V. Objections and Responses. (A- C: Fr. Schultes; D–E: Fr. Cekada)

A. Theologians, then, “create” doctrines. “It is not the job of theologians to determine whether some doctrine is ‘de fide’ or ‘certain’ or ‘Catholic’.”

• Response: Theologians do not ‘determine’ whether some doctrine is ‘de fide’ or ‘certain’ or ‘Catholic.’ They merely demonstrate, or manifest or give witness that a particular doctrine is ‘de fide’ or ‘certain’ or ‘Catholic.’

B. But theologians erred in the past... “Throughout history, theologians held various errors, and then disputed about grave issues amongst themselves.”

• Response: I let pass the accusation that scholastic theologians erred in certain questions of the faith. They did not, however, unanimously defend an error as a doctrine of the faith.

C. They cannot reliably explain the meaning of defined doctrine. “Theologians are reliable witnesses to a doctrine as defined by the Church. But they are not reliable witnesses to the meaning of a doctrine they propose. In this they must be considered only private teachers, interpreting dogma and applying it according to their own philosophy.

• Response: Theologians are witnesses not only to whether a doctrine is defined, b
ut also to its meaning. (a) In explaining and determining the meaning of dogmas, theologians are considered private teachers with regard to the methods they use (arguments, etc.), but not when they propose a doctrine as a doctrine of the faith or
the Church, even though they express its meaning to other persons using other concepts and formulas. (b) The opposite opinion obviously sins against the teaching of the Church regarding the authority of theologians. (c) Furthermore, it is absurd to claim that the Fathers of the Church and her theologians erred in setting forth and explaining the meaning of the doctrine of the faith. This opinion involves the Jansenist error that the faith has been “obscured” in the Church.

D. *Theologians and Vatican II.* “The teachings of theologians were responsible for the doctrinal errors of Vatican II. Because these theologians erred and we reject their teachings, we are also therefore free to reject the teaching of earlier theologians if a teaching ‘does not make sense’ to us.”

• Response: The group of European modernist theologians primarily responsible for the Vatican II errors were enemies of traditional scholastic theology and had been censured or silenced by Church authority: Murray, Schillebeeckx, Congar, de Lubac, Teilhard, etc. When the strictures were removed under John XXIII, they were able to spread their errors freely. If anything, the fact that they had been previously silenced demonstrates the Church’s vigilance against error in the writings of her theologians.

E. *Private Interpretation of Magisterial Pronouncements.* “I think the infallible pronouncements of the Church are all pretty clear. I don’t need ‘interpretations’ or explanations from theologians. I just take everything literally.”

• Response: Do-it-yourself interpretations and explanation of texts are for
Protestants, not Catholics. Theology is a science which operates under the watchful eye of the Church, not a free-for-all for every Catholic with an English translation of Denziger. Like any other science, theology operates according to recognized and objective criteria which experts use to arrive at the truth about various propositions. So, if you are not trained in the science, you have no business coming up with your own interpretations for the pronouncements of the magisterium. At best, you’ll end up looking ignorant; at worst, you’ll end up a heretic.