Contending For The Faith---Part 53

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Evolving Thoughts On Adam

To My Readers: Nothing new will be written here. It is a compilation of prior writings on a contentious subject that has risen once more. It deals with the possibility that the body of Adam may have developed and was not directly from "dust" or "slime." To be certain, a Catholic can believe either, as the question was never settled.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

The subject of this post is the origin of the First Man, Adam. Many Traditionalist Catholics (and "conservative" Vatican II sect members) read the Bible literally in every verse, like a Fundamentalist Protestant. This is in reaction to the Modernist exegetes who reduce the Bible to little more than a collection of fairy tales stripped of any and all historical and supernatural character. This causes them to make false assertions, like claiming you must believe the universe was created in exactly six days, and each day lasting exactly 24 hours in duration. The point of contention to be addressed here concerns the denial that a Catholic may believe that the body of the First Man was the result of any type of development. Cries of "evolution," and "blasphemy" will abound. Yet what the Church teaches is not what these new "Catholic fundamentalists" insist you must believe. My purpose here is to show what may (not must) be believed, and what may not. I leave it to the reader to do further research and draw their own conclusion as to what their position will be within the limitations set forth by Holy Mother Church. 

The Teaching of the Church on Biblical Interpretation Regarding Genesis

When it comes to "the plain meaning" of Scripture, those untrained in Catholic exegesis fall into serious errors. According to the eminent theologian Van Noort:

Furthermore, even in those truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium unmistakably inculcates, there is sometimes room for questioning whether all the elements of that teaching are meant to be inculcated with equal force. For example, the following doctrines have always been unmistakably proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium: that God created our first parents by forming their bodies from the slime of the Earth and from the rib of the man; that Adam sinned in tasting the forbidden fruit at the urging of the serpent; that God in punishment for mankind's sins caused a deluge over the entire Earth; that Christ will come one day as the Judge upon the clouds of Heaven, etc.

Do you think that the definitive intention of the Magisterium bears with equal force upon the mode of the bodily formation and on the very fact of creation? With equal force upon upon the external description of the sin of our first parents and upon the sin itself? With equal force upon the universality of the flood and upon the manifestation of Divine Justice? With equal force upon the circumstances of the heavenly spectacle and upon the actual return of the Judge? Even upon a priori grounds an affirmative answer would have little probability to it, seeing that the circumstances described contribute either nothing at all or very little to religion. Actually, if one checks history, he will find at least a number of the circumstances enumerated have been called into doubt by one or another of the Fathers of the Church, or by excellent theologians, without their teaching ever being considered in the slightest heretical...

Actually the immense flowering of Catholic biblical research during the past fifty years has done much to eliminate unnecessary bewilderment on the part of the ordinary Bible reader trying to reconcile his own reading of the "obvious" meaning of Scripture with the findings of modern science. This bewilderment has been caused by an almost total ignorance of what is meant by "scriptural inerrancy," "inspiration," and "revelation." 

It has been further nurtured by a failure to enter sympathetically into the mentality of the ancient Semitic world, a lack of knowledge of ancient languages and history, a total unawareness of literary genres, and a lack of theological insight into what in the Bible pertains to "matters of faith and morals" and what is merely "accidentally inspired." 

Such readers, lacking both biblical and theological training, when coming across ancient cosmological viewpoints, unconsciously reflected by the sacred writers, have taken such viewpoints to be revelation by God on matters of science. Hence, a whole rash of unnecessary problems, concordism and the like. (See Dogmatic Theology, 3:223-225 [1960 English edition]; Emphasis in bold and italics from the original text--bold, italicized, and underlined is mine. N.B. Theologian Van Noort died in 1946. His original Latin edition was published with full ecclesiastical approbation prior to his death). 

In reference to true biblical scholars, Pope Pius XII condemns those who would oppose them simply because they propose a new solution to a difficulty:

Let all other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all, moreover, should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. (See Divino Afflante Spiritu [1943]; Emphasis mine). 

Several Principles of Interpretation

The Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1909, affirmed that Genesis teaches the following facts about creation which are to be accepted by all Catholics. The decree was promulgated by Pope St. Pius X.

...the creation of all things which was accomplished by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the divine command laid upon man to prove his obedience; the transgression of that divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from their primitive state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer. (See Acta Apostolis Sedis, 1 [1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission], pages 567-69).

Day of Rest (Genesis 2:3): Moses employed a period of a week for the Creation to impress upon the Jews the fact that the seventh day of the week was holy and a day of rest. Catholic exegetes [interpreters] are unanimous in rejecting the old theory that God accomplished everything in the space of six twenty-four hour periods. (See theologian Cevetello, Getting to Know the Bible, [1957], pg. 64).

On June 30, 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission (as above) issued a decree answering eight (8) questions about the Book of Genesis. The decree was approved by His Holiness, Pope St. Pius X, Foe of Modernism. The answers to the first three questions upholds the overall historical character of the first three chapters of Genesis, however the last two questions are instructive as to the mind of the Church in Biblical exegesis ("interpretation").  

Question # 7: "Whether, since it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things, and to present the complete order of creation but rather to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adopted to the senses and to man's intelligence, we are strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?"  Answer: In the negative.

Question # 8: "Whether the word yom ('day'), which is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, may be taken in its strict sense as the natural day, or in a less strict sense as signifying a certain space of time; and whether free discussion of this question is permitted to interpreters?"  Answer: In the affirmative.

We see that in the response to question # 7, we are not bound to treat Genesis as some sort of science textbook. Question # 8 clearly shows that we are not bound to believe in six literal days of 24 hours each in the creation account as theologian Cevetello notes. God created the universe in six yom, or time periods, the exact duration of which may be much more than 24 hours. Nor is it necessary to believe in a 6,000 year old Earth. Modern science and Genesis do not contradict each other.

Formation of Eve (Genesis 2:21-22): According to a decree of the [Pontifical] Biblical Commission, the doctrine of the formation of the first Woman from Man must be maintained. However, the exact way in which it took place remains a mystery about which you are able to say nothing; for only that One knows who was responsible for Creation. (See Cevetello, Ibid, pgs. 65-66). 

From the above we can know the Church teaches us as truth:

• the Creation of the world ex nihil (out of nothing) by God at the beginning of space-time
• the special creation of the First Man
• the special creation of the First Woman from the First Man
• the souls of human beings are created immediately ex nihil by God
• the entire human race descends from a single man and a single woman; our First Parents
• our First Parents were in a state of Original Justice and by disobedience brought us Original Sin
• Original Sin is passed down by being a descendant of the First Man (Adam)
• Original Sin came about at the instigation of Satan
• God promised to send a Redeemer Who is the Lord Jesus Christ

Did Pope Pius XII Make a Mistake in Allowing Study on the Possible Evolution of the Human Body of Adam?

Those who think the idea that the body of Adam was formed from pre-existing living matter and developed to receive a soul is heretical, denounce Pope Pius XII for allowing it to be studied, as he wrote in his encyclical Humani Generis of 1950. They usually advance three lines of argumentation:

1. His Holiness was wrong to allow the study of a subject that was settled, much like Montini (Paul VI) was wrong to allow study on the morality of artificial contraception; The Church Fathers were unanimous against the idea of evolution of the body.

2. It was only permitting study, and in no way gives any real credence to the idea of the evolution of the body, which is from godless Darwinian scientists.

3. The idea of evolution of the first human body is of recent development under the influence of Modernism. It would necessitate death existing before the Fall of Adam which is absurd.

On The Contrary:

Response to #1: The subject was NOT settled, the Church never having pronounced on the subject, and there was vigorous debate between theologians. Certain "conservative" members of the Vatican II sect, will twist the decisions on the Pontifical Biblical Commission to make it fit their Protestant interpretation of every word of Genesis being literal.

Some Traditionalists  claim none of the Fathers held that the universe is ancient, so that opinion is not permissible. (Tell that to Pope St. Pius X!). The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in question six of its decision of 1909, says that we should follow the example of the Fathers in making allegorical and prophetical interpretations, after having determined the literal and historical sense. This means that it is perfectly acceptable to make allegorical interpretations, not that we have to follow the Fathers in all of their interpretations. The Commission declared:

...in interpreting those passages of these chapters [of Genesis] that the Fathers and Doctors have interpreted in divers ways without leaving anything definite or certain, it is permitted, subject to the judgment of the Church and the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which each one has prudently found correct. 

There is Magisterial authority that the Fathers do not present a doctrinally-binding, unanimous consensus on the first chapters of Genesis. Some Traditionalists claim  a binding consensus of the Fathers on a plethora of  biblical teachings. Yet, in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Pius XII taught:

...there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church. (para. #47; Emphasis mine).

Pope Pius XII also teaches that the first chapters of Genesis are not among those "few texts" settled by the Fathers of the Church:

Moreover we may rightly and deservedly hope that our time also can contribute something towards the deeper and more accurate interpretation of Sacred Scripture. For not a few things, especially in matters pertaining to history, were scarcely at all or not fully explained by the commentators of past ages, since they lacked almost all the information which was needed for their clearer exposition. How difficult for the Fathers themselves, and indeed well nigh unintelligible, were certain passages is shown, among other things, by the oft-repeated efforts of many of them to explain the first chapters of Genesis;...(Ibid, para. #31; Emphasis mine). 

Therefore, to analogize the study of the development of the first human body to Montini's allowing study on the subject of birth control is fallacious because birth control is settled, but not the mode of the production of Adam's body. 

Response to #2:

We must first distinguish and reject Darwinian evolution ("DE"). DE assumes as its dogma that change must be unguided and without purpose. It rules out a priori the existence of God. It also excludes in principle the idea of a sudden origin of a new kind of living thing through non-living material (slime of the Earth), or through multiple simultaneous mutation, or through large-scale reorganizations of cells, or any other event that could take place only through the presence of a Designer/Creator God. God can choose to work gradually or instantaneously, it is up to Him. Romans 11:34 reminds us: "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counselor?" DE is to be rejected. That is godless, and not the idea that God permitted and guided the development of the first human body. 

The study was permitted because it is an open question. There is no definitive teaching. Pope Pius XII does not endorse the development of the human body, butt neither does he censure it or disapprove of it in any way. Hence, the study of the question. 

Response to #3:

The idea of the development of the human body is by no means recent, as the teachings of the theologians will demonstrate. Does the Church forbid the idea that death of animals and plants only happened after the Fall? No. The argument against bodily development is that there would be death involved with plants and brutes prior to Original Sin. Original Sin brought human death, conceded; that it brought death of plants and animals; denied.

Going back as far as 1847, a Protestant geologist, Edward Hitchcock, wisely saw nothing wrong with positing non-human death before Adam and Eve. He wrote:

Not only geology,but zoology and comparative anatomy, teach us that death among the inferior animals did not result from the Fall of Man, but from the original constitution given them by their Creator. One large class of animals, the carnivores, have organs expressly intended for destroying other classes for food. [Even herbivores] must have destroyed a multitude of insects, of which several species inhabit almost every species of plant, [not to mention the destruction of]  millions of animalcula [microscopic organisms], which abound in many of the fluids which animals drink, and even in the air which they breathe.

In short, death could not be excluded from the world, without an entire change in the constitution and course of nature; and such a change we have no reason to suppose, from the Mosaic [Genesis] account, took place when man fell. (See Hitchcock, Elementary Geology, 8th edition [1847], p. 299ff). 

What Pope Pius XII actually taught:

...the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.  However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church…

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.  For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.  Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. (See Humani Generis para. #36 & 37; Emphasis mine).

The pope did not rule out the creation of the body through evolution and he upheld the necessity of the belief in the immediate creation of the soul by God, as well as the necessary rejection of polygenism.

The Teaching of the Church

The approved theologians are clear that the opinion of a human body that developed and was not created immediately can be (not must be) held:

Theologian Sagues:

But whether with regard to his [Adam] body he is in some way from a brute (but not without the special intervention of God) is an open question, which has not yet been clearly and certainly explained by the investigations of natural science, and which will have to be solved with certainty perhaps in the future with the help of faith and guided by revelation. (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIB, [1955], pg.236; Emphasis in original). 

Theologian Hunter (d. 1896):

Others think it possible that close study of the visible world, which we have called a divinely composed commentary upon the Written Word may possibly give good ground for believing that the apparent meaning of the Mosaic narrative is not the true meaning, and that the body of the first Man was prepared by the operation of natural causes, without any extraordinary action of God. These therefore suspend their judgement, and await further light upon the subject, whether it come to them by a pronouncement of the Church, or by the progress of natural science. (See Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, [1895], pg. 420; Emphasis mine). 

According to theologian Tanquerey (d.1932):

It is de fide that our first parents in regard to body and in regard to soul were created by God: it is certain that their souls were created immediately by God; the opinion, once common, which asserts that even man’s body was formed immediately by God has now fallen into controversy…As long as the spiritual origin of the human soul is correctly preserved, the differences of body between man and ape do not oppose the origin of the human body from animality…

The reasons for and against it[development of the body of Adam], we shall explain.

The obvious meaning of the narrative in Genesis is that Adam's body was formed from the slime of the Earth, that is, from inorganic matter, but not from the body of some brute...

On the contrary, if the nature of the narrative is considered to be popular historic, employing metaphors then in use among the Semites, slime can thus be metaphorically understood to signify only the material or or physico-chemical elements from which Man's body is constituted, whether they still be inanimate and inorganic, or whether they be already ordered and living in an animal organism. In other words, the sacred author intended only to teach this: Man has been created by God of matter and of spirit--without affirming anything concerning the form or the manner of being of this matter. 

This interpretation seems to be entirely in conformity with the principles set forth by Leo XIII in the Encyclical Providentissimus, and repeated by Pius XII in the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, namely: the sacred authors do not give a properly or peculiarly scientific teaching, but "they describe and treat these very things either according to a certain manner of translation, or as the common speech reported them in those times."

The nearly unanimous interpretation of the Fathers and of the ancient Theologians, excepting Origen, Cajetan, and a few others, favors the opinion of the immediate production of the human body.

On the contrary, we must understand that the Fathers and ancient Theologians only repeat the words of Sacred Scripture. A dispute had not arisen regarding the manner of forming the human body; this dispute they had no intentions in any way of settling. Wherefore it is apparent that they do not propose as a doctrine of faith the immediate formation of the body by God from the slime of the Earth in opposition to the mediate formation. (See A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, [1959] English edition, 1:394-398; Emphasis in original).

Theologian Ott says similarly:
The soul of the first man was created immediately by God out of nothing.  As regards the body, its immediate formation from inorganic stuff by God cannot be maintained with certainty.  Fundamentally, the possibility exists that God breathed the spiritual soul into an organic stuff, that is, into an originally animal body…

The Encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII (1950) lays down that the question of the origin of the human body is open to free research by natural scientists and theologians…

Against… the view of certain modern scientists, according to which the various races are derived from several separated stems (polygenism), the Church teaches that the first human beings, Adam and Eve, are the progenitors of the whole human race (monogenism).  The teaching of the unity of the human race is not, indeed, a dogma, but it is a necessary pre-supposition of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pgs. 94-96; Emphasis mine).

Conclusion

It has been demonstrated that the formation of the human body by God through the development of pre-existing living matter may be believed. You need not believe it, but you can. If you want to believe in geocentrism, a 6,000 year-old Earth, a literal Creation of six days lasting twenty-four hours each, and the formation of Adam's body from slime--you certainly can believe that. The problem arises when certain Traditionalists maintain these beliefs are "dogma" which must be believed.  The formation of Adam's body through progressive development  is possible. The approved theologians explain how there is no unanimous consent of the Fathers on this matter, and it was never settled by the Magisterium. Does that mean human "developed from "apes"? No, from an animal form and God intervened so that it would not be directly from a brute beast. 

There are those who would have us believe that the approved theologians taught open heresy in their theological manuals, written under the careful watch of the Magisterium, and they were never censured or corrected in any way. Those who maintain only a literal interpretation  of Genesis is possible, are either culpably ignorant of Church teaching, or fall into the same error as the  "recognize and resist" movement. Who decides what is permitted to be believed? Ultimately, each individual. The individual decides when there is unanimous consent of the Fathers and what Scripture means, not the Magisterium (unless the individual happens to agree). Like Protestants, everyone picks and chooses what to believe by private interpretation. A true Traditionalist realizes that the Church tells us what is permissible to believe, for "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me." (St. Luke 10:16). 

"Hyperpapalism"?

My post last week was on Our Lady of Fatima. I discussed the good reasons we have to believe the Blessed Mother appeared there, chief among them the approbation of Pope Pius XII and his testimony that he witnessed the Miracle of the Sun on four separate occasions. The pontiff understood this as a heavenly confirmation of the dogma of the Assumption he had proclaimed ex cathedra. It is blasphemous to claim an approved apparition is from the devil, and thereby contain something contrary to faith and morals. Furthermore, along with many theologians after the Vatican Council of 1870, which completed Church teaching on the papacy, I don't think you can simply refuse belief in an approved private revelation without some kind of sin, as it entails contempt for the Church.

Many comments were left by Vacancy Pushers (i.e., those who push the time of the vacancy before Pope Pius XII).  The most interesting commentary on my post was in the form of a short article written by one Timothy Fitzpatrick on his website he calls Fitzpatrick Informer. (I find the title more than a bit ironic, since in order to inform someone, you can't be clueless). The article entitled  Sedevacantist blogger invokes hyperpapalism in attempt to dogmatize Fatima, is rife with mischaracterizations of what I wrote. Fitzpatrick is a member of the Vatican II sect and believes Fatima to have been demonic.

The stated purpose of his website is Exposing the Judeo-masonic-Bolshevist conspiracy  which is (once more) ironic insofar as he claims esoteric knowledge of conspiracies yet cannot see Roncalli to Prevost as false popes--no conspiracy needed.

This post will be long, but necessary. First, I will set forth Church teaching on the following points:

• The Magisterium and the Role of Approved Theologians
• Papal Authority

This part will be a compilation of what has been written on my blog before, along with recent objections. 

Part two will be an analysis of Fitzpatrick's article. After reading part one, you hopefully will understand just by reading it, how it goes woefully wrong.

Part One: The Magisterium and the Role of Theologians

What is the Magisterium? According to theologian Parente, it is "the power conferred by Christ upon His Church and strengthened with the charism of infallibility, by which the teaching Church (Ecclesia docens) is constituted as the unique depository and authentic interpreter of divine revelation to be proposed authoritatively to men as the object of faith for their eternal salvation." (See Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, [1951], pg. 170). Therefore, the Church is divinely appointed to teach all necessary truths of faith to people, free from error, in order that they may attain Heaven. "Magisterium" comes from the Latin magister or "teacher." Christ told His Apostles "Go therefore, teach ye all nations..."(St. Matthew 28:19). 

The Magisterium, therefore, is expressed either solemnly or in an ordinary and universal way. This is clear from both Church history and the dogmatic decree of the Vatican Council of 1870.  The former exercise of the Church's teaching authority is called the Solemn or Extraordinary Magisterium and the latter is called the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium ("UOM"). Both are equally infallible. As the Vatican Council of 1870 dogmatically taught:

Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed.(Dei Filius, Emphasis mine). 

The Extraordinary Magisterium is expressed by (1) solemn definitions ex cathedra promulgated by either the Roman Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council approved by the Roman Pontiff; (2) professions of faith decreed by the Church; (3) theological censures contrary to heretical propositions. (See theologian Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, [1959], 1:174). 

The UOM is explained according to theologian Scheeben: The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth may be easily gathered from the principles...nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich. (See A Manual of Catholic Theology 1:89). Pope Pius IX wrote, For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith. (See Tuas Libenter [1863], DZ 1683; Emphasis mine).

Canon 1323 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law further gives proof of the belief of the Church regarding the UOM and imposes on the faithful the obligation of consent. The eminent canonist Augustine writes, The universal and ordinary Magisterium consists of the entire episcopate, according to the constitution and order defined by Christ, i.e., all the bishops of the universal Church, dependently on the Roman Pontiff...What the universal and approved practice and discipline proposes as connected with faith and morals must be believed. And what the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide. (See A Commentary on Canon Law, pg.327). 

Approved theologians therefore, hold great importance in the Church. As theologian Tanquerey teaches, They [theologians] are not to be esteemed lightly no matter what the Protestants, Modernists or other adversaries have alleged against them. (Ibid, pg.180; Emphasis mine). Hence, those who deny the importance of the teachings of approved theologians are Protestants, Modernists and other enemies of the Church, not Catholics.

What, Exactly, Constitutes an Approved Theologian of the Church?

The book by Fr. Reginald-Maria Schultes OP, De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae [Apologetic Lectures on the Catholic Church], 2nd. ed., Paris: Lethielleux 1931, was used by priest-students studying for doctoral degrees at Pontifical Universities. Fr. Schultes himself taught at the world-renowned Angelicum University. A theologian is thus defined by him (and recognized by the Church) as "learned men who after the time of the Church Fathers scientifically taught sacred doctrine in the Church."

 The pre-Vatican II theologians were all clerics (i.e., priests and bishops) who received either a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD) or a Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD). The latter are known as canonists and apply the proper theological principles to the Sacred Canons to ascertain the correct meaning and application of each Canon to each unique situation. Every theologian had to defend and publish a dissertation before the Board of Examiners of a Pontifical University, and it had to bear an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat declaring the work free from all error against faith and morals.  The breadth and depth of theological knowledge enjoyed by theologians was vastly superior to both laymen and the average priest or bishop because of the excellence of their training.

Theologians are said to be "approved" at least insofar as (a) they manifest a certain eminence in doctrine in their writings and (b) display orthodoxy at least to the extent recognized by the Church that their writings are used by the faithful and the theological schools, with the knowledge of (and with no opposition from) the Magisterium of the Church.  (See, e.g.,. theologian Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IB, [1955]). The doctorate may only be dispensed by the Roman Pontiff if the cleric is found by the Vicar of Christ to be highly proficient in both Canon Law and Sacred Theology; such is the case with bishops as well (See 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 331; see also canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, [1952], 1:357-358). 

Theologians demonstrate, and do not determine Catholic doctrine. Theologians do not determine whether some doctrine is de fide or some other theological note, like "certain."  They merely demonstrate, or manifest, or give witness, that a particular doctrine is Church teaching and to what degree. They prove their assertions with convincing arguments, so that when theologians reach an objective, morally unanimous consensus, we must accept such conclusions as belonging to the Faith. According to Schultes (cited above), theologians are witnesses not only to whether a doctrine is defined, but also to its meaning. 

Theologian Fenton's The Concept of Sacred Theology makes clear that Councils, encyclicals, etc., are the raw data the theologian uses for his work. Theology is not simply quoting Church documents, any more than law is not simply quoting the Supreme Court. 

Common Objections Answered:

1. Theologians are not infallible. Theologian Scheeben teaches, Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, 'Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it.' (Scheeben, Ibid, pg. 83; Emphasis mine). 

2. We only need to follow the infallible teachings of the Church. Pope Pius IX was writing a mere letter not addressed to the whole Church in Tuas Libentur. 

The Church has condemned this very idea. Condemned proposition #22 of the Syllabus of Errors, addressed to the whole Church, teaches:

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith. 

Pope Pius XII condemns the idea popes need not be given assent in their teachings that are not ex cathedra: It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their Magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me;" and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. (Humani Generis [1950]).

Proof of Church approbation of approved theologians.

• The many popes who taught material from the works of the theologians

• The founding, directing, and supervision of the various theological schools by the Magisterium

• Since the Council of Trent, theological works were used in seminaries which were supervised by bishops and popes

• Popes have used theologians as consultants and commissioned them to draw up Magisterial documents. Theologian Garrigou-Lagrange drafted the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) condemning modern errors, and theologian Guerard des Lauriers drafted the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus (1950) declaring the dogma of the Assumption; he later became a sedevacantist bishop consecrated by Abp. Thuc

• The writings of various theological schools have been praised and recommended by popes. Likewise, the popes and Roman Congregations have been diligent in censoring theologians who go astray. Consider that Frs. John Courtney Murray, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung, and Josef Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) were all censured in their writings and/or suspected of Modernism. These were the theologians who "hijacked" Vatican II once a false pope (John XXIII) rehabilitated them and gave them prominent roles at Vatican II. They were able to create the man-made Vatican II sect, posing as "Catholicism." 

The Magisterium further supports the theologians in the last two Ecumenical Councils

From the history of the Council of Trent and the Vatican Council of 1870, it is certain that in the theologians were recognized, as a certain criterion of the truth of faith and morals, the unanimous consent of the theologians or of the theological schools.

When the Church has not pronounced a subject closed to debate, the theologians (and theological schools) may disagree.

By argumentation, the theologians refine their arguments and clarify all sides of an issue until there is consensus, or the Magisterium takes sides. This is NOT "proof" that a theological school (or theologians in general) are "in error."

3.  Modernist Theologians Crept Into The Church.

Besides claiming, "theologians are not infallible" many like to intone that the Modernist takeover of the Church "couldn't have just happened" in the 1960s, and will trace it back to the late 19th century. Besides, they argue, bishops and censors couldn't review all theological books, and Imprimaturs were being given out which should not have been. Hence, you cannot cite any approved theologians without them being called "Modernists." All are unreliable and full of error. 

First, let it be noted that not all approved theologians hold the same degree of authority. Doctors of the Church, have all their writings examined in the most minute detail for anything that might go against Church teaching, or even be perceived as such. The pope, exercising his full Apostolic Authority after the long investigation, declares the theologian a Doctor of the Church based on (a) the excellence of his teachings and (b) his unwavering orthodoxy on every point of theology. 

Moreover, the term "author" is used to describe a theologian, and denotes the very best of the best--short of being a Doctor of the Church. These authors have, in addition to all the basic requirements to be a theologian, a full professorship at a Pontifical University, authorship of  a multi-volume manual in dogmatic or moral theology that is considered an outstanding contribution in its field, and  have it used in seminaries and universities throughout the world. The Church uses these authors to form Her priests, and their works are inspected by the hierarchy the world over (including the Roman Pontiff) to check that there are no errors. 

Therefore, while a theologian who just wrote one or two papers for a theology journal might "slip under the radar," there is no chance of an author being a Modernist writer disseminating heresy. While it is true that individual theologians are not infallible, theologians as a corporate body are protected from error, as they are part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM). The extraordinary Magisterium declared the UOM to be equally infallible during the Vatican Council of 1870. This was noted in answer to Objection #1 above. 

4. "You Cite Modernist Theologians to Prove Theologians are not Modernist"

The objection fails miserably. Scheeben was an author of the highest caliber and his works were endorsed and promoted by Pope Pius XI himself:

MATTHIAS JOSEPH SCHEEBEN (1835–1888) was a German priest and scholar whose theology points to the inner coherence of the Christian faith and its supernatural mysteries. Notable in his own time, Scheeben later received praise from Pope Pius XI, who in 1935 encouraged study of the late theologian’s works, reflecting: “The entire theology of Scheeben bears the stamp of a pious ascetical theology.” 

Carl Feckes, Scheeben's successor at the Cologne seminary, named him "the greatest Mariologist of our time." 

(See philpapers.org/rec/KOOOSP-3#:~:text=In%201935%2C%20during%20the%20centenary,much%20praised%2C%20but%20seldom%20read; and See also stpaulcenter.com/emmaus-academic/handbook-of-catholic-dogmatics-3; Emphasis mine)

If Scheeben was a Modernist heretic spreading error, and Pope Pius XI encouraged the study of those works, Pius would be spreading Modernist heresy and  be himself a heretic. According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). 

Moreover, it is not only Scheeben, but any author, who will be known by the Pontiffs and Roman Congregations, and who would be censured by them immediately. 

5. "The Consent of the Theologians Must be Universal and Constant"

Many falsely claim that "universal and constant" means every single Father, Doctor and theologian from the beginning of the Church must have taught a doctrine and if even one dissents or just omits to mention it, then it is not "universal and constant." They frequently cite the rule of St. Vincent Lerins to believe what was taught "everywhere, always, by all." This has been abused by the R&R especially to mean something other than what St. Vincent actually taught. It is wrongly defined as meaning something must be taught everywhere throughout the Catholic world and in time.

The great Cardinal Franzelin, a contemporary of the Vatican Council of 1870, gives the explanation  that universality simply means the consent of the Church at this present time. Only when the present universality of a doctrine cannot be confirmed is it ever necessary to appeal to antiquity. Moreover, the appeal to antiquity is not an attempt to measure whether a particular belief was held always, but rather if it was ever held universally at any point. Either universality or antiquity by itself suffices.   (See On Divine Tradition by Franzelin). 

6. "Four Church doctors, St. Bernard, St. Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas Aquinas and others denied The Immaculate Conception. How could this be? They were theological giants. The teaching was biblical and already true. If they are the Magisterium as you claim, how could they be wrong?"

If this person thinks that Catholics in the second century were celebrating the Immaculate Conception as they do today, he is sorely mistaken. Pope Pius IX didn't just wake up on the morning of December 8, 1854 and decide to declare the Immaculate Conception a dogma. 

As theologian Scheeben explains, expounding on St. Augustine, a dogma may pass through three stages, (1) implicit belief; (2) controversy; (3) explicit definition. 

Thus in the early Church, the validity of heretical baptism was admitted in practice. When the question was formally proposed, there were arguments on both sides and the most orthodox theologians disagreed. Finally, after much deliberation guided by the Magisterium, final judgement was passed and the matter settled for all time. The same holds true for the Immaculate Conception and many other dogmas.(See Scheeben, Ibid, 1:06).  

7. "I've noticed how you put high importance on listening to the theologians. I've even read your article on it. If we are to go by the theologians, then why don't you follow any of them prior to Vatican II when they say that bishops and priests have to have jurisdiction in order to give out sacraments?" 

Jurisdiction is needed for Marriage and Penance. What did the Catholic Japanese do when they had no priest to marry them? They married using layman, which can be done. As for Penance, on July 22, the Sacred Penitentiary responded to the following question " May a professor of sacred theology safely hold and teach the opinions that Blessed Alphonsus Liguori teaches in his moral theology?"

The answer, solemnly approved by Pope Gregory XVI was "In the affirmative, yet those who follow the opinions handed down by other approved authors should not be considered blameworthy." 

St. Alphonsus teaches: Is any priest able to absolve from any sins and censures, not only at the point of death, but also in danger of death? This is denied by [various names] but more truly and more commonly affirmed by...The reason for this is that in this matter, the danger in taken for the point, as is clear from...For in such a case, anyone in mortal sin is bound to confess in the same way as if he were at the point of death. This is accepted by...provided that such a danger be so grave that it can scarcely be distinguished with certainty from the point: but, more immediately, it seems to be sufficient that there be prudent fear that death will arise in the danger. Now such a danger is considered to be present in a battle, in a long sea voyage, in a difficult delivery, in a dangerous disease, and similar cases...The same is true of one who is in probable danger of falling into insanity (amentia)...and the same of those who are captives among infidels with small hope of liberty. For it is believed that they will have no other priests in the future.(See Theologia Moralis, Bk.6, no. 561, Q.2) 

Therefore, we are in an analogous situation where we can die without Penance. Hence, jurisdiction is supplied. As to the other "Home Alone" arguments, it's too long for an already long post. 

Hyperpapalism=Ultramontanism=Real Catholicism

What Fitzpatrick deems "hyperpapalism" is really called Ultramontanism. What is that? According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: A term used to denote integral and active Catholicism, because it recognizes as its spiritual head the pope, who, for the greater part of Europe, is a dweller beyond the mountains (ultra montes), that is, beyond the Alps...This name of Ultramontane the Gallicans applied to the supporters of the Roman doctrines--whether that of the monarchical character of the pope in the government of the Church or of the infallible pontifical magisterium...For Catholics it would be superfluous to ask whether Ultramontanism and Catholicism are the same thing: assuredly, those who combat Ultramontanis are in fact combating Catholicism, even when they disclaim the desire to oppose it. (Emphasis mine). 

The caricature made of the papal monarchy is that "everything the pope says is infallible" and "he can't make any errors." The problem that comes from this mindset is that it artificially and erroneously constrains the very Teaching Authority of the Church into a false dichotomy of “infallible” vs “not infallible." Hence,“if it’s not infallible, then it can be contradicted or changed later on down the line.”

First of all, what is “infallibility”? Per the Catholic Encyclopedia, infallibility is in general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.” Furthermore, being distinguished from both Divine Inspiration and Divine Revelation, infallibility “means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error; that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly; and finally that the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached. 

Normally, infallibility is discussed with regards to ex cathedra pronouncements by the Roman Pontiff on matters of faith and morals, definitive decrees from Ecumenical Councils, and the doctrinal teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church. However, given the vast quantity of decisions, letters, and judgments promulgated by Catholic bishops throughout the ages, there is much which does not possess the character of infallibility. Does this then mean that that which is not infallible can then be ignored or discarded?

On the contrary, there is a level of assent which Catholics are obliged with regards to various decisions made by lawful authority. A brief selection of references follows (bold is emphasis added):

1. Having now inquired into the obligations of Catholics in regard to infallible pronouncements of the Church, there remains to be considered a third class of authoritative decisions which also have a binding force upon the faithful. The Church does not in all her pronouncements intend to exercise in full her supreme prerogative of infallibility. The reason for this we may suppose to be a merciful regard for human weakness, and a desire to give erring souls every opportunity of retraction before the final definitive sentence goes forth which would cast them out of the fold if they remained obdurate.

 Hence she frequently utters, in the exercise of her authority to teach and govern Christ’s flock, words of warning, exhortation or direction, in virtue not of her infallibility, but of her ordinary ecclesiastical authority. When she thus speaks, it is without doubt the duty of Catholics to listen and to submit their judgment to that of their pastors. This assent is one of religious obedience rather than of faith, though. It does pertain, in a certain degree, to the latter virtue…After all, when the Church speaks, even when she does not speak with all the weight of her infallible utterance, she does invariably give us safe guidance; for, though the speculative truth or falsity of some matter which she treats in this particular way may be, for a time, a matter of question, there can be no question at all that a Catholic is practically secure in listening to the voice of those whom God has set as bishops and pastors to rule the Church." (Source: Fr. Hughes, Henry George. (1906). Essentials and Non-Essentials of the Catholic Religion. . pgs. 26-27, 31. Italics in original). 

2. In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the apostolic see.

And how fitting it is that this should be so any one can easily perceive. For the things contained in the divine oracles have reference to God in part, and in part to man, and to whatever is necessary for the attainment of his eternal salvation. Now, both these, that is to say, what we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the supreme Pontiff. Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live." (Pope Leo XIII,  Sapientiae Christianae).

3. To formulate and to discuss the criteria by which an infallible utterance may be diagnosed as such is another task for the theologian, and in any case is beyond the scope of this paper. For our purpose it is sufficient to register the fact that much of the authoritative teaching of the Church, whether in the form of Papal encyclicals, decisions, condemnations, replies from Roman Congregations – such as the Holy office – or from the Biblical Commission, is not an exercise of the infallible magisterium. And here once again our cautious believer raises his voice: “Must I believe it?” 

The answer is implicit in the principles already established. We have seen that the source of the obligation to believe is not the infallibility of the Church but her divine commission to teach. Therefore, whether her teaching is guaranteed by infallibility or not, the Church is always the divinely appointed teacher and guardian of revealed truth, and consequently the supreme authority of the Church, even when it does not intervene to make an infallible and definitive decision on matters of faith or morals, has the right, in virtue of the divine commission, to command the obedient assent of the faithful. In the absence of infallibility the assent thus demanded cannot be that of faith, whether Catholic or ecclesiastical; it will be an assent of a lower order proportioned to its ground or motive. But whatever name be given to it – for the present we may call it belief – it is obligatory; obligatory not because the teaching is infallible – it is not – but because it is the teaching of the divinely appointed Church.

 It is the duty of the Church, as Franzelin has pointed out, not only to teach revealed doctrine but also to protect it, and therefore the Holy See “may prescribe as to be followed or proscribe as to be avoided theological opinions or opinions connected with theology, not only with the intention of infallibly deciding the truth by a definitive pronouncement, but also – without any such intention – merely for the purpose of safeguarding the security of Catholic doctrine.” If it is the duty of the Church, even though non-infallibly, to “prescribe or proscribe” doctrines to this end, then it is evidently also the duty of the faithful to accept them or reject them accordingly. Nor is this obligation of submission to the non-infallible utterances of authority satisfied by the so-called silentium obsequiosum. The security of Catholic doctrine, which is the purpose of these decisions, would not be safeguarded if the faithful were free to withhold their assent. It is not enough that they should listen in respectful silence, refraining from open opposition. They are bound in conscience to submit to them, and conscientious submission to a doctrinal decree does not mean only to abstain from publicly rejecting it; it means the submission of one’s own judgment to the more competent judgment of authority. (See Canon Smith, George, Ph.D., D.D. (April 1935) “Must I Believe It?” The Clergy Review, vol. 9. Original article comprised pgs. 296-309. Italics in original). 

4. An astonishingly large number of prominent theologians can be found among those who take no adequate cognizance of the encyclical letters in their treatises on papal infallibility. These men content themselves with an examination of and a theological demonstration for the formula by which the Vatican Council defined the Holy Father’s infallibility. Bishop Joseph Fessler, the Vatican Council’s secretary, used this approach in his reply to the “Old Catholic” Schultes. The famous and highly influential Cardinal Cammillus Mazzella followed the same line, as did Archbishops Richard Downey, Valentine Zubizarreta, and Horace Mazzella, Bishop Michael d’Herbigny, Canon Auguste Leboucher, and Fathers Sylvester Berry, Hugo Hurter, Sylvester Hunter, Bernard Tepe, Raphael Cercia, Basil Prevel, Gabriel Casanova, and Gerard Paris. 

As a group these writers frequently give the impression that they consider only those truths proposed by the Holy Father solemni iudicio as infallibly defined, to the exclusion of those truths which he sets forth ordinario et universali magisterio. Another very imposing group of theologians explicitly list the papal encyclicals, at least in a general way, as non-infallible documents. Bishop Hilarinus Felder, Msgr. Caesar Manzoni, and Fathers Emil Dorsch, Reginald Schultes, Antonio Vellico, Ludwig Koesters, Ludwig Lercher, and Aelred Graham teach thus in their treatises. The same view is set forth by Fr. Mangenot in his excellent article on the encyclicals in the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, by Fr. Lucien Choupin in his outstanding monograph, by Fr. Thomas Pegues in his frequently quoted article in the Revue thomiste on the authority of the encyclicals, and by Canon George Smith in his brilliant study on this subject in the Clergy Review. 

Fr. Jean Vincent Bainvel, along with Choupin and Schultes, incidentally, refers explicitly to the encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII and classifies them as non-infallible, while the article of Pegues was written as an answer to a question sent in to the Revue thomiste about the doctrinal authority of Pope Leo’s encyclicals. Fr. Herman Dieckmann classifies the doctrine contained in papal encyclicals with that of the Roman Congregations. The distinguished theologians who deny the papal encyclicals the status of infallible documents teach, none the less, that the faithful are bound in conscience to accord these letters not only the tribute of respectful silence, but also a definite and sincere internal religious assent. 

To this end many of them, like Fr. De Groot, apply to the encyclicals a teaching with the eminent and brilliant Dominic Palmieri had developed about the Catholic attitude towards non-infallible teaching in the Church. Pegues, in his Revue thomiste article, makes this application with his usual clarity. ‘Hence it follows that the authority of the encyclicals is not at all the same as that of the solemn definition, the one properly so-called. The definition demands an assent without reservation and makes a formal act of faith obligatory. The case of the encyclical’s authority is not the same. This authority (of the papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. 

Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church. Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’

(See Msgr. Fenton, Clifford Joseph, S.T.D., S.T.L., J.C.B. (August 1949) “The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals.” The American Ecclesiastical Review, vol. 121. Original article comprised pgs. 136-150. Italics in original). 

5. In the light of [previously mentioned] Thomistic principles, we can clarify the assent required in the case of Papal pronouncements in matters of belief and opinion. Belief. When we accept a statement on the extrinsic grounds of the authority of him who states it, we make an act of belief. Thus, we believe things taught by the Pope in his Ordinary Magisterium. But this act of belief is by no means an unreasonable, or irrational act. My will does not “do violence” to my reason, and “force” it to accept something against which, on rational grounds, it rebels. This is, I grant, the picture that critics of the Church’s Teaching Authority like to paint, but it is an absurd caricature…When the truth to be believed is presented to us by the Pope, the intellect, lacking intrinsic evidence for the truth itself, nevertheless does have a tremendously powerful and eminently rational extrinsic reason for assent: the authority and doctrinal competence of the Supreme Teacher of Christendom.

 This reason, since it is extrinsic, does not coerce the intellectual assent; it is not a necessitating reason, but it is a sufficient reason; and only on the intellectual judgment that the Papal Teaching Authority is a sufficient reason does the will move the intellect to assent…So far we have been dealing with the assent required for what is set forth by the Pope as a certain truth. Admittedly the truth is not guaranteed by the charisma of infallibility; also, in the case of belief, the certitude is neither metaphysical nor physical. But we do have a high degree of moral certitude of the truth itself. When the Pope, however, calls upon our assent in a matter of opinion, there are other elements to be considered. Opinion. Opinion, of its very nature, does not include certitude of the proposition opined; certitude always involves freedom from any fear of error, but opinion “accipit alterum oppositorum cum formidine alterius.”  It would seem that the assent required in the case of an opinion is more complex than that we give to a proposition set forth as containing a certain truth. Before examining briefly the nature of the psychological act, however, it must be noted that the Sovereign Pontiffs certainly do require a dutiful submission to the Teaching Authority in matters of opinion…

What constitutes, exactly, the “internal religious assent” that we elicit in a matter of opinion? I think it is two-fold. As regards the opinion itself, we do not, of course, have certitude that what the proposition states is true. If we did have that certitude, we would no longer be in the field of opinion, and it is precisely as an opinion that the matter is presented to us. Motivated by the authority and competency of the Holy Father, we hold the matter precisely as an opinion. This is one aspect of the act of assent we make regarding a matter of opinion.

 I believe, however, that there is something more than this required for the integral unconditional internal assent we owe to the Pontifical assent even in the field of opinion. We also assent unconditionally, with no fear of error, to the fact that the opinion the Pope sets forth is well founded and safe, and is the opinion that we as Catholics are to act upon and follow. This two-fold view of the act of assent safeguards both the psychological reality involved and the docility due to the Teaching Authority of the Holy Father. 

There remains just one final word to be said in this section regarding the religious quality of the assent. Even where infallibility is not involved, nevertheless our assent, while not as intimately connected with divine faith as is the “fides mediate divina” we give to pronouncements regarding the secondary objects of infallibility, does ultimately depend upon our faith in the Teaching Authority of the Vicar of Christ on earth. We assent as Catholics; with the humility and docility and whole-heartedness proper to a religious act. We assent not hesitatingly, not grudgingly, but gladly; not as slaves but as men eminently free. For we have seen the Truth, and it is the Truth that makes men free. (See  Fr. Benard, Edmond D. (June 25-27, 1951) “The Doctrinal Value of the Ordinary Teaching of the Holy Father in View of Humani Generis.” Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Convention of the Catholic Theological Society of America. pgs. 94, 96-98. Italics in original). 

The Bottom Line: Hence, even when the full force of infallibility is not invoked in the Magisterial teaching of the Church or the Roman Pontiff (be it solemn or ordinary), there is an obligation to assent externally and internally on the part of Catholics, corresponding to the degree and force of what is being promulgated.

Part II: The Fitzpatrick Disinformer

Now to the article. You should be able to spot the problems. The article can be read in full at https://fitzinfo.net/2026/06/26/sedevacantist-blogger-invokes-hyperpapalism-in-attempt-to-dogmatize-fatima/#respond.

FD is the Disinformer followed by my response below.

FD: What is an “approved” private revelation if it is not dogma and not part of the magisterium? The answer to this question cannot seem to be found among the staunchest advocates of the Fatima apparition, yet they blast this term “approved” as if it signifies a Papal Bull or something even greater. Yet, it doesn’t seem to mean much of anything, other than that the local bishop at Fatima found it “worthy of belief”

Reply: No, it goes beyond just a diocesan bishop.

FD: Hyperpapalism to the rescue! “Fatima was approved by Pope Pius XII himself,” writes sedevacantist blogger Introibo Ad Altare Dei in an article about why all Catholics ought to believe in the Fatima apparition. “To claim that Fatima is from Hell would be an indirect denial of the Indefectibility of the Church–i.e., the Church cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to Her members.”

Reply: I will delve into Indefectibility specifically another day. According to theologians McHugh and Callan: The Church permits but does not exact belief in these [private] revelations. One would not be excused, however, who rejected them through pride or contempt, or without sufficient reason...Similarly, although the Church offers for human faith alone certain particular facts of history, one who rejects them may easily be guilty of contempt or temerity. Such particular facts are...the appearance of the Blessed Virgin at Lourdes in 1858... (See Moral Theology, [1929], 1:277). 

So one can easily be guilty of contempt or temerity for withholding belief in Lourdes. Fatima was investigated by the Church for 13 years before the bishop's approval, and 10 years after that for papal approval. How can one not be guilty to deny Fatima with no pope to answer problems, and setting yourself up years later to second guess the Magisterium? In Timmy Fitz's case, he believes Prevost is pope, yet he is not to be obeyed unless he personally agrees with what he decrees. He decides a lot more than just Fatima. 

FD: Just as sedevacantists need to invoke the over-developed and ultimately erroneous concept of hyperpapalism (generally speaking, the idea that anything a legitimate pope says or does can never be wrong) to make the sedevacantist position true, Introibo has found a clever way of elevating Fatima to some level that the Catholic Church does not allow. Divine revelation has the protection of infallibility, but private revelations do not, no matter how spectacular they may be. However, because of the sedevacantist’s disordered understanding of papal infallibility (defined at the First Vatican Council), they don’t seem to differentiate and, instead, just imply that everything coming from the Holy See is infallible, including declarations on private revelations.

Reply: I have never stated that anything a pope says or does can never be wrong. Nor does the Church teach this, as I've amply demonstrated above. Something need not be infallible to be believed. (See Part One of this post). I've made Fatima "dogma"? Please. It is contemptuous to set oneself over the pope who wrote about Fatima in an encyclical and claimed to have seen the Miracle of the Sun no less than four times. The only thing disordered is Timmy Fitz's reasoning skills (or rather the lack thereof). 

FD: But more concerning about this line of thinking, if a Catholic’s faith hinges on the veracity of a private revelation, the sincerity of their faith is in question. Introibo does not address this glaring problem. 

Reply: I didn't address it because I never claimed a Catholic's faith hinges on a  private revelation. It does hinge on a correct understanding of the papacy, which our brave informer of Jewish-Masonic-Bolshevik conspiracies doesn't get at all.

FD: Introibo goes on to argue his case for Fatima by appealing to the “it’s approved” narrative and that Pius XII could not have erred in any way, yet it’s all irrelevant seeing that private revelations do not have the protection of infallibility. 

Reply: Well, it is approved, and deference to the non-infallible teaching authority of the pope must be respected. Do we trust Timmy Fitz's conspiracy theories or the Vicar of Christ protected by the Holy Ghost? (rhetorical question). 

FD: Perhaps in time, yes, as was the case with the Vatican’s recent ruling against the heretical “co-Redemptrix” push by the SSPX and Trad Incorporated. Trad Inc. concluded that the ruling was yet more evidence of the Church’s apostasy, yet the opposite was the case. The rejection of “co-Redemptrix” was the Church’s indefectibility shining through the darkness that has been increasing around the Church. 

Reply: I laughed out loud when I read that one! 

• Pope Benedict XV, in his Apostolic Letter Inter Sodalicia (March 22, 1918), wrote, "To such extent did she (Mary) suffer and almost die with her suffering and dying Son, and to such extent did she surrender her maternal rights over her Son for man's salvation, and immolated Him, insofar as she could, in order to appease the justice of God, that we may rightly say that she redeemed the human race together with Christ."

•  Pope Pius XI called Our Lady Co-Redemptrix at least six (6) times. In the radio broadcast to the world at the solemn closing of the Jubilee Year which commemorated the Redemption of humanity (April 29, 1935) he prayed, "O Mother of piety and mercy who, when Thy most beloved Son was accomplishing the Redemption of the human race on the altar of the cross, didst stand there both suffering with Him and as a Co-Redemptrix; preserve us we beseech thee, and increase day by day, the precious fruit of His Redemption and of thy compassion."

• Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Ad Coeli Reginam (October 11, 1954) distinguishes Mary's role in the Redemption from her role as Mediatrix of All Grace. 

• On November 26, 1951, the entire Cuban hierarchy petitioned Pope Pius XII for a dogmatic definition of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. An entire nation of bishops felt that it could and should be defined.

If calling Mary Co-Redemptrix goes against dogma, it means Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII were all false popes. According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). According to Timmy Fitz, popes can teach heresy and still be popes. That's the distorted view on the papacy. 

FD: Introibo tries to turn the [heretical---Introibo] Catcheism (sic) on its head by saying that papal encyclicals are infallible and, therefore, because Fatima has been mentioned positively in encyclicals, that means that Fatima, too, is infallible and the faithful are obligated to accept it as true.

Reply: A blatant lie. I never wrote that or implied such. Timmy Fitz needs a reading tutor or a moral compass. Probably both. 

FD: I’ll save it for another article to debate the technical aspects of Fatima, but Introibo’s use of the “miracle of the sun” as proof of its authenticity is desperate, as the event is one of the more dubious aspects of the Fatima narrative. No world observatories or witnesses outside of the region of Fatima reported any abnormalities with the sun on the day the sun supposedly danced over Fatima. Surely, if it were the sun that danced, there would have been witnesses worldwide and the scientific community would have documented the event with its specialized equipment.

Reply: Timmy! Get that reading tutor! Here's what I wrote:

The event could have been supernaturally caused. The event could have been superimposed on the minds of the attendees with physical consequences to accompany it (e.g. wet clothes drying). 

Pope Pius never said he was "looking back in time," but rather that he saw the same phenomena, giving credence to the Miracle of the Sun as supernaturally imposed on the minds of the people chosen by God. It could have been accompanied by physical wonders as well in 1917. This explains why (a few) of the 70,000 allegedly saw nothing, God chose not to reveal the wonder to some for reasons known but to God Himself. Many atheists and skeptics were converted by the Miracle of the Sun.

Got that? Supernaturally imposed on the mind. How could an observatory pick up on such, Timmy Fitz?

FD: I hope that I have demonstrated here that lurking behind at least some of the Fatima allegiance is not necessarily faith in God but an adherence to a distorted understanding of the Church and papal infallibility—the same misunderstanding at the foundation of the sedevacantist schism. If Catholics would only adhere to the immutable deposit of faith, which is permanently sealed, we wouldn’t have this schism and we would rightfully discern the fraud that is Fatima.

Reply: This immediately came to mind re: Timmy Fitz, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:22). 

Conclusion: Why This Post?

Why did I put together this post? In the sixteen years that I have been posting on this blog, I have communicated with all kinds of ersatz "Traditionalists." While the large majority of my readers are good people trying to be loyal to the Church in this age of near universal apostasy, there nevertheless remain those that exemplify what was meant by the prophet Zechariah when he wrote, "Strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered..." In a time of prolonged sedevacantism, people go far astray without a true pope. I have thought quite a bit about the unusual groups that have emerged posing as faithful Traditionalist Catholics in the wake of Vatican II. I have identified the basic groups before, and I am adding a new one at the end of the list.  Despite their claims that they are the true remnant, most wind up placing themselves outside the One True Church. First, the groups:

• Feeneyites/Dimondites: Those who deny Baptism of Blood (BOB) and Baptism of Desire (BOD), the most infamous of whom are the phony "Benedictine" brothers, Fred and Bobby Dimond of New York's Most Holy Family "Monastery." They also condemn Periodic Continence as "birth control," and claim to know who has died and gone to Hell. 

• Vacancy Pushers: This is the term I have coined for those who not only reject the "papacy" of Roncalli (John XXIII)  up to Prevost (Leo XIV), but "push back the date of the vacancy" by denying the authenticity of pre-Vatican II popes. They accomplish this by digging up some obscure quote from an encyclical or some other papal document of a prior pope, twist it out of context, and declare him an "antipope." There are three main groups; those who, like Michael Bizzaro, declare Pope St. Pius X (d. 1914) as the last pope; those who recognize Pope Pius IX (d. 1878) as the last pope; and the followers of cult leader Richard Ibranyi of New Mexico, who have the last pope as being Pope Honorius II (d. 1130 AD!). Now, there are those who have targeted Pope Pius XII in particular, putting the last pope as Pius XI. 

• Recognize and Resistors: Those who recognize all Vatican II "popes" yet feel free to decide when, how, and if they will obey them. (Groups like the Society of St. Pius X [SSPX] and Bp. Williamson's (d. 2025) St. Marcel Initiative, and the notorious false pope-defenders,Robert Siscoe and John Salza). 

• Apparitionists: People who exalt private revelations and apparitions whether approved by the Church (such as Our Lady of Fatima) or not (such as Our Lady of the Roses) over the teaching of the Church. They obsess over the alleged "true meanings" of messages (as if salvation depended on them), or even accept them to the exclusion of authentic Church doctrines in some area(s). The late "Fr." Gruner falls squarely in this category. 

• Home Aloners: Like an ecclesiastical version of the 1990 movie, these poor souls think that you cannot go to any Traditionalist priest, but must remain "home alone" without the Mass or sacraments because no one (according to them) has been properly "sent" by the Church. As a consequence, Traditionalist clergy allegedly have no authority to offer Mass and administer the sacraments. 

• Conclavists: The men and women who believe that, like in the case of David Bawden ("Pope" Michael), you can run a "conclave" with your mommy, daddy, two nice neighbors, and a self-anointed female "theologian" as "electors" on a Kansas farm, thereby producing a "pope." Some Conclavists, like the Palmar de Troya cult, claim "divine intervention," as when Clemente Dominguez said Christ Himself appeared to him in a vision and declared he would become pope upon the death of Montini ("Pope" Paul VI). 

• Science Deniers: My term for those who think that in order to preserve the faith, they must deny modern science. You must believe that the Earth is exactly 6,000 years old, and/or Earth is the center of the universe. They treat these opinions as "dogma." It is the opposite of some atheists who think that to preserve science you must deny God. 

• NEW !Private Revelation Minimizers: My term for those who have the temerity to set themselves up in judgement against the Church and reject approved private revelations as "useless" or worse, "demonic" with no pope to defend the Church's ruling. 

To make matters more confusing, there are more groups, but these are the vast majority out there. Some people are not easy to pigeon-hole because they can fall into more than one group, such as the former Protestant minister, Gerry Matatics, who used to be both a Feeneyite and a Home Aloner, but is now just Home Alone. You could also be a Science-Denier and a Vacancy Pusher, or an Apparitionist and a Conclavist.

So what's causing these pseudo-Traditionalist groups? All of them either do not understand, or willfully reject, the Magisterium of the Church. As a result, they get things seriously wrong, and most place themselves outside the Church. Know the Faith! "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15).