth of faith and morals. The
fact that the ordinary Magisterium cannot constantly teach a truth contrary to
the faith, does not exclude that this same Magisterium may fall per accidens into error, when the
teaching is circumscribed in space and time and is not expressed in an
extraordinary manner[67].
This
does not mean in any way that the dogmatic truth must be the result of the
sentiment of lay-people and that nothing can be defined without first hearing
the opinion of the universal Church, as if the Magisterium was simply a
revealer of the faith of the people, quasi-regulated by them in its magisterial
function[68].
It means, however, as Padre Garcia Extremeno asserts, that the Magisterium
cannot propose anything infallibly to the Church, if it is not contained in Tradition,
which is the supreme regula fidei of
the Church[69].
Tradition
is maintained and transmitted by the Church, not only through the Magisterium,
but through all the faithful, “from the bishops down to the laity”[70], as the famous formula by
St. Augustine, cited in Lumen Gentium no. 12 expresses. The doctor from Hippo
makes an appeal in particular to “the people of the faith”[71], who do not exercise a
Magisterium, but on the basis of their sensus
fidei guarantee the continuity of the transmission of a truth.
It
is evident from what we have said that the sensus
fidei, like the act of faith for that matter, has a rational foundation.
When the sensus fidei points out a
contrast between some expressions of the living Magisterium and the Tradition
of the Church, its foundation is not the theological competence of the
believer, but the good use of logic, illuminated by grace. In this sense, the
principle of non-contradiction constitutes a fundamental criteria of
verification of the act of faith as is the case in every intellectual act[72].
Everything that appears irrational and contradictory repels the sensus fidei. The faith is based on
reason since the act of faith, by its very nature, is an act of the
intellectual faculties. “The noblest act of the intellect that a man can make
in this mortal life, is most certainly the act of faith”, observes Padre
Christian Pesch[73]
(1835-1925), who explains that the act of faith cannot be freed from the
intellect, by replacing the essence of the faith with an irrational abandonment
to God, in the Lutheran manner. He who denies the evidence of reason falls into
Fideism, which has nothing whatever to do with the true faith.
Also the adhesion
of the conscience to the principles of faith or morals is always rational. The
conscience is in fact the judgement of the practical intellect which, grounded
in the light of the prime rational principles, evaluates the morality of our
acts in their concrete singularity[74].
Our conscience does not have its objective rule in the person of the Pope or
bishops, but in the Divine and natural law, which the supreme authorities of
the Church have the task of transmitting and defending. Therefore, as Cardinal
Newman says “conscience is the first among all the vicars of Christ”[75].
Faced with a proposition that contradicts faith or morals we have the moral
duty to follow our conscience which opposes it. Nobody can be obliged to adhere
to a principle he retains false, nor commit an act that in conscience he
retains unjust.
The faith, which is
illuminated by grace, nurtures moreover the interior life of the believer.
Without an interior life one does not obtain the help that comes from grace,
which has its only source in Jesus Christ. The Pope, the Vicar of Christ, but
not His successor, is not in himself a source of divine grace. Regarding this
Father Roger Calmel writes: “It is necessary that our interior life be directed
not to the Pope, but to Jesus Christ. Our interior life, which evidently
includes the truths of Revelation about the Pope, must be directed purely to
the High Priest, Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ in order to triumph over the
scandals that come to the Church from the Pope”[76].
God
acts in history as exemplary cause of the universe, in His own attribute of Divine
Wisdom. The sensus fidei is nurtured
also in this exemplarity, by imitating the models the history of the Church has
offered us. The first and most excellent imitation is Jesus Christ, Wisdom
Incarnate, above all in the Agony in Gethsemane; imitation afterwards, of the
Blessed Virgin, above all on Holy Saturday, when Her faith summed up that of
the Church: “apostolis fugientibus, in
Passione Domini fides Ecclesiae in beatissima Virgine sola remansit”[77];
the imitation of the Saints like St. Athanasius, St. Bruno of Segni, St. Peter
Damien, St. Brigit, St Catherine, St. Louis Maria Grignion de Monfort, who were
illuminated by the Holy Spirit during dramatic times in Church history The
Saints, writes St. Bernard of Clairvaux, appear on earth to be [our] models and
are taken to heaven to be our patrons[78].
And today more than ever we need models and patrons.
The sensus fidei in the end, has to be
transformed into that confidence which, as Father de Saint-Laurent, citing St.
Thomas, states, represents the summit of the two theological virtues of faith
and hope[79].
The problems we are faced with, like the presence of heresies in pontifical
documents and the hypothesis of a heretic Pope, are of enormous importance. We
do not claim to resolve them at a conference, in an article, in a book or a
conversation. But neither can we recoil from the evidence of the facts. The
questions of a heretic Pope and heretical magisterial documents can give rise
to distress of a psychological more than a theological order, when it passes
from the abstract level to the concrete one. At times we are terrified when
faced with the consequences that can open up in the life of the Church as well
as each one of us, at the idea of a Pope a
fide devius. But denying the evidence for fear of the consequences, would
be a lack of confidence in Divine Providence which will allow us to resolve
these problems one moment at a time, by abandoning ourselves to the action of
the Holy Spirit in our souls.
Sufficit diei malitia sua: sufficient for the day is the evil thereof (Mt 6, 34). We needn’t expect to resolve
tomorrow’s problems today without the grace that tomorrow brings. All of the
Saints lived in this spirit of abandonment, fulfilling the Divine Will in the
way it was made manifest [to them] moment by moment, without allowing
themselves to worry about the future. “Their secret – writes Father Garrigou-Lagrange
– was living moment by moment what the Divine action wanted to make of them”[80].
It
will be the Blessed Virgin Mary, the destroyer of all heresies, Who will show
us the way to continue professing the true faith and resist evil actively in
ways that the situation will impose [on us]. We are not infallible and the Pope
is, only under determined conditions. But the Divine Promise is infallible: “Ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad
consummationem saeculi” (Mt 28,
20). “Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world”.
This is the source of our unshakeable confidence.
[Translation: Rorate Contributor Francesca Romana]
[1] Paul VI,
Discourse to Lombard Seminary in Rome,
December 7th 1968, in Insegnamenti,
vol. VI (1968), pp. 1188-1189.
[2] Cf. my synthesis Il
Vicario di Cristo. Il Papato tra normalità ed eccezione, Fede e Cultura,
Verona 2012.
[3] Vatican
Council I, Sess. IV, Denz-H, nn. 3059-3075.
[4] Javier Hervada, Diritto costituzionale canonico, Giuffré, Rome 1989, p. 273.
[5] See the recent studies of Arnaldo
Xavier Vidigal da Silveira, Ipotesi
teologica di un Papa eretico, Solfanelli, Chieti 2016; Robert Siscoe-John Salza, True or False Pope? Refusing
Sedevcantism and Other Modern Errors, Stas Editions, Winona (Minnesota) 2015.
[6] Cf. for example Card. charles journet, L’Eglise du Verbe incarné, Desclée de
Brouwer, Paris 1941, I, p 626 and II, pp. 839-841.
[7] Umberto Betti,
The Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus of the First Vatican Council Pastor
Aeternus, Pontificio Ateneo
Antoniano, Rome 1961, pp. 644-646.
[8] “Pontifex dicitur infallibilis cum loquitur ex cathedra…scilicet
quando.,. primo non tanquam doctor privatus…aliquid decernit, sed docet supremi
omnium christianorum pastori set doctoris munere fungens” (Giovanni Domenico Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima
Collectio, by Louis Petit e Jean-Baptiste Martin,
Paris-Arnhem-Leipzig 1901-1927 (53 voll.), vol. 52, col. 1225 C.) The words we
will find again in the dogmatic definition: “cum ex cathedra loquitur, id est cum omnium christianorum pastoris et
doctoris munere fungens”.
[9] On the notes of doctrinal
censure inferior to heresy, cf. S Antonio
Piolanti, Pietro Parente, Dizionario
di teologia dogmatica, Studium, Rome 1943, pp. 45-46; Lucien Choupin, Valeurs des décisions doctrinales et
disciplinaires du Saint-Siège, Beauchesne, Paris 1913; H. Quilliet, Censures doctrinales, in
Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, II, coll. 2101-2113; Marino
Mosconi, Magistero autentico non
infallibile e protezione penale, Edizioni Glossa, Milan-Rome 1996.
[10] Martin Jugie
a.a., Indefettibilità, in Enciclopedia Cattolica, Città
del Vaticano 1951, vol. VI, coll.
1792-1794. Father Jugie records that the First Vatican Council had prepared a
definition schema regarding this.
[11] “The decree Lamentabilis
explicitly condemns it in proposition n. 53 Constitutio
organica Eccle siae non est immutabilis; sed societas christiana perpetuae evolutioni,
aeque societas humana, est obnoxia”, Denz-H, n. 3453.
[12] Conc. Vatic. I, Sess. III Constit. Dogm. Dei
Filius, Denz-H, n. 3008.
[13] Conc. Vatic. I, Sess. IV, Constit. Dogm. Pastor
aeternus, cap. IV, Denz-H, n.
3074.
[14] Mons. Brunero Gherardini on
Canonization and Infallibilty, in http://chiesaepostconcilio
glogspot.it/2012/02/mons-brunero-gherardini-su.html.
[15] “Certum
est quod iudicium Ecclesiae universalis errare in his quae ad
fidem pertinent, impossibile est” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Quodlibet, 9, q. 8 a 1).
[16] Theology differentiates
between sensus fidei fidelis to make reference to the
personal attitude of the believer and that sensus
fidei fidelium to make reference to the instinct of faith of the Church
Herself.
[17] St.
Cyril,
Epist. IV to Nestorius in PG, 77,
coll. 47-50;
Epist. II ad Celestinum, in PG, 77,
col. 84.
[18] St. Celestine, Epist. XII ad Cyrillum, in
PG, 77, coll. 92-99.
[19] Ivi, coll. 92-93.
[20] Vincent
of Lerins, Commonitorium, II, 5, PL 64,
149.
[21] John
Henry Newman, The Arians of the IV Century,
Italian tr. Gli Ariani del IV secolo, Jaca Book-Morcelliana, Milan 1981.
[22] St.
Hilary of Poitiers, Contra Arianos, vel auxentium,
n. 6, in PL, n. 10, col. 613.
[23] John
Henry Newman, On consulting the Faithful in
Matters of Doctrine, Geoffrey Chapman, London 1961, pp. 75 and 77.
[24] Conc.
Trid.,
Sessio XIII, 11 October 1551, Decretum de
ss. Eucharestia, Denz –H, n. 1637.
[25]
Melchior Cano, De locis theologicis, edited by juan belda plans, Biblioteca de Autores
Cristianos, Madrid 2006, Book IV, c. 3.
[26] Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et amplissima
collectio, III (51), coll. 542-543.
[27] Giovanni
Perrone, De Immaculato B. V. Maria
Conceptu. An dogmatico decreto definiri possit, disquisitio theologica,
Marini, Rome 1847, pp. 139, 143-145.
[28] Cf. Pius IX, Epist. apost. Infallibilis
Deus, of December 8th, 1854, in Pii IX Acta, 1 (1854), col. 597; Pius
XII, Apostolic Costitution Munificentissimus
Deus of November 1st, 1950, in AAS, 42 (1950), pp. 753-754.
[29] Cf. Pius XII’s Letter Deiparae
Virginis of May 1st, 1946, in AAS 42 (1950), pp. 728 and foll.
[30] Cf. Carlo Balić
o.f.m., Il senso cristiano e il progresso
del dogma, in “Gregorianum”, XXXIII, 1 (1952), pp. 106-134; Clément Dillenschneider, Le sens de la foi et le progrès dogmatique du mystère marial, Pontificia
Academia Mariana Internationalis, Rome 1954; T. M. Bartolomei, L’influsso
del “Senso della Fede” nell’esplicitazione del Dogma dell’Immacolata Concezione
della Beata Vergine degna Madre di Dio, in “Marianum”, 25 (1963), pp. 297
and foll.; Claudio García
Extremeño o.p., El sentido de la fe criterio de tradición,
in “La Ciencia Tomista”, 87 (1960), p. 603 (pp. 569-605).
[31] Walter
Kasper, Die Lehre von der Tradition in der Römischen Schule, Herder, Friburg 1962,
above all pp. 94-102.
[32] Cf. Card. Jean-Baptiste Franzelin, De
divina Traditione et Scriptura (1870), tr. fr. annotated by Abbé J.-M. Gleize, La Tradition, Courrier de Rome, Condé sur Noireau (France) 2009, theses XI and XII, pp.
131-196.
[33] Jesús Sancho
Bielsa, Infalibilidad del pueblo
de Dios. “Sensus fidei” e infalibilidad orgánica de la Iglesia en la
constitución “Lumen Gentium” del Concilio Vaticano II, Universidad de Navarra,
Pamplona 1979. Dario Vitali, Sensus fidelium. Una funzione ecclesiale di
intelligenza della fede (an ecclesial function of intelligence of the faith),
Morcelliana, Brescia 1993; Christoph Ohly,
Sensus fidei fidelium, EOS Verlag,
St. Ottilien 1999; Gerardo Albano,
Il sensus fidelium. La partecipazione del
popolo di Dio alla funzione profetica della Chiesa, Pontificia Facoltà
Teologica dell’Italia Meridionale, Extract from his doctorate dissertation,
Naples 2008.
[34] Fernando
Ocáriz-Antonio Blanco, Rivelazione,
fede e credibilità. Corso di teologia fondamentale, Edizioni Università
della Santa Croce, Rome 2001.
[35] Benedict
XVI, Audience of July 7th 2010, in Insegnamenti, Libreria Editrice Vatican,
Vatican City, vol. VI (2010), pp 30-31.
[36] Benedict
XVI, Homily for the Holy Mass with members of the
International Theological Commission, December 1st 2009, in Insegnamenti, vol. V, 2 (2009), p. 634.
[37] the
international theological commission The sensus fidei
in the life of the Church, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 2014.
[38] Ivi, n. 54.
[39] Ivi, n. 49.
[40] F.
Ocáriz - A. Blanco, Revelation, Faith and Credibilty,
p. 84.
[41] St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, II-IIae, q. 45, a. 2. See also: José
Miguel Pero-Sanz, El conocimiento
por connaturalidad, Eunsa, Pamplona 1964.
[42] St. Thomas
aquinas, Quaestiones disputatae de
veritate, q. 14, a. 10 ad 10.
[43] Id., Summa theologiae, II-IIae, q. 2, a. 3
ad 2.
[44] Id., Summa Theologiae, II-IIae, q. 1, a. 9.
[45] Id., Expositio super Ioannis Evangelium, c. 14, lectio 4.
[46] Tommaso M.
Bartolomei, Natura, realtà, genesi
e valore del “Sensus fidei”, p. 270.
[47] Pius
XII,
Enc. Humani Generis of August 12th,
1950, in AAS 42 (1950), pp. 574-575.
[48] C. Balić,
Il senso cristiano, pp. 113-114.
[49] Arnaldo Maria
Lanz, Ispirazione divina, in Enciclopedia Cattolica, vol. VII, coll.
326-327.
[50] Ivi, p. 110.
[51] C. Balić,
Il senso cristiano, pp. 112-113.
[52] Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange o. p., Le sens commun: la philosophie de l’être et
les formules dogmatiques, Nouvelle Librairie Nationale, Paris 1922 ; mons. Antonio Livi, Filosofoia
del senso commune. Logica della scienza e della fede, Edizioni Leonardo da
Vinci, Rome 2010.
[53] C. Balić,
Il senso cristiano, pp. 125-126.
[54] F. Ocáriz - A.
Blanco, op. cit., p. 85.
[55] Card. Jean-Baptiste Franzelin, La
Tradition, annotated translation of the latin text of 1870 by abbé Jean-Michel Gleize FSPX, “Courrier de
Rome”, n. 184, p. 134.
[56] Ivi, n. 188, p. 136.
[57] St.
Augustine, Commentary on the Gospel of St.
John, Treatise 18 n. 1, in PL, vol. 35, col. 1536.
[58] J. B. Franzelin,
La Tradition, n. 192, p. 138.
[59] Card. Louis Billot s.j., De
Immutabilitate traditionis (1907), french tr. with footnotes of abbé J.-M. Gleize, Tradition et modernisme. De l’immuable tradition, contre la nouvelle hérésie
de l’évolutionnisme, Courrier de Rome, Villegenon 2007, pp. 32, 37.
[60] B. Gherardini,
Quaecumque dixero vobis, Lindau,
Turin 2011, p. 170.
[61] See P. Enrico
Zoffoli, La vera Chiesa di Cristo,
Pro manuscripto, Roma 1990; Id., Chiesa e uomini di Chiesa. Apologetica a
rovescio, Edizioni Segno, Udine 1994; Id.,
Potere e obbedienza nella Chiesa,
Maurizio Minchella Editore, Rome 1996.
[62] The
International theological commission, The
sensus fidei in the life of the Church, n. 63.
[63] St.
Thomas Aquinus, Sup. III Sententiarum, d.
25, q. 2, a. 1, sol. 2, ad 3.
[64] Id., Summa Theologiae, II-III, q. 33, a. 4, ad 2.
[65] See, for example, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira’s manifesto, A política de distensão do Vaticano com os
governos comunistas. Para a TFP: ometir-se ou resistir (in “Catolicismo”,
n. 280 (April 1974), pp. 4-5, published in 57 newspapers of 11 countries; and
the letter sent on 21 November 1983 by Mons. Marcel
Lefebvre
and Antonio de Castro Mayer to
Pope John Paul II regarding some errors in the New Code of Canon Law and the
ceremonies performed on occasion of the five hundredth anniversary of Luther (Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre. Une vie, Clovis, Etampes 2002, pp. 559-560).
[66] A. Xavier da
Silveira, Resistenza pubblica a
delle decisioni dell’autorità ecclesiastica, in Ipotesi teologica di un Papa eretico, cit., pp.141-156. Cf. also Id., Can
Documents of the Magisterium of the Church contain errors?, The American
Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, Spring Grove, Penn.
2015.
[67] R. de Mattei
Apologia della Tradizione, Lindau,
Turin 2011, pp. 146-147.
[68] The decree Lamentabili n. 6 condemns the modernist
proposition according to which “In
definiendis veritatibus ita collqborant discens et docens Ecclesiae, ut docenti
Ecclesiae nihil supersit, nisi communes discentis opinationes sancire” (Denz-H, n. 3406) (“in defining the truth
the ‘Church learning’ and the ‘Church teaching’
collaborate in such a way in defining truths that it only remains for the
‘Church teaching’ to sanction the opinions of the ‘Church learning’”).
[69] C. García Extremeño o.p., El sentido de la fe criterio de fradicio,
p. 602.
[70] St. Augustine,
De Praedestinatione sanctorum, 14,
27, in PL, 44, col. 980.
[71] Id., Contra secundam Iuliani responsionem
imperfectum opus, tr. it. Polemica
con Giuliano, II/1, Città Nuova, Rome 1993, pp. 203-205.
[72] J.-M. Gleize,
Magistère et foi, in “Courrier de
Rome”, n. 344 (2011), p. 3.
[73] P. Cristiano
Pesch s.j., Il dovere della fede,
F. Pustet, Rome 1910, p. 41.
[74] Ramon Garcia de
Haro, La Vita cristiana. Corso di
teologia morale fondamentale, Ares, Milan 1995, pp. 377-378.
[75] J.-H.
Newman,
Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, italian
tr. Paoline, Milan 1999, p. 219.
[76] R. T. Calmel
o.p., Breve apologia della Chiesa
di sempre, italian tr. Edizioni Ichthys, Albano Laziale (Rome) 2007, p.
121.
[77] Carolus Binder,
Thesis, in Passione Domini Fidem
Ecclesiae in Beatissima Virgine sola remansisse, iuxta doctrinam Medi Aevii et
recentioris aetate, in Maria et
Ecclesia. Acta Congressus Mariologici
Lourdes, vol. III, Academia Mariana Internationalis, Rome 1959, pp. 389-487.
[78] St.
Bernard of Chiaravalle, In Natalis S.
Victoris, s. 2, 1 in PL, 183, col. 174, quoted by mons. Antonio Piolanti, Il mistero
della comunione dei santi nella rivelazione e nella teologia, Descléé, Rome
1957, p. 786.
[79] St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-IIae, q. 129,
art. 6 ad 3. Cf. Thomas de Saint Laurent , Il libro della fiducia, Ed. Fiducia, Rome 1991.
[80] Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange o.p., La Providence et la confiance en Dieu, Les Editions Militia,
Montréal 1953, p. 256.
