176 THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW influence which they can have on others. Catholics especially, who believe by divine faith that the priest is Christ's chosen ambassador, fisten to him with special attention and acknowledge his unique ‘authority. They are thus in his power to a degree that must move and arouse the generous zeal of a true priest to do them all the good that he ean, by word and.by work. But to the young people, fhe can be an oracle of the Holy Spirit, gently and kindly helping them to understand and follow that soft and gentle invitation which Crist is whispering in their hearts: “Come, come, follow Me!" Epwan F, Ganescxt, S.J New York, N. ¥. ‘ue Farmenuoon oF St. Josten It is true that there are certain similarities between Joseph's fathet- hood and that of an ordinary human adoptive father. Neither of these two relationships implies physical generation of the child by the parent ‘question; and both relationships imply mutual duties and rights, as well as the acceptance of the son by the father. ‘The discrepancies, however, are far more momentous than these points of agreement, The ‘utatanding difference between a human adoptive father and St. Joseph fe this: an adopted son is a stranger or alien to the marriage of his ‘adoptive parents, or to one of them. He does not possess a naturat tight of inheritance, Yet Jesus was by no means alien to the marriage of Joseph and our Lady. The very purpose of the virginal union 2s ‘Jelermined by God was that it should prepare for our Lord's coming, ‘Should receive Him in its mids, and should rear Him to adult manhood. “ir, Francs L. Flas, SJ, in Joreph and Jesus (MGilwaskee: The Bruce ‘Pablising Comany, 1952), p. 186. INFALLIBILITY IN THE ENCYCLICALS Cardinal Louis Billot was certainly one of the greatest eccle logists of the generation just past. There are many who consider hhim the ablest writer on the treatise de ecclesia since the time of the Vatican Council. Fr. Joachim Salaverr, of the Jesuit faculty of theology in the Pontifical Institute of Comillas in Spain, holds very much the same position in the theological world of the mi twentieth century that Cardinal Billot occupied in that of fifty ‘years ago. In general, the scientific tendencies manifest in Fr, Salaverri’s ‘work are much the same as those that appeared in the writings of his distinguished predecessor. In several instances, the teaching of Fr, Salaverri actually appears as a legitimate and laudable de- velopment of the doctrine set forth in Billo’s volumes on the Church, Yet, on one important and highly practical point, their ‘opinions are diametrically opposed. That point is the statement of the exact doctrinal value of teaching presented explicitly, un- conditionally and directly in papal encyclical letters. ‘Thus it is the contention of Fr. Salaverri that “in doctrinal encyclical letters directed to the entire Catholic world, the doctrine Which is taught assertive et principaiter is rightly ‘proposed by theologians as something which must be held simplicitor as doc- trina catholica’ have retained some of the key Latin terms in this statement by Fr, Salaverri because of their basic importance for any accurate understanding of his teaching, Thus a doctrine which is taught ascertive is obviously something set forth unconditionally, without (qualification. I make an assertion when I state that something is ‘ue, It is not an assertion, not a declaration made assertive, when T say that it would seem that something is true, that there are reasons for holding that itis true, or that itis not safe to hold that it is untrue, In other words, the assertion is the form in which a 1 Sataverth, Tracatus de eeclesia Cis, Lib. 2, cap. 2, er 3, a. 664, i0 the Sacrae Theslogize Suns, edited by the Jesuit professors inthe theo: logial faculties of Spain, Vol. 1, by Salaversi and: Nicolau (2nd edition, Madrid: La Editorial Catlca, 1952), 658 m7178 ‘THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW on nary xo rns este a te fom ey opioatve or eave jue ee ne word “prints” caves a ofld mean 1 ee prnepae in appa eget eter i ee ater anes ited 0 Drogo in one whi he SY gor smthing ft forth dot ofa nd rt this doce tom. Moreoves, othe meaning primary se ay en sateen dain rom te Sed orate ren wh my egal dawn tom that dean a Loring oe, Slevers the imme, certain, cn acing, et fr define frm by the ao de ona in etl acetal Hees is sghty ae ed as sbpliierdactrina ato oae Se er hay ide wo erent dione ol Ee nr pr oe ie aeons ror Son "we cen i Si as sa 2 lie es ea Ter th eS Sy esa iy et Cal ie es ve eee Heh et mp Oe ce 993,» 788 = Salavet, op city 9: 82, 9.784, 00s ety INFALLIBILITY IN THE ENCYCLICALS 179 strict sense of the term, according to the Cardinal, because they do not contain any new dogmatic judgment, He found examples of this latter sort of pontifical doctrinal statement “in very many ceneyclicals of the recent Pontiffs, wherein, exercising their apos- tolie function, they expound Catholic doctrine, but not as issuing definitions, that is, not as bringing in a new doctrinal judgment, but rather as instructing the faithful in those things that are in the preaching of the Church, the column and the foundation of the truth,” He adds, however, that “although it would seem entirely ‘peyond doubt (sullatenus dubitandim) that the Pontifis are in- fallible in documents of this kind which are sent to the universal Church (and certainly with regard to what is said in them directe et per se, a8 has been said in like manner elsewhere), sill we ean- not find in these that locutio ex cathedra which the Vatican Coun- cil has in mind." ‘Objectively, then, it seems clear that what Cardinal Billot means by the teaching presented directe et per se in the papal encyclical letters is completely identical with what Fr. Salaverri describes as brought out assertive et principaliter in these same documents. Cardinal Billot regards it as quite certain that the Sovereign Pon- tiffs act infallibly in proposing such statements. Fr. Salaverti, on the other hand, seems to consider it unquestionable that, pressing these judgments, the Popes are acting authoritatively but not inalibly. It is, I believe, a matter of vital importance that our theologians today should take steps to see which of these two ‘great authors is in the right on this particular subject. ‘The process of investigation should not be overly dificult ‘There are certainly plenty of doctrinal encyclcals available for study, and we have no lack of norms for use in distinguishing the infallible teaching of the Sovereign Ponti from that portion of his doctrinal message which is truly authoritative without being infallible in character. Yet, as far as the encyclical letters and cer~ tain other utterances of the Holy Father’s own ordinary magis- terium are concerned, it s only all too clear that no great corporate ‘effort has yet been made to apply these norms, and to try to see ‘hat is and what is not infallible inthe doctrinal content of these documents. Bits, Tracts de ccesin Chri, sive coninaato theolgiae de Verbo Incarnate (Sis edition, Rome: Gregorian University, 1927), 1,6561g0 THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW ‘Most of the time it would seem that the existence or the Ron” exlatence of infallible teaching in the encyclical letters hs been Grefor as an assumption rather than as a conelusion, ‘Thus, om. SSgenng only the examples ofthe two theologians whom we Have Stready cited in the course of this article, Fr. Salavere Seem Sly eo aaume that what is asserted direct in eneylicn ets sae cnative and now-inalible in character, while Cardinal Bi JB ettemelikesae only to assume that in making these statements the Holy Father exercises his charism of inflibility. Bach pre- tents his opinion on this subject only incidentally. ‘Cardinal Billot states his belief in the course of fi ot he cements inluded by the Vatican Council in its explanation ote oe eathedre pronouncement: Fr. Salaversi, on the thet Pe a fringe his opinion on the subject into his explanation of rane ese ahat “an internal and religious assent of the ming is “hue to the doctrinal decrees of the Holy See which have beso 20 cae tally approved by the Sovereign Ponti” Neither theologian fee anyeheng like an adequate and direct backing for tis own set a the relation of infallible teaching to the encyclical letters Nevertheless, if we examine the pertinent theological Iiterature we teil Sd that there are certain truths and assumptions which we raive oF less tacitly considered as arguments ot as the founds= a or seguments against the existence of infallible teaching in Trey letters. Tt goes withost saying, of course, Hat We the qmeveened herewith the infalibiity or non-infallibiity of are ceents which are made authoritatively only in the encyctien’s aacyen of in some other document ofthe Holy Father's ord sae papiterium. It obvious that, should the Holy Father, ip rary ie encyclical, quote some definition of an ecumenica’ one it or some solemn dogmatic definition proposed by bimmelE itby one of his predecessors inthe Roman Ponta, be fs oie hg ko inflibly true statement. Quite manifestly, a previous o> iar definition ofthe Church Toss nothing ofits infallible char ‘atl ough being quoted in an encyclical letter or im some other ater ance of the Holy Father's ordinary magisterium. The point teams was and remains the question as to whether a statement ed in an eneylical letter, and propose in an authoritative antes in no other document of the Church's megisterium can aepted 2s not only authoritative but infallible im character. INFALLIBILITY IN THE ENCYCLICALS 181 —— Pita dber eter arte] magisterium, and the Holy Father does not exercise his charis 7 of infallible doctrinal decision in the ordinary magisteris = 2) The Holy Father teaches infallibl ne ape i eee doctrinal matters without using his charism of infallibilit rl cn yl ti ‘manif ly certain,” and what is stated only in encyclical letters is ee eat dy a eer eae ee eee ears wy a A ey i ae jing that the encyclicals do not contain statements whi mt be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of eee sep icy cP Si ss foto psy ae cg wn By anf ny ye learly and firmly t it the Holy Father can teach infallit : sedi aswalfan tesla xr, magician sti soe re son which the Vatan Counc devil ins deen of the ia ae Se Se ee a en1g "THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW seraigely eng, agree on this point? They likewise agree, more sane the Holy Father can teach inflibly other than in oe eee declaration? ‘They difer in that Cardinal Bilt in- oan taught explicitly and direct fn eneylial letters de compass of this inflible but aot ex cothedre teaching, wane ie: Salaversi deinitely excludes this material ie Fe ey serio argument that has been alleged against oe Sty of infaliletencing within the Holy Raters orl a asap as ben taken fom the text of the ene aa ers tet. The now-famous twentieth paragraph se eda tas been interpreted in such a way as totale ofthat etme dhe posi finale teaching i the ord i ee agserion, o a least the enya eters Poe Pari ext of this paragraph reads as follows equ pitandam es, ca qlae in nets Liters proponantt Nee eitarag pstalare, cum in is Pontce spreman ages 6 atm pon enrenst, Magra sim oriaro hee Magister pose am valet “ul vos at me ai” (La decent gue eine in nyc Liters propenantar ti 10:16); 9 Pree ad docrzam cxtbliam pertinent, Quest Coane Manzoni, Compendistheolopiae depmatice (ath eden, Tories Coat ere ic Sosy 283 and Bishop Hiarines Bele, elo? Berra ar adamentae 2nd edition, Paderborn, 1925), 1, 266 Lok Boe ee his Intiones tela degmatise Gt eitlan Vics wg Lah pl, sve tnt some Bene call the Holy athe SSG 193, Fe enable mogitriam bis ordinary maginlerom, Hert tae ty approve ofthis designation, Fe, asnond D. Benard of ew of Famand Gener” 2 ore Cae Theolagcl Society of Americ ni Prose Fe al Cvoefon, pp TIO. Anilne Cavate oo ofthe Sith ey Pathe teaches ality okey in ee of 8 cae hols tht et shows& biter simon against theo whe Besa Ponca ete opiion. CL his cay “La witable cnceron to deen te ome te eposiam Bole et wit (Lille: Cats 1948), wp 80 18) pct L655 fs Salavere os city. 6,8, GE Bs Cty Se Candid illot docs not teach this thesis x anes cathedra dfiton be INFALLIBILITY IN THE ENCYCLICALS 183, Soria ar am Soe a junatem eorumdem Pontfcum, questionem Ii 1 thecloges =a ‘The English translation of the Humani generis ued by the NEWC render the St a part of is prngraph oa Nor mas i i a end rg Lt pore Of ill dead cont cece in woking tach Ltrs the Pops tees Sa bree ae In the brilliant paper which he read to the sixth ect a ere ee toa lar eke a oat Edmond D. Benard eae thatthe NCW trl takes ee eee Roig Cente hectare nary Magisterium also may be applic ‘words, “He sa a come ep wg rt Me ere rs nt shen would etaoly appear hat Dr. Beard interprets he text “maps SO ese nt lat Sac dare Pa ran ok Soe bre ae sal etoatay on to gresunpon, ner of ch an aye velo Ta the fot pe the interpretation res ap leer ee teth peragraph in the HTimani generis, the “cam” clause expresses eee belief thatthe word inguishes the “magisteri mm ord narium” of the second sentence from the “sug Magisert po testatem” of the previous sentence. 7 ae This text je found ia The Ameri ATM SA ed Th Amie Been iow (ABR) YONCWC transaton, p10 Benard, of tp. $0, note 22is) THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW ‘it would seem that the grammatical structure ofthe frst sentence andthe mentality of the encyclical itself both militate against the obi that the “cua clause in this eenence is to Be en arene expression ofthe teaching ofthe Holy Father hime. Tis frat sentence i in effect, an order, manifestly forbidding the faith- ful to hold a definite belit. The forbidden tenet i either one of two things, It is simply “the things proposed in eneyticals do not de neh scent of themselves,” or it is the compete statement that wings proposed in encyclical letters do not demand assent of hemeelves beeause the Popes do not employ their supreme doc- ttinal power in these documents.” . TE the “cur” clause had been put between “neque” and um," the first and second words of the opening sentence, de dause would manifestly have been the expression of papal teaching. Then it would have been unmistakably clear that the Hloly Father intended to sty that he does not use the supreme sf his teaching authority in writing encyclical Ieters, But Pre the clause is placed, as it actually has been, at the end of the Whtenee, it ean at Jeast equally well be interpreted, not as an ¢x" fression of Pontifical teaching, but rather 28 a part of the state- Frent which tle encyelical itelf condemns. Tneidentaly, the official Taian translation of the Humani ge- neris, published in the same issue of L’Ossereatore Romano in ‘ihc the Latin text itself frst appeared, supports tis lat inter~ etation, Te renders the word “cu inthe Brat sentence of Prmorieth paragraph of this encyclical with the expression co) retest" ‘The Vaticen translator himseé obviously consideret Pre gue” clause not as an expression of the Holy Father's own teaching, but rather as apart of the statement which the document forbade the faithful to hold. Te must be observed, however, that the Hurmani generis certainly does not mean to condemn, and must not be interpreted as con- ‘fenning, the notion thatthe Popes-do.not exercise thelr supreme eetrinal authority in the encyclical letters, This condemnation seein the statement only as a reason alleged by some Catholics ecg explanetion of thei failure to accept teachings contained in fhe eneyeicls on the authority of the encyclicals themselves, The 12 1/Oserestore Romana for Aug. 21-2, 1980,» 2 INFALLIBILITY IN THE ENCYCLICALS 185 -Humani generis says nothing, one way or another, about the truth or falsity of this statement considered by itself. Tt is impossible to prove either the existence or the non-existence of infallible teathings in the encyclical letters from the text of the Human! generis. Thee heyie serio renton 10 bet hat the word “ae” in the second sentence of-this twentieth paragraph, is not used to 2 the oto of te onary ppl materi eat fom hat ofthe supreme power of the papal teaching authority. In the oficial documents of the Church itself, as well as in the literature of Catholic theology, the ordinary magisterium of the Church and of the Sovereign Ponti ‘mentioned as something distnet from the solemn or extraordinary teaching activity. Tt is at least quite probable that such is the meaning intended here in the text of the Human generis. It is surely as likely that the en cyclical means to say that, in the ordinary magisern as well as in the solemn, the words of Our Lord fin valid application, as it js that this document implies that these words are tr with respect te the ony materia 5 wel with fee othe xe cise of the supreme pontifical doctrinal authority. Thus the twen- Gieth paragraph of the Hani generis does not support a denial of infallible teavhiug in the eneyelieal letters, ‘The second reason commonly alleged agai is r reas ly alleged against the existence of infalible teaching in the papal eneylicals is founded on the two- fold contention tha the Holy Father speaks inflibly only when he issues a definition or declaration ex cathedra and that a state- ‘ment it a papal eneyelical cannot be en ex eathedra pronouncement. ‘Both Cardinal Billot and Fr. Salaverri oppose the first of these statements, Both are convinced that there are infallible doctrinal statements issued by the Holy Father which do not lend themselves to classifcation as ex cathedra judgments, Tt is in line with this conviction that Cardinal Billo was willing to admit the existence of infallible teachings in the papal encyclicals, which he did not consider to be ex cathedra documents. ‘Yet a good number of theol is ‘of theologians hold firmly that there is no such thing as an infallible pontifical statement which is not an fe cathedra pronouncement.!® To me it seems that their position 2 Thus, Leecher, foe sit, Manso, le. it, and Benard, pp. 80 f186 ‘THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW is absolutely correct. Moreover, I do not believe that the Vatinn ‘Council's description of an ex cathedra pronouncement in any way ‘cecludes the possibility of such a statement in an encyclical letter ‘Gein any other act of the Holy Father's ordinary magisterium, “The description ofthe ex eathedra definition is to be found in the Coanci's solemn declaration of the dogma of papal infalibility. “We teach, and we define it to be a divinely revealed dogs, that ‘de Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is) when, exer~ eing his funetion as pastor and teacher ofall Christians, be defines Sag Sopreme apostolic authority a doctrine about faith or morals ea ge held by the universal Charch, enjoys, through the divine assist: ‘.E pramised to im inthe Blessed Pete, that infallibilty with which the aivine Redeemer wished His Church to be equipped in defining Goctrine about faith or morals; and that therefore the definitions of the same Roman Pontiff are ireformable of themselves, and not by reason of the consent of the Cliurch.!* ‘Thus, according to the teaching of the Vatican Council itself, the Holy Father speaks infallbly when he issues a definition = vathedva, and he issues a definition ex cathedra when the following conditions are verified "A) He speaks in his eapacity as the ruler and teacher of all Christians. 'B) He uses his supreme apostolic authority. ) The doctrine on which he is speaking has to do with fith or morals. 1D) He issues a certain and definitive judgment on that teaching. E) He wills that this definitive judgment be acepted as such by the universal Church, “There are many excellent theologians today who tend to believe, with Cardinal Billot and Fr, Salaverri, that the Vatican Councils Ueseription of an utterance ex cathedra applies only to a solemn or extraordinary act-of the Holy-Father’s-magisterium, and who, cre convinced, as a result, that the above description could never ft any teaching set forth in one of the papal encyclicals. Yet even briet examisiation of the various elements which the Vatican Gouneil noted as characteristic of an ex cathedra papal statement DB, 1839. INFALLIBILITY IN THE ENCYCLICALS 197 will, T think, serve to show that there is inherent weakness in this position. (Obviously the first of these conditions is fulfilled in the encyclical letters. These are documents which the Sovereign Pontift sends cout to the episcopate of the Church universal ether directly or indirectly, Most of the encyclicals are, as matter of fact, sent directly to the Catholic episcopate of the entire world, Others, ‘those sent to the episcopate of one country or region, are promptly ‘entered into the Acta of the Holy Father, and are thus indirectly sent, as normative documents, to the faithful of the entire world ‘The same, it should be noted, can be said of those allocutions and other papal instructions, which, though primarily directed to ‘some individual or group of individuals, are then printed in the eta Apostolicae Sedis as directives valid for all of the Church ‘militant, We must not lose sight of the fact that, in the encyclical mers, the Holy Father made it clear that any doctrinal ted in the pontifical Acto must be accepted as norma tive by all theologians This would apply to all decisions made in the course of the Sovereign Pontiff’s ordinary magisterium, ‘The second condition requisite for the issuance of an ex cathedra and infallible pontifical definition may likewise be verified in the Holy Father's encyelical letters and in the other acts uf his oud nary magisterium, This isthe use of the Pope's supreme apostolic doctrinal authority. In itself, the apostolic doctrinal authority is nothing else than the power to issue doctrinal judgments which the followers of Jesus Christ Our Lord are obligated in conscience to accept with a sin- cere, internal, and religious assent. The supreme apostolic doc- tinal authority, which can be exercised only by the Holy Father himself or by the apostolic collagium of which he is the divinely constituted head, s the power to issue an irrevocable and definitive doctrinal judgment on matters of faith or morals, which decision ‘the faithful are bound in conscience to accept with an absolute and fevevocable assent. If that supreme power is exercised within the Field of dogma itself, that is, by declaring that some particular yodsi Summ Pontices fn acs sus de re hatenos eontroversn data opera senestam ferumt, omnibus patet rem ill, secundum mente ac ‘otuntatem eorunadesn Pootifcum qusesGonem liberae inter theologos dscep- {Ronis fam haberi non posse” Pas. 20, ix ABR, CXXI, 389,188 THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW truth has been revealed by God and is to be accepted by all men ‘as a part of God!’s revealed message, then the assent called for by the definition is that of divine faith itself. If, on the other hand, the Holy Father, using this supreme apostolic authority, does not propose his teaching as a dogma, but merely as completely certain, then the faithful are bound to accept his teaching as absolutely certain, They are, in ether case, obliged in conscience to give an ‘unconditional and absolutly irrevocable assent to any proposition defined in this way. Tn other words, when we examine the matter closely, what T have listed as the second of the five conditions requisite for the ‘existence of an ex cathedra pontifical doctrinal decision turns out to be not a distinet condition at all. It is necessarily present when- ever and wherever the other four elements are to be found. When- fever the Holy Father speaks precisely as the spiritual ruler and the supreme authoritative teacher of the universal Church militant, dealing with matters concerning faith or morals, and definitively settling some point hitherto controverted or subject to controversy, jn such a way that the faithful are bound to accept this definitive decision for what it is, then certainly he is using the supreme apos- tolic doctrinal power he has received from the divine Head of the Church, If any of the other four conditions for an ex cathedra utterance should be wanting, then there is definitely no use of the Sovereign Pontif’s supreme apostolic doctrinal power. But, where these other four conditions are verified, the Holy Father is by that very fact speaking ex cathedro, speaking from the Roman chair of Peter, o instruct the flock which Our Lord has entrusted to his care, It would be unthinkable that the Vicar of Christ could speak, in his official capacity to the entire Church militant, on 2 matter of faith or morals, definitively setting a question by a decision whieh Ihe wishes to constitute as irrevocable and which he commands the faithful to accept as irrevocably and absolutely true, without being protected by his charism of doctrinal infallibility. ‘Thus circumstantial solemnity, as such, bas no absolutely neces- sary connection with the infallibility of a pontifical definition, That solemnity, of course, is a good and glorious thing within the Church of God. ‘Those who saw and heard the Holy Father solemnly define the dogma of Our Lady's bodily Assumption into INFALLIBILITY IN THE ENCYCLICALS 189 heaven know from happy experience the spiritual good engendered by an act of this kind. Yet it remains obvious that the visible head of the universal Church militant does not require or depend upon. such solemnities in order that he may speak effectively and infal~ Iibly to the flock for which he is responsible to Christ ‘The third condition can be and is surely verified in the doctrinal cencyclcals, It would be extremely dificult to deny that these deca ‘ments deal with matters of faith or morals. “The fourth condition can be and, it would seem, not infrequently, fs, verified also in the papal encyclical leters. It i, however, a con~ dition which demands very close examination. Tt is, T believe, to be presumed that the Viear of Christ speaks to the faithful in'a way they are able to understand. If he is pro- posing something as morally certain, asa statement which, though auite firm as it is now proposed, may still possibly turn out to be Erroneous, it is to be presimed that he wil, in his very expression of that statement, bring out its ultimately conditional character. If, on the other hand, he makes an absolutely unqualified assertion about some matter that concems faith or morals, it would seem that he should be presumed to be presenting a teaching that is definitive and irrevocable. That, at least, would seem to be the presumption oF line of conduct most consistent with the presenta tion of truth, and with the reception of doctrine in the Catholic Church, Tn other words, if we examine the content and the immediate implications of the Vatican Couneil’s teaching on an ex cathedra or infallible papal definition, it appears that the Council had noth ing to say about the more or less solemn character of the papal document in which a teaching is set down, but had everything to say about the quality of the judgment or decision rendered by the Holy Father in the course of his teaching. What is required for the issuance of an ex cathedra judgment is a pontifical definition, fan absolutely definitive and irrevocable decision on some point ‘which lad hitherto been subject to free discussion among Catholic the absolutely defini must be apparent. Tt is quite clear that one way in which these qualities may be apparent is through the use of the solemn formulae employed in190 THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW dogmatic bulls and constitutions, But it is also clear that. hese Sclemnities need not be employed for every absolutely certain and definitive decision issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Any man who ss teaching, and who is setting forth some doctrine which, though “orally certain,” might still turn out to be incorrect, will present tie teaching for what itis, He certainly will not be in a position to propose such a doctrine in an absolutely unconditional eategort” erPreement, particularly when he is a teacher who is recognized fs competent to propose infalibly true doctrine, ‘The fifth and last condition indicated by the Vatican Councit as requisite for an ex cathedra papal definition is that the Sovereign Pontiff should show that he intends to bind all the faithful to ac~ cept his definitive and irrevocable decision by an absolutely cert SrEF jerevocable assent. There has, it would seem, been @ certain aivount of misleading discussion about this condition, Sometimes the Catholic scholar is led to believe that for every doctrinal state~ thet by the Holy Father, there must be a definite warning or com- raed that this statement is to be accepted with firm and sincere Tnward assent by all the faithful, They are likewise led sometimes to imagine that there could be no such thing as an infalible defi tion by the Holy Father without an explicit and solema aecom- panying warning that this decision is Wo be accepted by ll with fan absolutely unwavering assent. “The fact of the matter is that every doctrine taught by the Holy Father in his capacity as the Viear of Christ must, by the very eon ‘utution of the Church militant of the New Testament, be accepted dy the faithfl for what i is. IC tis an infallible declaration it is te be accepted with an absolutely firm and irrevocable assent. If it je a noninfalible statement, it must be accepted with a firm but conditional mental assent. "Actually there is no such thing as a teaching issued by the Holy ‘father in his capacity as the spiritual ruler and teacher of all the followers of Jesus Christ which is other than authoritative, Our {Lond did not teach in any way other than authoritatively, nor does ‘His Vicar on earth when he teaches in the name and by the author ity of his Master. Every doctrine proposed by the Holy Father to cee ntiee Church militant is, by that very fac, imposed upon all the faithful for their firm and sincere acceptance ‘Hence, we find in an encyclical letter, or, for that matter, in INFALLIBILITY IN THE ENCYCLICALS 191 the ether hand, we find in these same documents some teaching arr Sige the eneycical letters are documents in which he teaches in this me ee ee Forel alee ‘Holy Father to. the Church. fee nei El withthe approval ofthe Sovereign Pontiff himself, Te ; out himself, Te goes without saying that such teachings are not guaranteed by the papal charism192 THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW cof doctrinal infallibilty. The assent due to teachings of this sort is franifesty firm, sincere, internal, and religious in character, Tt is not, however, absolutely irrevocable. ‘We are concerned here, however, with teachings proposed by the Holy Father himself, and not those given to the Church, with his approval, by the varlous agencies of the Roman Curia. Severs) ve apes of the magisterium are commonly cited by theologians se having reference to authoritative tt non-infllible teaching i sued by the Soveregn Pontiff himself. “The letter Tuas libenter, written by Pope Pius TX on Dec. 21, 1863, to the Archbishop of Munich, is often cited as the frst pon tifeal document to deal at any length with the matter of the ordi nary magitterium, Tt does not contain, however, anything like,» 7 teaching onthe existence or non-existence of infallible teach- Sng in the papal encyclical, It warns Catholic scholars that they iret take cognizance of dogmas proposed by the ordinary magis- Tega of the Catholic Church as well as of those defined “by ex- plicit decrees ofthe oecumenical councils or of the Roman Ponts Poi of this See.” Furthermore, it calls attention to the fact that hese scholars are bound in conscience to accept and to reverence aoe scernal decisions proposed by the Pontifical Congregations as seas those "held by the common and constant consent vt Catholics as theological truths, and as conclusions which are £0 CriSin that, although opinions opposed to these points of doctrine cermot be characterized as heretical, they still deserve another theological eensure.”"* “Thus the Tuas libenter in referring to the doctrinal acts of the oly Father speaks only of those which are, in efet, dogmatic defbitions, It takes no cognizance whatsoever of any teaching ceeating trom the Sovereign Pontiff himself, which could be designated as other than infalibly true, “The famous encyelical Quanta cura is likewise quoted from time to time on the matter with which we are concerned, Like the Twas Hbenter, it bas, however, no direct reference to any non-iafalible tesching proposed by the Holy Father himself, The Quante cara SGgorousy condemns the texching that, “without sin and without Tee damage to man's protesion a a Catholic, assent and obedi- 36 DB, wa. 1689 INFALLIBILITY IN THE ENCYCLICALS 198, ee Se Se ear een aeons re eee eo ae ee ee aceon Seen eas pert ue eee ee eee aan ee gre cee oe tary ee Se ape eer ase ere oa eee ere Tacertine Sime Shee ae ee ee ne eee ee Paes ce ee ee ee Se famong the decreta envisioned by the Council in this monitwm, ‘here are cry some which arent preted with the charism Spee ee es eee ‘The matter is simply not discussed in this place. - a oe Bes ere er ee eet ae ee etneg eee! Saas See eee gee aca eal erence 1B, 1698 3B, 1820 "CL Vaca Rts tgirls cna 2nCc van fine lps le sins Cn de Vo La constitution Dei Filius (Paris and Lyons, 1895), I, 335. ‘19§ THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW of activity itself, “it is necessary to hold whatever the Roman Pon tiffs have taught or are going to teach as accepted with firm assent and_to profess these things openly whenever the occasion re auies it." ‘The great Poutff then went on to apply this principle directly to the main points brought out inthe Immortale Dei, What he has said is to be understood “nominatim about the things called the liberties sought in most recent times.” With reference to these, he insisted, “itis necessary for all to stand by the judgment of the ‘Apostolic See, and that all must judge as it has judged (et quod ‘psa sencert, idem sontire singulos).”™* Does, this passage in the Immortale Dei teach that all the doc: tinal points proposed authoritatively in encyclical letters must bee accepted by all Christians, but only as opinions, and not as in- fallibly certain truths? Does it imply that all the doctrines about ‘modern freedom contained in papal documents are presented in such a way as to leave room for the possibilty of error? believe that a careful examination of the passage in question will show definite and manifest evidence that both of these ques- tong must be answered in the negative. We must take cognizance of the fact that the Holy Father has distinguished, not between opinion aud cestitude, but between the ‘realm of intellectual judgment and that of practical activity. There is a definite standard to be followed or observed with reference to all the lessons taught authoritatively by the Holy See. That stand. dard.comes down to the axiom, “Sentire cum Ecclesia.” It is valid the realm of opinion, as well asin that of moral certitude and in’ the field of absolute certitude. The Holy Father's teaching about opinions implies, «fortiori, the same instruction with regard to teachings which are proposed, not as opinions, but as certainties. ‘The Holy Father insists that all the faithful must accept as their ‘own tenets the doctrines whiel are set forth in pontifial documents. ‘The Immortale Dei, then, cannot correctly be interpreted as teaching or as implying that all of the teachings presented in-ve= hicles of the Holy Father’s ordinary magisterium are limited to the realm of opinion. [t would seem, however, that it does clearly imply that some of these teachings are to be classified as opinative ‘pe, 1880, i. INFALLIBILITY IN THE ENCYCLICALS 195 character The Holy Father's letters are clear enough. What he will the faithful to accept sincerely and firmly as an opi js obviously marked as an opinion in its very expression in the very document containing the instruction, Rather obviously, it would seem, the unqualified and absolute statements contained i these documents are not to be accepted as opinions at all, but as really certin judgments, “The Decree Lamenfabili some exitw calls attention tothe fact that the Church can rightly command the faithful to accept its judg- ‘ments and condemnations with an internal assent* The encyclical Humani generis speaks of the necessity of accepting the papal teachings, and states that, once the Holy Father has placed in his official deta some judgment or decision about a matter which has hitherto been controverted, that subject must no longer be considered as open to debate among Catholic theologians: No- where, however, is there the slightest trace in the documents of the Church's magisteriam of any assertion or implication that truths proposed explicitly and without qualification in the eneyeli- cal leters or in other vehicles of the Holy Father's doctrinal ac- tivity are to be accepted by the faithful merely with moral certainty, as teachings which may possibly turn out to be incorrect. ‘There ie, of cours, a highly important body of theological teach ing about doctrines which are presented in the Church's magis- terium as authoritative but not as infallibly true statements. The san who frst developed this portion of sacred theology t0 any great extent was Cardinal Franzelin, The Cardinal, developing the teaching of the great eighteenth-century Jesuit theologian Fran- cesco Zaccaria, distinguished between a veritas infalllis and an inflibts securitas in doctrinal statements emanating from the Roman Ponti. He claimed hat “the man who would deny this distinction between the ultimate definitive judgment of the Pontiff speaking ex cathedra and the other doctrinal provisions and prohi 2 Salveri, oct 674, 702, oppses. the contention of Sebi who Ceri are to be acepted as opinions. He and the authors with whom he grees prefer to calla conditioned but fm aseat by the name of moral oF racial certtade. The text of the Immoriole Det, however, gives some Tricking to the contention of Scifi DB, wn 2007 & 3 Hamani geri oe. et196 THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW bitions would be forced to hold all the edicts of the Holy See which pertain in any way to doctrine indiscriminately as definitions ex cathedra."* ‘As Cardinal Franzelin described it, the authority of doctrinal providence (the source of the infalliblity of security within the CCatholie Church) had reference to doctrines which could or could rot be held safely by the faithful Fr. Salaverri, however, agrees with Palmieri and De Groot in teaching that this truly authorita- fallible doctrinal power of the Holy See can envisage teachings, not merely as safe, but as true and as morally certain” In this, it would seem, he is perfectly eorrect. ‘Yet the unquestionable existence of an auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis should not be allowed to distract our attention from the Central and essential fact that, when the Sovereign Pontiff issues fin absolutely unqualified decision on a matter which has hitherto been a subject of legitimate debate among the theologians of the Catholic Church in an authoritative document addressed directly of indirectly to the universal Church militant, there is no reason to assign this decision merely to the realm of doctrinal providence tr security. An absolutely unqualified decision in such a document falls for an adequate acceptance on the part of the faithful. It is Uliffcult to see how that adequate response could be a conditioned judgment, even though such a judgment might be qualified as prac ‘Geally or morally certain, And, in the doctrinal life of the true ‘Church, an absolutely irrevocable oF unconditioned response i ten- dered only to a teaching given or proposed infllibly, Te does not seem that the statement in the Code of Canon Law ‘can properly be used as an objection against the presence of in- {allie teaching in the papal encyclicals. What the Code declares jg that “nothing is to be understood as declared or defined dog- matically unless this be manifestly certain.”* There is nothing at ail in this statement which could legitimately be taken to imply that manifest certainty of infallible definition is never to be found {in the papal encyelials es Franaelin, Tracttts de diva tration ef sripiwra (Zod eiton, Rome, 1675), pp. 127 & 28k, Franzelin, of. ety 9. 127 ANCE Salaversis op ct, . 67, 9 708. *#Canon 1325, § 3. INFALLIBILITY IN THE ENCYCLICALS 197 Indeed, there is good reason to believe that, in actual practice, Catholic scholars accept the unqualified and authoritative judg- iments or decisions expressed in the encycicals as absolutely true, rather than as merely morally or practically certain. The Mystict Corporis taught the identity of the Catholic Church and the Mysti- cal Body of Christ!” It condemned the doctrine of twofold Church, the one visible and the other invisible Tt taught the repeated the teaching about the Church with the Mystical Body.2? These truths, as a group, have rot been proposed authoritatively other than in the encyclical. Yet, because the practice of our theologians frequently runs ahead of their theorizing, there would be very few teachers in the Catholic ‘Church who would represent these teachings as other than ab- solutely and infllibly true. ‘There is another highly interesting testimony in this direction. Previous articles in this review have called attention to a statement in the Institutiones iuris public ecclesiastii of His Eminence Car- dinal Aledo Ottaviani, Fr. Benard dealt with that statement at some length in his paper, “The Doctrinal Value of the Ordinary q ‘Teaching of the Holy Father in View of Humani generis."* Cardinal Ottaviani, in the second edition of his Insitutiomis, published in 1935, classified the teaching that bishops receive their power of jurisdiction immediately from the Roman Pontif-as ‘= Tamvero ad definindam desribendamque hane_veractmn Christ ‘aia sint pete al eigue dvia ‘adem mmowater myscum Tet Chri Corpus” deta dpocaicse Sd (Aas), SERN, 193 Charo fanestum cam corum erorem doles aque improtaiy econ Ee seta ie wen go the alta ae format if qide—non ie dele open ‘iam loream vocant! dS, REKV, 24 = Tin Heese soem member reps ll amnanerand noo aeertonislvaram rexjrunt verge Sem proSent, age forks comage some pss mere spear, lob ravi sii (Gite ance snes sts aS) KY, 202 Paragraph 27, in ABR, CAXII, § (Nov, 1950), 39 CE Henao sty pp. 1084 and Ret, "The Dota! of Papal Encyeeaig” ABR, CX, 19 £3210 £1 "The Haman Ge Ste Holy Fate's Ortnary Moyer” ABR, CXXY, 61198 THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW “probabitior, immo etiant communis."** In 1943 the encyclical Mystici Corporis appeared, and in it an absolutely unqualified de- scription of episcopal authority as “immediate sibi (episeopis] ab teodem Pontifce Summo impertta."® The third edition of Cardinal Ottaviani’s work, published in 1947, took cognizance of the teach ing set forth in the Mutt Corporis. In this thd edition the thesis ig described as "hucusque considerata probabilior, immo communis, ‘mune autem ut omnino certa ex verbis Summi Pontificis Pit XT1."*" {t goes without saying that a decision which is conditioned, which js only morally or practically certain, whieh admits the possibilty of error, could never be qualified as omnino certs. ‘The attitude manifest in the Institutiones of Cardinal Ottaviani is one which follows the actual instruction of the Holy Father and ‘which faithfully pays attention to the Holy Father’s teaching, Tt is hot an attitude which tends to minimize the unequivocal and un- conditioned statements of Christ’s Vicar, addressed in encyclical fetters to the entire Church militant, by acting on the assumption that such teachings cannot be more than practically certain, oF that they must be subject to the possibility of error. In terms of the dispute we have been considering, itis an attitude towards the doctrinal value of papal encyclicals more in line with the opinion of Cardinal Billot than with that of Fr. Salaverri, Joszen Citron Frxrow The Catholic University of America Weshingtox, D. C. ‘stouavtan, Instttones dure public ecclesasticd (2nd tition, Vatican Gay, 1985), T, 4 38 AAS, XXX, 212. 8 Ottavian, Institutones ity, 1987), 1, a1. rie publi eclesastich (8rd edition, Vatican Answers to Questions LEGACIES FOR MASSES AND THE LAWYER'S DUTY Question 1: Sometimes a Catholic leaves a large amount of money in his will as stipends for Masses to be applied for his soul or the souls of his relatives, without stipulating whether the Masses should be low or sung, or whether the number of Masses is to be ‘determined according to the stipend prescribed for the diocese or according to a more generous amount. In such a case may the priest who receives the legacy celebrate High Masses (at the regu- Tar stipend for such Masses) from at least some of the legacy, oF ‘even presume that the testator intended to manifest special gener- ‘sity, and accordingly take an amount greater than the stipulated rnd for each low Mass? 7 ‘Question 2: Would it not be helpful if Catholic lawyers and law students were instructed to urge those persons whose wills they draw up to be very definite in expressing their intention on the number and the litirgieal form af the Masses they wish celebrated? Answer 1: The Code of Canon Law preseribes: “If a person has offered a sum of money for the celebration of Masses without indicating the number of the Masses, this is to be computed ac- cording to the stipend ofthe place in which the donor was abiding, ‘unless his intention must legitimately be presumed to have been different” (Can, 830). ‘An even more detailed decision on the question was given by the Sacred Congregation of the Couneil on June 15, 1928, to questions proposed by an Ordinary of the United State: 1. Whether, in interpreting wills in which a sum of money is left for the celebration of Masses, nothing being said in the will about, the nature of the Masses the beneficiaries may interpret the mind of the testator in favor of sung Masses, oF not? IE, Whether, when a testator has lft @ sum of money for the cele bration of Masses, but nothing is said in the will as to the number fof Masses, the beneficiary may take from the inheritance the sum of two dollars for each low Mass, or not? 19