The Theological Note — Ecclesiastical Faith (Fides Ecclesiastica)

 

THE NOTE ECCLESIASTICAL FAITH

 

As of late, there has been a recent uptick in the discussion on the great theological debate between Fr. Reginald Schultes, O.P. and Fr. Marin Sola, O.P. on the question of the development of Catholic dogma. A part of this debate was whether or not there was a Theological Note known as Ecclesiastical Faith (De Fide Ecclesiastica definita). The Note Ecclesiastical Faith is “a truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium.”[1] This Theological Note falls within the Campus Fidei and the Campus Infallibilitatis between the Note Dogma and the Note Truth of Divine Faith. This article will show that the common opinion of theologians admits of such a Theological Note and therefore, must be given assent as an actual, existing Theological Note.

Theologians holding to the Note Ecclesiastical Faith are forty in number and theologians rejecting Ecclesiastical Faith are eleven in number, making for an overwhelming majority for the Theological Note of Ecclesiastical Faith and as one will see, Fr. Marin Sola, O.P. lost this part of the debate: [2]

 

Theologians Holding to Ecclesiastical Faith

Theologians Rejecting Ecclesiastical Faith

1.       H. Kilber 2.       Vacant 3.       M.J. Scheeben 4.       G. Wilmers 5.       Ch. Pesch 6.       L. Card. Billot 7.       L. Choupin 8.       Tanquerey 9.       De Groot, O.P. 10.     G. Van Noort 11.      Straub 12.     F. Diekamp 13.     H. Felder 14.    G. Huarte 15.    R.  Schultes, O.P. 16.    Id. De Ecclesia 17.    Michelitsch 18.   Io. Hermann 19.   A.M. Elorriaga 20.   Ae. Dorsch 21.   H. Lennerz 22.   L. Koesters 23.   L. Lercher-Mitzka 24.   J.B. Franzelin 25.   D. Palmieri 26.   J. Mendive 27.   H. Dieckmann 28.   G.M. Paris 29.   T. Zapelena, O.P. 30.   Landgraf 31.   A.M. Vellico 32.   A.C. Cotter 33.   Ph. Alonso-Barcena 34.   F.X. Calcagno 35.   R. Favre 36.   P. Card. Parente 37.   M. Labourdfette, O.P. 38.   De Aldama, S.J. 39.   S. Cartechini, S.J. 40.   R. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

1.       S. Schiffini 2.       C. Mazzella 3.       M. Tuyaerts 4.       F. Marin-Sola, O.P. 5.       A. Gardeil, O.P. 6.       Id.L Rev. Sc.Ph.Th 13 7.       B. Beraza 8.       A. Stolz 9.       Ch. Journet 10.     F.G. Martinez 11.      Rev. EspT 11

 

ARTICLE I

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE FOREGOING ABOUT ECCLESIASTICAL FAITH 

1.   All forty theologians teach the existence of the Theological Note Ecclesiastical Faith, and only eleven theologians reject the Note of Ecclesiastical Faith, so the majority of theologians hold to it by common consent.

 

ARTICLE II

APPLICATION OF POPE PIUS IX’S PRINCIPLE

TO THE TEACHING OF THESE THEOLOGIANS

 

1. General Principle (from Pius IX, sect. I: II-III): All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a teaching if Catholic theologians hold it by common consent, or hold it as de fide, or Catholic doctrine, or theologically certain.[3]

2. Particular Fact (From sects. III, IV): Catholic theologians do hold by common consent to the existence of a theological Note known as Ecclesiastical Faith.

3. Conclusion (1+2): Therefore, all Catholics are obliged to adhere to the teaching that there is a Theological Note of Ecclesiastical Faith.

---

[1] Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, S.J., De Valorum Notarum Theologicarum, Romæ, 1951.

[2] Fr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., Sacræ Theologiæ Summa, IB, De Ecclesia, pgs. 348-349.

[3] You must believe those teachings of the universal ordinary magisterium held by theologians to belong to the faith (Pius IX). “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.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1683.

You must also subject yourself to the Holy See’s doctrinal decisions and to other forms of doctrine commonly held as theological truths and conclusions. (Pius IX). “But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684. B. You must therefore adhere to the following: 1. Doctrinal decisions of Vatican Congregations (e.g., the Holy Office). 2. Forms of doctrine held as: a. Theological truths and conclusions. b. So certain that opposition merits some theological censure short of “heresy.”