What is Expected of the Faithful In Our Assent to the Magisterium
While the Magisterium possesses authority, it is often difficult to know when that authority is being exercised and what level of authority is being employed when it is. There are two extreme positions which Catholics must avoid: The first is assuming that only infallible declarations have authority, and anything which is not defined through use of papal infallibility is free to be questioned and disobeyed without restriction. The second is assuming that anything and everything that is spoken of by the Magisterium is definitive, unchangeable and must be accepted without question. The first, of course, tends towards doctrinal infidelity, while the second tends toward a bankrupt, propositional absolutism which has no sense of a living faith.
The authority of the Church rests on the authority of Christ, with the leaders of the Church being given a special charism by the Holy Spirit to help direct and guide the Church through history. We must understand that the Church acts to continue the work and presence of Christ in history, to take the eternal work of Christ and to manifest it in history. The Church’s teachings are not to be understood as logical propositions which are formed by mere reason, but rather, they are to be understood as the explanation necessary in order to point us to Christ and to help bring us into Christ, so that we can then be authentic followers of Christ.
Rationalism has, for quite some time, infected us with a misunderstanding of doctrine, assuming doctrine to be propositional. But how can this be, if the Church’s teachings are about truth? Truth, as Christianity teaches, is not found in philosophical propositions, but in the person of Jesus Christ. Truth itself only can be said to be true because of Christ. This means, of course, that one who has some element of truth, however small, has in that element of truth something of Christ: “everyone who is doing the truth is making some kind of approach to Christ, whether or not they name him as Christ. As Christ himself says, ‘Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice’ (Jn 18.37).”[1] The rationalistic mind, however, does not want to understand this; it wants to break truth apart, to dissect truth in order to find the elements of truth, and to declare each of those elements to be the truth. As with all such dissections, what is examined is dead. What is discovered in such a dissection can never be brought back together to recreate the truth. The problem with debates over propositions as if they are debates about the truth is that they are debates over what has been discovered in dissection, and what is debated is merely how one is to cut up truth in order to dissect it: one person will divide its elements one way, the next another.[2]
Propositions can be helpful if we understand their relative nature, and how they are to serve as signs of the truth, pointing to something beyond themselves. Whether or not a proposition is capable of pointing to the truth or pointing to some untruth, however, lies in its relationship with the truth in Christ. The Church is the one who has the charism to discern when a proposition (understood within its proper linguistic context) is an authentic pointer to the truth or not, and the teaching authority is to be exercised in order to help us see those pointers. This is because the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1Tim 3:15).
Now we must understand in the handling of these propositions, the Church looks to Christ and establishes a hierarchy of truths, all based upon how they connect to the revelation of established by Christ. Vatican Council II, in its Decree on Ecumenism, reminded the faithful of this as a means by which Catholics are to engage other Christians: we must remember what is central, and engage on essentials first, not the periphery.[3] This means that “church dogmas must be understood and interpreted in the light of their relationship to the foundation of the Christian faith.”[4]
This hierarchy of truths must not be confused to the level of authority the Church has used to discuss and proclaim its teachings. Something might be higher up in the hierarchy of truth, without much question as to its truth, and so have received proclamations based upon lower levels of teaching authoritatively. The use of teaching authority and its claim over the faithful is different from the question of the hierarchy of truths; the Church’s teaching authority is used to respond to questions and issues that affect the Church in various times and places, and it proclaims an answer on various levels of authority depending upon need of the people, but also depending upon the level of exploration which has been given to the issue being questioned. It does not assume all propositions it makes as final and definitive and without possibility of further exploration; rather it proclaims answers knowing that its understanding can develop over time as it continues to explore the questions given to it further.
The level of teaching authority it uses to proclaim something will depend upon the circumstance which made for the declaration. Is there an active movement working against the authority of the Magisterium? If there is, that tends to create the need for a more authoritative declaration. Is there a group of people looking at a non-dogmatic, non-infallible teaching, willing to respect the Church’s teaching and not demanding the Church to overturn its teaching, but rather, engaging how the Church proclaims that teaching and showing why they are personally unconvinced (while willing to adhere to the practice of the Church)? To them, the Magisterium rarely answers with high levels of authority, because it understands that those engaging the Magisterium are doing so with the desire to work with the Church and to develop its understanding of a given issue. As long as they show respect to the authority of the Church and do not declare themselves above it, and they are not denying definitive teachings, the Church is willing to give them leeway: the Church does not want to make us blind followers of authoritarian declarations, but rather, the Church wants us to be active, intelligent discerners of truth. But it does not want people to merely dismiss its teachings, no matter what level of authority it is using: even the lowest level of teaching authority must be shown some level of respect, even if what is declared is disputed (we must remember, such disputes help bring clarification, and sometimes those who engage such a dispute turn out to be correct, as for example, St Thomas Aquinas over the bishop of Paris). Of course, the level of teaching authority being employed determines the level of assent one must have, and the higher the authority used, the more good faith is required of those who doubt a specific declaration (until, of course, there are those declarations which must be assented to, and if one does not, one finds oneself outside of the Church).
Now there are many ways one can break down the different levels of authority, but one which is quite useful is the following, ranked from greatest level of authority to the least: defined dogma, undefined dogma, definitive doctrine, authoritative doctrine, prudential admonition.[5] Dogma is that which must be believed; defined dogma is based upon a definitive declaration of the Church based upon the highest level of authority, while undefined dogmas are those teachings which are accepted and seen as necessary to the Christian faith even if there has been no need to define such teachings. All dogmas are seen as connected to something which has been absolutely revealed by God. Doctrines are derivative; definitive doctrines are, to be sure, authoritative, even if derivative.[6] Prudential admonitions should be listened to and respected, even if there is disagreement.
Now it must be clear, these levels of teaching authority can be seen in various documents; just because a documental authority is higher does not mean what it proclaims is necessarily of higher level of authority. The Catechism, for example, is really a collection of teachings from different levels of teaching authority and just because they were propagated by Pope John Paul II does not mean they all are of the same level of teaching authority. Indeed, it is to be understood that they are not.[7] Thus, while the level of authority a specific document has must be understood, it does not by itself determine the level of authority proclaimed in that document, and does not make all that is said within it of the same level of authority.
What this means is that for the faithful, the Church oversees the proclamation of truth, and the faithful must adhere to that which the Church holds up. But in its explanation of that truth, especially as the Church speculates upon the meaning implied by it, there is room for growth and development. Doctrinal development comes from this. But it must be said, even when we acknowledge that there is room for development, the faithful are expected to show respect to the Church and her authorities. That respect does not mean the faithful need to be intellectually servile. Rather, we are expected to engage the Church between the two extremes mentioned at the beginning of this essay. That, of course, is the most difficult position of all to follow. For it means one is expected to discern much for oneself and not merely rely upon the Church for answers, while on the other hand, it means one must not put oneself above the Church, and realize that truth, as our understanding of it develops, is revealed from the unity of the Church and not the individual. Communio over individualism: that is the way of the Christian.
Footnotes
[1] Peter Bouteneff, Sweeter than Honey: Orthodox Thinking on Dogma and Truth (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2006), 27.
[2] To be sure, propositions do have value, but they must be understood as revealing something about conventional truth, not absolute truth. And once they are understood as conventions, this both allows them to be put to proper use but frees them from the absolute claims the rationalist would make of them.
[3] “When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in catholic doctrine there exists an order or ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the christian faith,” Unitatis Redintegratio 11 in Vatican Council II: Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations. Ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. (Northport, NW: Costello Publishing Company, 1996), 511.
[4] Richard Gaillardetz, By What Authority? (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 98.
[5] I have combined the work of Francis Sullivan and Richard Gaillardetz here. For Sullivan see, Francis A. Sullivan, S.J. Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium (NY: Paulist Press, 1996).
[6] To help understand this distinction, one might want to consider the difference between sacrament (reflecting dogma) and sacramental (reflecting definitive doctrine). Sacraments are directly established by Christ, while sacramentals are established indirectly by Christ through the authority of the Church.
[7] “The individual doctrines that the Catechism affirms has no other authority than that which they already possess,” Cardinal Raztinger quoted in, Sullivan, S.J. Creative Fidelity, 12. This is one of the reasons why many theologians wish the Catechism declared within the Catechism the level of authority which is being employed in each paragraph, so as not to confuse the laity. As it is the Catechism, while good, is tended to be blended together as all equal in authority and value, which is a shame.
Trackbacks
- What is Expected of the Faithful In Our Assent to the Magisterium - Christian Forums
- Ad Dominum » Blog Archive » Clix
Comments are closed.
Henry,
Excellent exposition.
Thank you for this post.
Mark
Thanks. I hope it is good; I wrote it quickly, trying to deal with an issue I felt has been left in the open all this time. I felt the best thing to do was only scratch the surface, if nothing else, because the general disposition I put forward here would help many engage others more respectfully in online blog debates.
Henry,
Very, very good presentation.
There is much room for sincere inquiry in the Catholic Church. If a person’s primary motivation for having been converted to Catholicism lies solely in certitude, there is a grave danger they will introduce distortion into Church teachings. Respect for doctrine much proceed from an open and prayerful mind.
My special interest centers on when truths are brought into the practical order, i.e., doing (ethics and politics). When that movement begins, another set of ambiguities emerge altogether.
This same open mindset applies as well in the act of making (arts and crafts).
If a person’s primary motivation for having been converted to Catholicism lies solely in certitude, there is a grave danger they will introduce distortion into Church teachings.
Unfortunately, that’s what we see a lot of these days.
Gerald,
Yes, there is much room for inquiry. Which is why the Protestant charge for Catholics as being mindless is false — however, the way many want to treat Catholicism, this sadly would end up to being true. I think a big part of this rationalism has come to us via apologetics, and it is has ended up becoming the snake which bites its own tail.
Henry,
I don’t know whether you are familiar with the philosophical traditions that developed for two centuries after the death of St. Thomas. Increasingly, thinkers of that era succumbed to essentialism. During this period one finds the rise of nominalism and voluntarism. The detachment of universals from extra-mental reality led directly to the Reformation.
Remember: the Reformation wasn’t merely about corrupt practices in the Church. It was also about a corruption of the intellectual order itself.
When you mentioned the word “rationalism” in your comment above, it called to mind the “essentialism” of former years. Like before, there is an ongoing but grave corruption of the intellectual order that goes under the rubric of “rationalism”. It has almost become a disposition of its own.
I wonder whether something not unlike what occurred prior to the Reformation is developing now. I realize this comment is extremely vague. But I am troubled by the tendency among large numbers of Catholics to think only in abstractions when discussing matters in the here and now. The belief that the “end justifies the means” is only one symptom of what is unfolding. The willingness to evade any reference to prudential judgment when discussing ethics or politics is another.
Confusion reigns throughout the intellectual order today. Issues are argued in the public forum as though they were a matter of Pure Will. This explains all the shouting and loud noise, the name-calling and vitriol. Sadly, truth has been reduced to Power because the intellectual order which reflects truth has been thoroughly corrupted.
Any thoughts?
Gerald,
You raise a difficult question to answer because there are too many factors to deal with to answer it properly. I think there were many reasons for what happened after St Thomas Aquinas, among of which, I don’t think Thomas’ methodology was really understood and appreciated, and people were looking for “pat answers” instead of a method (and this is found in how Thomas became used, and is used to this day by many). The method of St Thomas often gets ridiculed if used by others “how dare you do that,” while they ignore that St Thomas really was trying to introduce us to a method and understood many of his premises were not exactly as certain as people assume. This led to a kind of dogmatism, which allowed for some essentialism of the form you imply, but I would also think another major factor is that the theological/university circles were often absent from any real connection to the real world, even in their day. There was some element of it — but too little, and this meant they didn’t learn how to deal with practical real life situations, nor how to engage the world at large. This I think is a problem we find today: theologians (despite knowing this, and trying to overcome it) tend to talk to themselves, and get ignored as “heretics” by the people they should be in dialogue with, and vice versa. The faith for some is dogmatic, the faith for others is fidelity to the form of Christ, and never the two seem to meet.
Nonetheless, I think there were some highlights and attempts to merge them in the early renaissance — like Nicholas of Cusa (a real ideal theologian; if you have not read him, read his “On Learned Ignorance,” “De Pace Fidei”, any of his writings on the common man doing philosophy, and his writings on Church and Reform; another I think was Ficino (though he was a bit caught up in humanism, I think he provided some of the highlights which were needed). Today I think we have some like them (Lubac, Balthasar, Florensky, Bulgakov) but also they don’t seem to have had much luck with the common laity, the people who need them the most. So you have dogmatism with assumptions of modern rationalism having to be encountered and transformed by theology. How to do this, even I don’t know.
Good work, Henry.
Sam,
Thanks
An essential bit of formation that is too often missed. Thanks Henry.
I’d like to see more on the problem of rationalism, if you continue down this path. I have done more work on fideism myself and am beginning to be intrigued by the connections.
Brett
Yes, it is missed way too much. The desire to overcome the formlessness of nihilism leads to the positivism in today’s day and age. We need to recognize both the form of revelation and the hidden depth of that form in order to appreciate revelation. Too many quickly equate the two. Fideism certainly is this, but it is what comes out of our social positivism, which only knows things according to form.
Thanks for another great posting Henry.
M O’S
Glad you liked it.
Very helpful, Henry.
Nice piece, Henry. I’m definitely seeing the rise of a sort of Catholic fundamentalism these days – a great deal among converts from the Protestant churches. That looking for a very tight and “wiggle-free” certitude, answers that are chiseled in granite – it makes some feel very secure.
There is a small book that I found very helpful on this very subject – by Francis Sullivan, S.J. It’s called Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium – might be worth checking out. Peace.
Alan
Yes, Francis Sullivan’s books are good (you probably didn’t notice, but I quoted him a couple times in this post — look to the footnotes).
Fundamentalism “feels nice” until one finds out it doesn’t answer real questions and one’s views are wrongs. When one thinks along those lines, it’s easy to understand why there can be a crisis of faith.
There you go, right in the footnotes. That’s why it seemed familiar I guess. :) Yes, “feels nice” and secure, all tied up with a tight little bow… until. And then, the mental gymnastics class begins. God help us. Peace to you, Henry.