John Henderson
Many of the prominent theologians of
the last few centuries who argued that canonizations of particular
individuals are infallible relied on an appeal to the concept of
“ecclesiastical faith” to justify their position. It is worthy of
consideration that several theologians whom Msgr. Fenton considered
to be eminent outright rejected the validity of the concept of an infallibly certain mere
“ecclesiastical faith.”
Faith rests on authority. If the authority we believe a particular
doctrine on is God, then we are said to possess
divine faith.
If the authority we believe a particular doctrine on is human, then
we are said to possess human faith.
Msgr. Fenton includes a definition of ecclesiastical faith as
“the absolutely firm and certain acceptance of a teaching on the
authority of the Church which proposes that teaching and not on the
authority of God Himself.” Proponents of a mere EF claim that
teachings which must be accepted with EF are infallible. Fenton
quotes Bishop Garcia Martinez, one of the eminent theologians who
denied the validity of the concept of an infallibly certain mere EF, as insisting upon
the fact that there can be no such thing as an absolutely certain
assent of faith based on something other than the divine authority
itself. Fr. Marin-Sola also opposed the validity of EF on the grounds
that, “The infallible teaching of the Church cannot propose any new
doctrine, but only an explanation of the
deposit
of public divine revelation.” The reason why theologians
have used the term “ecclesiastical faith” in reference to
canonizations of particular individuals instead of “divine faith”
is because “divine faith” pertains to believing doctrines which
God has revealed as part of His
public revelation that
ended
with the death of the last apostle, St. John. Very few would
claim that canonizations of particular individuals, excepting perhaps
the canonizations of St. Dismas and other unique cases, are contained
within this public divine revelation. Hence the need for a new term,
at least for those theologians who are bent on arguing in favor of
the infallibility of canonizations, and for whom the term “human
faith” would be very problematic.
Fr. Blaise Beraza, SJ is another
theologian who Msgr. Fenton referenced that argued against the
validity of an infallibly certain EF. Fr. Beraza appealed primarily to two magisterial
documents in making his argument. The first of these documents is
Pastor Aeternus. Fenton
paraphrases Fr. Beraza's reasoning for claiming
that the concept of EF as
understood by the majority of its proponents is irreconcilable with
Vatican I, “It would be idle to imagine that there could be any
such thing as an infallible definition or declaration by the Church's
magisterium apart from the assistance of the Holy Ghost. And,
according to the teaching of the Vatican Council itself, that help or
assistance is given to the Popes (who have the same infallible
teaching power as the ecclesia docens
as a whole) precisely
for the sake of
guarding and proposing the actual doctrines which have been given to
the Church as divine
revelation through
the Apostles.” Vatican I
explicitly teaches that the Holy Ghost was not given to Peter's
successors to make known any new teachings. The very fact that the
proponents of the concept of “ecclesiastical faith” eschew
using the term “divine faith” in reference to canonizations and
other things customarily classified as “secondary objects” shows
that they acknowledge that we cannot believe a particular teaching on the
authority of God if that particular teaching is not
contained within the deposit of faith. The problem with claiming that
canonizations are infallible is that the attribute of infallibility
was not given by God to the Church to make known novel doctrines.
The
other magisterial document Fr. Beraza references is the Tridentine
Profession of Faith. He points out that in this Creed we profess as
an article of divine and Catholic faith
that we firmly “admit and embrace the Apostolic and Ecclesiastical
traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same
Church.” We also profess in
the same Creed as an article of divine and Catholic faith that we
“receive and admit the received and approved rites
of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of the aforesaid
sacraments.” Fr. Beraza's reason for emphasizing those particular
articles of the Creed is to demonstrate that some of what other
theologians speak of as being
entirely only
the objects
of mere ecclesiastical faith,
such as the liturgical rites used in the solemn administration of the
sacraments, are actually objects
of articles of divine and Catholic faith. This perceptive observation
of Fr. Beraza is very, very important because the concept of EF has
been used by the liturgical revolutionaries to undermine divinely
revealed dogmas concerning
our ecclesiastical traditions, such as, for example, the dogma of the
necessity of adhering to the received
and approved
liturgical rites of the Church, “If
anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic
Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the
sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin
and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the
churches, whomsoever, to other new ones, let him be anathema”
(Council of Trent,
Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon 13).
D.M. Drew
of SS. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Mission expounded upon how the
concept of EF has weakened the ability of traditionalists to
effectively defend our sacred liturgical rites, “The immemorial
traditions of our Church have been repudiated by the conciliarist
Church, our neo-Iconoclasts. How were they overthrown? They were
reduced to objects of merely human EF and categorized as matters
subject to the disciplinary discretion of the Church. If objects of
EF are 'the firm and certain acceptance of a teaching on the
authority of the Church which proposes that teaching and not on the
authority of God Himself,' then they are necessarily contingent human
truths. If the Church thinks the objects of EF are historical,
contingent truths which have become outdated and no longer speak to
the modern mind, then she can change them into other more relevant
contemporary truths...Msgr. Fenton goes into some detail what the
'ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of
the Church' refers which the EF people reduce to a mere human
authority. Take, for example, the most important of the immemorial
ecclesiastical traditions, the Roman rite of Mass. It is not and
never has been a mere object of Church discipline but that is where
the idea of EF has taken us. Fr. Waters and Ss. Peter & Paul
Roman Catholic Mission have made a public profession of divine and
Catholic faith in our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions. We have
refused to consider them as mere objects of human EF but hold them as
necessary attributes of the faith which make it known and
communicable to others. Since God commands the faithful to make
public professions of faith and to worship Him in the public forum,
every Catholic possesses a right to these immemorial ecclesiastical
traditions that perfectly manifest the faith we hold in the internal
forum.”
Canonizations
of particular individuals are, unlike
certain
aspects of the Church's
liturgical rites, not objects of public divine revelation.
The arguments against
the validity of an infallibly certain mere EF are therefore
relevant when discussing
whether or not they are infallible. None of the modern popes from John XXIII on have been worthy of being canonized. The Ecumenical Council which John XXIII presided over has shown itself to be a source of widespread confusion and even heresy amongst Catholics. The consideration that all of the Popes from Paul VI on have participated in the great sacrilege known as the Novus Ordo Missae without showing any signs of repentance is by itself alone enough to at least question their worthiness of being considered saints. Those in the know who have done some serious studying of the modern pontificates would be aware that I am understating the case against the pretended saintliness of all of the modern popes. The truth is that every one of them has reigned over the Church in the exact manner one would expect a Masonic infiltrator to have reigned. Sure, they all at times have reiterated Catholic doctrines, but anyone who has studied the anti-Christian conspiracy is cognizant that deceivers need to say the truth every once in a while in order to give more credibility to their falsehoods. When Mary's Immaculate Heart triumphs, as she promised it eventually will, we can be certain that part of the restoration the Church is definitely to undergo will involve the anathematizing of these wicked men.
