Here is a section from a very well-known dogmatic theology manual, Christ’s Church, by Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D.:
 

CHAPTER III
The Properties of the Church

The Church's properties are those qualities which flow from its very essence and are a necessary part of it. Authors differ somewhat in enumerating these properties; and some distinguish between properties and endowments. But the difference seems to concern method and terminology rather than the matter itself. Seven properties, then, can be listed: visibility, indestructibility, infallibility, unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. Since visibility and indestructibility have already been considered, there remain for discussion only the last five.

Article I

THE CHURCH'S INFALLIBILITY

1. Meaning of the Term

The word infallibility itself indicates a necessary immunity from error. When one speaks of the Church's infallibility, one means that the Church can neither deceive nor be deceived in matters of faith and morals, It is a prerogative of the whole Church; but it belongs in one way to those who fulfill the office of teaching and in another way to those who are taught. Hence the distinction between active infallibility, by which the Church's rulers are rendered immune from error when they teach; and passive infallibility, by which all of Christ's faithful are preserved from error in their beliefs.
Passive infallibility depends on and is caused by active infallibility: for the faithful are kept free from error in religious matters only by loyally following their rulers. Consequently, it is limited by the same restrictions as is active infallibility, and it will therefore suffice to treat only the latter. Active infallibility may be defined as follows: the privilege by which the teaching office of the Church, through the assistance of the Holy Spirit, is preserved immune from error when it defines a doctrine of faith or morals.

The words through the assistance of the Holy Spirit indicate that this freedom from error is something derived; the words when it defines a doctrine of faith or morals limit this inerrancy to definite subject matter.

[ ...]

Ill. The Fact of Infallibility (2)

PROPOSITION: When the teaching office of the Church hands down decisions on matters of faith and morals in such a way as to require of everyone full and absolute assent, it is infallible.

This is a dogma of faith.

The teaching office of the Church or, as they say, “the teaching Church,” is made up of those to whom God entrusted the right and the duty to teach the Christian religion authoritatively. The words “in matters of faith and morals in such a way as to require of everyone full and absolute assent” are included in the proposition because, according to Catholic teaching, the Church's rulers are infallible not in any and every exercise of their teaching power; but only when, using all the fulness of their authority, they clearly intend to bind everyone to absolute assent or, as common parlance puts it, when they “define” something in matters pertaining to the Christian religion. That is why all theologians distinguish in the dogmatic decrees of the councils or of the popes between those things set forth therein by way of definition and those used simply by way of illustration or argumentation. For the intention of binding all affects only the definition, and not the historical observations, reasons for the definition, and so forth. And if in some particular instances the intention of giving a definitive decision were not made sufficiently clear, then no one would be held by virtue of such definitions, to give the assent of faith: a doubtful law is no law at all.

Although this proposition has never been defined in the precise form in which it is here stated, it is a dogma of faith by reason of the universal teaching of the Church. Moreover, the Vatican Council did define that the Roman pontiff “enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished His Church to be equipped in defining a doctrine of faith or morals.” (3)
Proof:

1. From the promises of Christ. (a) Christ said to the apostles in the Last Supper discourse, “And I will ask the Father, and he will grant you another Advocate to be with you for all time to come, the Spirit of Truth … he will make his permanent stay with you and in you … but the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things, and refresh your memory of everything I have told you” (John 14:16-17, 26). “But when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will conduct you through the whole range of truth” (John 16:13). Then, after His Resurrection, He added, “…you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence … you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and even to the very ends of the earth” (Acts 1:5, 8).

Two things are promised in these texts: the Holy Spirit, as the Teacher of truth (a) will come upon the apostles to imbue them with an exceedingly rich knowledge of the Christian religion; (b) He will remain with them forever. The purpose and the result of both these aids is that the apostles will preach Christ's religion pure and unabridged “even to the very ends of the earth.”

The former promise has in view especially the first communication of the Christian religion and, furthermore, at least in the strict and full sense, refers to the apostles alone. The latter promise, which is concerned more directly with the practice and preservation of this religion, cannot, in view of the words themselves(4) and of the purpose intended, be limited to the apostles personally; but embraces the apostolic college as it is to continue forever. But if the Holy Spirit is to remain with the successors of the apostles forever, and is to be in them that they may be witnesses of Christ to the ends of the earth, He will doubtless keep them from error when they define Christian doctrine. For would they really be witnesses of Christ if they corrupted His doctrine in even one point and unjustifiably demanded the assent of all to a falsehood?

(b) “Absolute authority in heaven and on earth has been conferred upon me. Go, therefore, and initiate all nations in discipleship … and teach them to observe all the commandments I have given you. And mark: I am with you at all times as long as the world will last” (Matt. 28:20). These words contain a promise to the apostolic college, as to a perpetual institution, of continuous and effective aid in teaching all nations the religion of Christ (see no. 20). But this aid certainly includes infallibility, for if they could err at times in defining Christian doctrine, the purpose of the aid would not be realized.

Furthermore, the force of Christ's promise is highlighted in an extraordinary manner by the obligation enjoined on all men to accept the doctrine preached by the apostles and by their successors throughout all ages: “He that believes … will be saved, but he that does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Could our Lord have imposed this obligation without any limitation or restriction, and under the threat of eternal damnation, if He had left to posterity a teaching authority which was liable to error?

2. From the testimony of the Apostle. St. Paul: I write these instructions to you, so that … you may know what your conduct should be in the house of God which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth (I Tim. 3:14-15). Truth purely and simply is the whole body of truth leading to eternal salvation: Christian doctrine in its entirety. The Church considered absolutely, i.e., the universal Church, is called a thoroughly solid pillar of this truth,(5) because it bears and supports the truth as an unshakably solid pillar supports a building. But it would not be the pillar and bulwark of the truth if it could shift from the truth in even one matter. Therefore we have here a direct statement of the infallibility of the Church as a whole; but one can immediately deduce from this the infallibility of the teaching office, since the whole Church depends on this office for its knowledge and profession of the truth.

3. From the testimony of the early fathers. They have left, in unmistakably clear or at least equivalent terms, testimony to their belief in the infallibility of the teaching office or, what actually comes down to the same thing, of the Church itself.

St. Ignatius:

Live in harmony with the mind of God. Surely, Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, for His part in the mind of the Father, just as the bishops, though appointed throughout the vast, wide earth, represent for their part the mind of Jesus Christ.—Epistula ad Ephesios 3. 2; ACW translation.

Now, if those who do this to gratify the flesh are liable to death, how much more a man who by evil doctrine ruins the faith in God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such a filthy creature will go into the unquenchable fire, as will anyone who listens to him. The Lord permitted myrrh to be poured on His head that He might breathe incorruption upon the Church. Do not let yourselves be anointed with the malodorous doctrine of the Prince of this world.—Ibid. 16. 2-17. 1; ACW translation.

St. Irenaeus:

One should obey the presbyters [bishops] of the Church, for they are the successors of the apostles and along with episcopal succession have received the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father.(6)

Tertullian makes sport of the thesis that

the Holy Ghost sent by Christ and asked of the Father for this very purpose, viz., to teach the truth, neglected His duty by allowing the Church to understand and to believe otherwise than what He Himself taught the apostles. — De praescriptione 28.

St. Athanasius: “The only words you need for answering those [paradoxes of the heretics] are the following: 'This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church'” (Epistula ad Epictetum 3).

St. Jerome: “I was able to dry up all the rivulets of false assertions with the one sun of the Church” (Altercatio luciferiani et orthodoxi 28).

St. Augustine:

Many tongues and various heresies speak in opposition … hasten to the tabernacle of God, hold fast to the Catholic Church, depart not from the rule of truth, and you will find in this tabernacle asylum from the tongues which wag in opposition. — Enarrationes in Psalmos 30. 3. 8.

The Catholic Church wages war against all heresies. It can give battle, but it can never be vanquished. All heresies have gone forth from it [the Church] like useless branches pruned from a vine; but it remains itself firmly fixed in its roots, in its vine, in its love. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. (7)

4. Theological argument. The Church, according to Christ's promises, is indestructible (no. 19); but it would fail through corruption if it strayed from the true teaching of Christ; and it would so stray, indeed inevitably, if its teaching authority were to err at any time in defining points of doctrine.

Corollary

Since even in the Old Testament period the revealed religion was to be piously safeguarded, theologians usually bring up at this juncture the question of the infallibility of the ѕуηαgσgυє. Opinions vary, but, here, in sum, is that of Cardinal Franzelin.(8) (a) The Aaronic priests undoubtedly exercised authoritative teaching power in sacred matters; but there is no sufficient proof that the charism of infallibility was granted this ordinary teaching body. However, (b) even at that time God was watching over the preservation of sacred doctrine, and He did so in a manner suited to the special character of that stage of religious development, when revelation was not only to be safeguarded but also to be steadily increased. He effected this increase through new revelations made to the prophets, whose mission, however, was directed no less to the safeguarding of already promulgated revelation than to its further unfolding. Consequently the teaching office of the Old Testament comprised two elements, the ordinary teaching office of the priests and the extraordinary teaching office of the prophets; and so, considered in its entirety, it guarded the deposit of faith with infallible sureness, inasmuch as the prophets corrected any mistakes which the ordinary teachers might possibly have made.

THE AUTHORITY OF DOCTRINAL DECISIONS WHICH ARE NOT DEFINITIONS OF FAITH, CONSIDERED IN A SHORT SERIES OF ESSAYS REPRINTED FROM "THE DUBLIN REVIEW."
BY WILLIAM GEORGE WARD, D.PH.

LONDON:BURNS LAMBERT AND OATES, 17 PORTMAN ST'REET, PORTMAN SQUARE.
1866.



WARD

The online book to which you link, "WARD," has the title, WHEN DOES THE CHURCH SPEAK
INFALLIBLY? or, THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE CHURCH'S TEACHING OFFICE, by Thomas
Francis Knox of the London Oratory, 1870.

This amazing book has the finest explanation of the teaching office or Magisterium
of the Church I have ever seen, especially in its opening pages, where it gives a
most enligthening description of the powers to infallibly know certain categories
of knowledge that our protoparents, Adam and Eve enjoyed in their pristine state,
before the fall, and how that changed in their own lifetimes and in the lifetimes of
their children down through the ages. It is well worth reading more than once!



I searched the entire docuмent of 124 pages for relevant material on what constitutes
the Church's infallibility in regards to the pronouncement of anathema and/or
condemnation of error, and found the following:

(p.91)...
The Pope, ... has the power to teach infallibly; and he exercises this power from time to
time, as the needs of the Church require it. But it must not be supposed that he is at all
times and on all occasions raised above the possibility of error... His infallibility
attaches only to the official acts which, in his
(p.92)
character of universal teacher, he addresses to the whole Church, requiring at the same
time from all the faithful absolute interior assent. It is of little consequence how he
manifests his intention of exacting intellectual submission, whether by the threat of
anathema upon the disobedient, or by the mere use of language implying a grave precept.
That he commands our assent is a sufficient sign that what he bids us believe is true.

From what has been said, it is plain that the simple omission to define a dogma or to
condemn an error, even though the neglect were culpable and hurtful to the Church, is
in no way inconsistent with the prerogative of infallibility. For the Pope is infallible
only when he teaches; and to teach is one thing, and to omit to teach another. Again, if
the Pope is not a free agent, his teaching is not infallible...

The omission to condemn an error, even though the neglect were culpable and
hurtful to the Church, is in no way inconsistent with the prerogative of infallibility.

Maybe SJB didn't hear it after repeating it, without invoking any F/X? Just in case,
I'll repeat it TWICE:

It is plain (but perhaps not to SJB!) that the simple omission to define a dogma
or to condemn an error, even though the neglect were culpable and hurtful to
the Church, is in no way inconsistent with the prerogative of infallibility.

Infallibility is a prerogative. Maybe SJB needs to look up that word. The pope,
therefore, might seem to be invoking infallibility but if he, let's say, does not
intend to do so, he could leave off some aspect that would normally make
his pronouncement unquestionably infallible, for instance, the condemnation of
error, and thereby leave us with a "neglect culpable and hurtful to the Church,"
which doesn't mean he therefore ceases to be pope, for he is merely exercising
his prerogative, to his eternal ruin perhaps, but prerogative nonetheless, nor
does it prove that he therefore could not have been pope in the first place
because no pope could ever dare to disappoint SJB like this!  

 

(p.93)
...

The special form which the Sovereign Pontiffs may choose to adopt when they teach the
Universal Church is, from the nature of the case, a matter of indifference so long as
they address all the faithful, and require submission of the intellect to their decrees.
It may be by Bull, or Brief, or Encyclical, or in a Consistorial Allocution. All these
forms have been and are still used.

...

The author gives several examples of infallible pronouncements of the Popes,
all of which include -- even in this extremely brief mention of their contents --
their respective condemnation of errors.

If the condemnations of errors were of no specific necessity or importance,
Then why does each noted example include them?

Taken literally, the above paragraph would say that submission of will is
not necessary, but only submission of intellect (which is not the same thing,
nor does it include the will) is required, and that this applies to all the faithful.
Some places the author says will, other places intellect, and yet in other
places he says mind and will. These are three different specifications, but
since this is not a dogmatic manual, it is a bit loose with being "tight" on
terms, and it's still okay in a general sense.

What about the subject matter? Is not being of faith and/or morals important for
the subject of the doctrine at hand? The author makes no mention here of that, either.

(p.95)
...

Still more memorable is the Encyclical "Quanta Cura," issued by Pius IX. in 1864. We will
quote from it several passages which illustrate very forcibly what we have said, and
exemplify the way in which the Sovereign Pontiffs are accustomed to teach the Church.

"... these our predecessors, ... had nothing more at heart than by their most wise Letters
and Constitutions to unveil and condemn all those heresies and errors which, being adverse
...
(p. 96)
... We condemned the chief errors of this Our unhappy age.

"And especially in Our first Encyclical Letter, ... We condemned the monstrous portents
of opinion which prevail in this age, ..."

The Pope then goes on to enumerate and condemn various doctrines and propositions; after
which, towards the close of the letter, he speaks as follows: -

"Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, We, well rememering Our
Apostolic office, and very greatly solicitous for Our most holy religion, for sound
doctrine, and the salvation of the souls entrusted to Us, and for the welfare of human
society itself, have thought it right to raise Our Apostolic voice. Therefore by Our
Apostolic authority We reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all and singular the evil opinions
and doctrines
(p. 97)
severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held
by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed, and condemned."

Now surely an Encyclical containing passages like these, which are even stronger in
their context than as extracts, has every mark about it of an ex cathedra or
infallible pronouncement.

Notice here, the author does not bother to list "every mark" that is required, but
merely uses the phrase, every mark, as a sort of idiom or calling card to tug at the
heartstrings of the reader, so as to what -- give the appearance of being
diligent to details? To play some kind of pedagogical game with his audience? What
could be his intention? I suppose it might be conformity with British social norms!

For either it was not the Pope's intention in this letter to teach the universal
flock from the chair of Peter, and to bind all the faithful to an interior submission
to his decrees, -- but in this case he could not have used words more calculated
to perplex and lead us astray, -- or he did intend to oblige us to assent under
pain of sin; and if so, he is infallible in what he has defined.

Another British quirk: proposing the inverse of the proposition being described.
Either it wasn't the Pope's intention to teach and bind -- but if it wasn't his intention,
he couldn't have been more deceptive than this since his words indicate that it was
his intention -- or it was in truth his intention, as his words would lead us to
believe, and if it was in fact his intention, he is thereby infallible in what he
has defined.

This logically indicates that there is a possibility for the Pope to intend other than
what he literally says, in his use of words that would seem to be invoking infallibility,
but because of the other aspects all being tidily in place we are led to reject the
abhorrent alternative and accept the preffered affirmative: that this is infallible,
this time.

It leaves us, logically, wondering if it is not impossible sometime in the future,
let's say perhaps in 1994, a pope may come along who does not intend to invoke
infallibility, and only appears to do so, but due to his lack of intention,
he prescinds from the charisma of infallibility and merely practices a deception of
the faithful, a thing that is most SERIOUSLY SINFUL for the pope, but does not
mean he thereby loses his office as pope, or even worse, by way of his having
committed such a serious sin, he would therefore prove to his not having been pope
in the first place.

But if this Encyclical is an infallible pronouncement, ... it would be unreasonable to
suppose that the Sovereign Pontiff had intended by means of them "solemnly to condemn
the chief errors of this most unhappy age," without having meant
(p. 98)
at the same time to bind the faithful to assent interiorly to the condemnation. A like
character of infallibility belongs to the Syllabus of condemned propositions, which was
promulgated and sent round to all the bishops of the Church by the command of the Holy
Father.

...And now to sum up in a few words the results of our inquiry into the way in which the
Church exercises her office of teacher. Her ordinary method consists... by way of clergy ...
But as this ordinary method is insufficient to meet all the cases which may arise, she
has recourse, extraordinarilly and occasionally, to another mode of promulgating the
truth. This is by solemn and formal judgments in which she addresses the universal
flock by the organ of an OEcuмenical Council or of the Sovereign Pontiff, and either
propounds some dogma of the faith, or brands erroneous doctrine with the censure which
is appropriate to it. The form in which this is done is immaterial, provided always it
expresses that a grave obligation is laid upon the fithful to assent interiorly to
what is decreed.

In summary, the excellent book you have linked is a marvelous compendium of Catholic
teaching, in layman's terms, of the history, historical significance, and substance
of the Catholic Church's Apostolic Tradition of infallibility, both Papal and episcopal.
I highly recommend it for anyone who wants to know more on this topic.

And I would like to sincerely thank you for leading me to it.

That being said, I find it curious that it seems to say two different things. Not
that these things are surprising, for it is the British style to offer a proposition
for acceptance and at the same time question why anyone would not accept it, thereby
offering several opportunities for adverse propositions that could be used to deny
the one being offered. I suppose you could say that's what sells copy in Britian?

But it makes for interesting reading, to be sure.

However, in the context of my purpose here, in posting this, I would like to point
out that while the author says that it makes no difference what form the Church uses
to exercise her office of teacher, so long as she addresses the substance of faith
or morals, and that she demands the assent of the faithful, he does not provide a
checklist of essential elements. In contrast to that, every example in the book of
infallible judgments include a condemnation of error. You see, he does not go so far
as to say that a condemnation of error is per se required, but at the same
time seems to say that it is, since he fails to produce an example that shows
otherwise.

Obviously, the condemnation of error or anathema sit accomplishes the second
requirement the author consistently demands, namely, that the Pope expresses the
necessity of the Universal Faithful to give assent of mind and will to the teaching
that is at hand. But while the author asserts that the form is not important, he
nevertheless fails to provide a single example of a valid form ever once used that
does not have an anathema or condemnation attached.
 

That the Church is infallible (or indefectible) is a given, but I'm interested to know how this establishes that the manifest intent to bind is not required for a Papal or ecclesial teaching to be regarded as definitive or infallible.

Then you agree that LordPhan got it wrong, correct? Also, I don't know where you are getting a denial of the intention to bind from what I've quoted here.

Quote from: Catholic Encyclopedia

It would be out of place to speak of infallibility in connection with the opportuneness or the administration of necessarily changing disciplinary laws although, of course, Catholics believe that the Church receives appropriate Divine guidance in this and in similar matters where practical spiritual wisdom is required.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences

So, there must be a clearly recognizable intent to bind, otherwise it is not regarded as a definitive or final teaching on the subject, but might merely be a policy which can be changed.

Except we are talking about the Church or the Pope teaching error in faith and morals, not the Church or Pope defining an error as a dogma.

Van Noort specifically states the practical judgment is not infallible, but the doctrinal decision is infallible. What is frustrating is that I post large tracts of theology manuals and you reply with a paragraph from the CE that says the same thing in a much less complete and precise way.

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:
 
1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.

2. “This law, considering all the circuмstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

This also raises the question of how much divine protection exactly is afforded a Council that intends to define precisely nothing as dogmatic, since it is only those portions that are strictly infallible, portions which here are not at all present. The answer is by no means certain, although I think formal heresy can be excluded. The idea of an Ecuмenical Council that defined no dogma at all would probably be a baffling one to theologians who preceded Vatican II, but in the light of the above, it can be easily seen as quite likely that that renders precisely nothing in the Council by itself either immune from error or binding.

I do not think there has been anything definitive in this sense defined in the post-Conciliar magisterium either, other than basic things, as Fr.Hesse said, the impossibility of ordination of women and such.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

Quote from: Nishant2011

That the Church is infallible (or indefectible) is a given, but I'm interested to know how this establishes that the manifest intent to bind is not required for a Papal or ecclesial teaching to be regarded as definitive or infallible.

Then you agree that LordPhan got it wrong, correct? Also, I don't know where you are getting a denial of the intention to bind from what I've quoted here.

You ought to go re-read the Opening Speech of Vatican II which specifically sets
the tone of the entire council: no will to bind.

Quote from: Nishant

Quote from: Catholic Encyclopedia

It would be out of place to speak of infallibility in connection with the opportuneness or the administration of necessarily changing disciplinary laws although, of course, Catholics believe that the Church receives appropriate Divine guidance in this and in similar matters where practical spiritual wisdom is required.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences

So, there must be a clearly recognizable intent to bind, otherwise it is not regarded as a definitive or final teaching on the subject, but might merely be a policy which can be changed.

Except we are talking about the Church or the Pope teaching error in faith and morals, not the Church or Pope defining an error as a dogma.

Van Noort specifically states the practical judgment is not infallible, but the doctrinal decision is infallible. What is frustrating is that I post large tracts of theology manuals and you reply with a paragraph from the CE that says the same thing in a much less complete and precise way.

Quote from: Van Noort

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:
 
1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.

2. “This law, considering all the circuмstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Quote from: Nishant

This also raises the question of how much divine protection exactly is afforded a Council that intends to define precisely nothing as dogmatic, since it is only those portions that are strictly infallible, portions which here are not at all present. The answer is by no means certain, although I think formal heresy can be excluded. The idea of an Ecuмenical Council that defined no dogma at all would probably be a baffling one to theologians who preceded Vatican II, but in the light of the above, it can be easily seen as quite likely that that renders precisely nothing in the Council by itself either immune from error or binding.

I do not think there has been anything definitive in this sense defined in the post-Conciliar magisterium either, other than basic things, as Fr.Hesse said, the impossibility of ordination of women and such.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

LG was not definitive. It was not infallible. Nobody ever said it was, except
AFTER it was over (and never proclaimed dogmatic in any part whatsoever)
years down the road, the same Liberals who had said over and over during
the time of the Council "this is only pastoral -- nothing definitive is in this,"
then and only then (years later) they started to say "But look at the title of
this docuмent!" (The English translation of the title, that is)

"Dogmatic Constitution!!" You see? It's dogmatic!

That's one of the nefarious "time bombs of Vatican II." And it's a lie. A damned lie!
And the liars who gave it to us can literally go to HELL. They probably did!

And you don't even need the Third Secret to know that part!
You do, however, need to get your head out of the hole in the ground.

Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.

Given in Rome at St. Peter's on November 21, 1964.

That's how it ends. You will please notice, and I know you really, really
don't like to hear this. Of that we can be sure. There is no condemnation of error
or anathema or anything like that here or anywhere else in LG.

AT BEST (and this is pretty bad) IT'S A BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST
and that comes under the infamous category of the sin that shall not be
forgiven, neither in this world or in the next.

"Approve, decree and establish" is not the language of definition. It's the
language of "let's do this for now and anyone who so gets the hunch can
change it all around later, if they soda sire."   :cheers:

Regarding "officially promulgated," you see, there was no intention to bind the faithful to any definition or truths of the faith or morals, contained in the V.II docuмents. That was announced in 1962 and it was repeated like a mantra all during the Council, ad nauseam.

It's called deception, Neil.

One grows tired of arguing specifics here, but in a nutshell, you are saying the faithful were deceived by the "Evil One," and completely due to the failure of the pope and the Church to oppose this evil.

The problem is that your opinion not only destroys the proximate rule of faith for a Catholic but also the inerrancy of the Church.

Here is Fenton again:

Now the Church does this work as a living and infallible teacher. It acts as an infallible teacher by reason of the fact that, through the continuing assistance of the Holy Ghost, it presents that divine message inerrantly. It acts as a living teacher in so far as it presents this truth effectively to the faithful, in every age and in every part of the world. As a teaching agency, the Church, the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, acts as the intimately conjoined instrument of Our Lord, who dwells within it and rules over it. 20

Quote from: LordPhan

Now you'll note that the Church's infallibilty stems FROM the Definition of Papal Infalliblity, you cannot extend the Pope's infallibility by your circular argument.

This is incorrect. Here is Bp. Gasser:

Quote from: Relatio of Bp. Gasser

Therefore just as everyone admits that to deny the infallibility of the Church in defining dogmas of faith is heretical, so the force of this decree of the Vatican Council makes it no less heretical to deny the infallibility of the supreme Pontiff, considered in itself, when he defines dogmas of faith.

The infallibility of the Church was already de fide, the Vatican Council defined the infallibility of the pope.

You were wrong, Lord Phan. Admit it.

You were clearly wrong, yet you forge ahead anyway.

Furthermore, you and PereJoseph then assert that Father Hesse was not a real or true Priest, that is quite the accusation, do you know what happens to you if you are wrong?

I never said this. Anyway, it is irrelevant because Fr. Hesse was NOT an authority of any weight whatsoever nor does he even quote any authorities to support his opinions.

The Teaching of the Theological Manuals
Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton
(The American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963, pp. 254-270.)

One of the most genuinely likeable personalities among the periti at the first series of meetings at the Second Ecuмenical Vatican Council was the Canadian Augustinian priest, Father Gregory Baum. Those who were fortunate enough to meet him came to admire him for his admirable priestly character and for his exquisite courtesy. He is definitely the sort of man who is listened to and who attracts attention.

Recently he wrote an article for the magazine Commonweal, in which he made a highly questionable statement about the status of the theology of the scholastic manuals at the Second Vatican Council. The teaching, which might have passed unnoticed if it had come from a less able and distinguished man, naturally attracts attention because it is a statement by Father Baum. And, unfortunately, it is a statement, which could be seriously misleading if it should be taken seriously by our Catholics, particularly by students in the field of sacred theology.

Father Baum concluded his article with this assertion:

The conflict at the Council is not at all between men who try to introduce new insights and modern ways and those who seek to remain faithful to the great tradition of the past. It is rather between those who seek to renew the life of the Church by returning to the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages and those who seek to consecrate as eternal Catholic wisdom the theology of the manuals of the turn of the century and the anti-modernist emphasis which penetrated them.1

In itself this is an alarming declaration. Despite the manifest and outstanding amiability, knowledge, and sincerity of Father Baum, it is definitely important that Catholics, especially Catholic priests, look into the accuracy and the implications of what he has had to say about the "conflict" at the Second Ecuмenical Council of the Vatican. This is definitely a subject on which we cannot afford to be misinformed.

To be sure that we are making no mistake in this field, we must examine the context of Father Baum's article itself. In this article the only story that could be considered as in any way indicative of a "conflict" is Father Baum's recountal of the fact that, after a vote of the Fathers of the Council, and after a decision of the Sovereign Pontiff, the schema on the Sources of Revelation (now known as the schema on Revelation) was sent back to a mixed commission to be recast. As the newspaper accounts have told us many times, on this occasion the Fathers of the Council voted not to continue with the detailed consideration of the schema prior to its recasting by the commission. About sixty per cent of those present did not want to continue with the consideration of the schema as it stood. About forty per cent signified their willingness to proceed with the consideration of the schema as they had received it from the Holy Father, who, in his turn, had received it from the Central Preparatory Commission, which, in its turn, had received it from the Theological Preparatory Commission itself.

As the newspapers have told us, this vote was not decisive. It was only when the Holy Father had intervened personally that the schema was sent to the mixed commission to be clarified and shortened. Presumably the same material, in a new format, will be submitted again to the council as a whole after the mixed commission and the new interim central commission have finished with it.

In the event itself there was nothing that could in any way justify the rather sensational language employed by Father Baum. There was certainly no indication that the men who voted to proceed with the examination of the schema as it stood were trying "to consecrate as eternal Catholic wisdom the theology of the manuals of the turn of the century." Neither was there the least indication that the men who wanted to have the schema reworked before the council considered it in detail were trying "to renew the life of the Church by returning to the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages." As far as one could make out from their own statements as revealed in the official Vatican news releases, these men were merely dissatisfied with the form in which the teaching on the sources of revelation had been presented in the original text of the schema.

Another individual, writing in the same issue of Commonweal, claims that, "Even the participants in the Council admit . . . that the opposition between the two major groups has been such that the next session has had to be postponed to next September in order to allow the factions to cool off."2 If Father Baum's contention about the nature of "the conflict at the Council" were at all justified, there would be definitely a need for a cooling off period, and much more. But there is no evidence whatsoever that his contention is true. Indeed, it would seem that this fine young priest has not only been mistaken about what actually transpired in the council, but that he has described a conflict or opposition which has not and must not have a place within the Fathers of the Vatican Council.
 
Father Gregory has done a disservice to the cause of Catholic truth by misrepresenting the motives, which influenced the Fathers of the council to vote for or against the continuance of the detailed study of the schema on the sources or the fonts of divine public revelation. In point of fact the issue was the acceptability of the wording of the schema, and particularly the acceptability of its style and length. Some claimed that the council could act more effectively if a commission recast the entire schema. Others believed that it would be better to proceed with the consideration of the docuмent as it stood, and to have the changes made in individual sentences and paragraphs as a result of the observations of the entire council. The stand of these latter was weakened by the fact that all of the Fathers and the periti knew that such a procedure would take a very long time indeed.

Father Baum can only be talking of the men who voted to continue with the consideration of the schema as it stood when he spoke of those "who seek to consecrate as eternal Catholic wisdom the theology of the manuals of the turn of the century and the antimodernist emphasis which penetrated them." And he must be describing those who voted not to proceed with the detailed examination of this schema when he spoke of those "who seek to renew the life of the Church by returning to the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages." In neither case is the designation accurate or in any way acceptable.
 
If Father Baum's claim about the "conflict at the Council" was written seriously (and there is no reason to suppose that it was not), then he has implied very clearly that the theology of "the manuals of the turn of the century" was and is to some extent, not only distinct from, but even at odds with, "the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages." He obviously wishes us to infer that, in his judgment at least, the life of the Catholic Church can be in some measure "renewed" if the Church abandons the theological teachings, which were contained in, or at least which were characteristic of, the great manuals in use in Catholic universities and seminaries during the early years of the twentieth century.

Moreover, it is quite obvious from his statements, which Father Baum wishes to imply that the opposition to the heresy of Modernism manifested in these manuals is in some way unacceptable to the Catholic Church at the present day. At least he wants us to imagine that the Church would be improved or "renewed" if the anti-Modernist teaching that pervaded the best of the early twentieth-century manuals of sacred theology were to be passed over or modified.
Furthermore Father Baum obviously wants his readers to believe that, at the present moment, the doctrine imparted to our seminarians within the Catholic Church is in some manner outside of "the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages." If we are to have the Church "return" to such a tradition, then it would seem that this tradition must have been in some measure lost, or at least obscured, during the course of the twentieth century. Certainly Father Baum's statement involves the implication that the tradition in which those priests who studied the early twentieth-century theological manuals were educated was definitely not the most authentic doctrinal tradition of the Catholic Church.

These are implications, which we definitely must examine. There is absolutely no proof, of course, that the men who voted in the council on the acceptability of the schema about the sources or the fonts of revelation, as it was delivered to the council, were in any way concerned with the implications conveyed in Father Baum's declaration. Yet it is a fact that, especially since the closing of the first portion of the council on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception last year, there have been many who have made statements in some way involving the implications contained in Father Baum's statement. Most of the time these implications have been made less forcefully than they were by Father Baum. Yet it is definitely necessary to examine them, and to see, once and for all time, whether or not these implications are acceptable.

The Doctrine Of The Theological Manuals

Obviously, if we are to examine Father Baum's claims seriously, we must first ask ourselves about the identity of the theological manuals of the turn of the twentieth century. The question with which the schema on which the council voted was that of revelation and the sources of revelation. Hence, we must suppose that, when Father Baum speaks of the offending manuals, he is referring to those which deal with fundamental dogmatic theology, and particularly with the sections De revelatione and De fontibus revelationis. It so happens that, in this field, there have been a great many very influential and well-written manuals produced during the early years of this century.

We are speaking, of course, of the manuals in the field of fundamental dogmatic theology, which were in use and were influential at and after the turn of the twentieth century. Some of these were originally written during the last years of the nineteenth century, but, in editions published subsequent to the issuance of the Lamentabili sane exitu, the Pascendi dominici gregis, and the Sacrorum antistitum, these manuals acquired the anti-Modernist emphasis, which seems so displeasing to Father Baum.

Probably the most important of these manuals were those of Louis Billot, who will most certainly be counted among the very ablest of all the theologians who labored for the Church during the early part of this century. These books, most immediately concerned with the material in the schema voted upon by the Fathers of the Second Ecuмenical Vatican Council, were published by the Gregorian University Press in Rome, and were re-edited many times. One of them was the De inspiratione sacrae scripturae theologica disquisitio,3 and another was the magnificent De immutabilitate traditionis contra modernam haeresim evolutionismi.4

Even more widely known than the works of Billot were those of the Sulpician Adolphe Tanquerey. Many thousands of priests were introduced to the study of sacred theology, and particularly of fundamental dogmatic theology, by courses based on Tanquerey's De Religione: De Christo Legato: De Ecclesia: De Fontibus Revelationis, the first of the three volumes of his Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae ad mentem S. Thomas Aquinatis accommodata.5 This particular volume had gone into its twenty-first edition in 1925. If the theses taught by Tanquerey were opposed to those of "the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages," then thousands of priests, educated during the first part of the twentieth century were being led into error by the men whom Our Lord had constituted as the guardians of His revealed message.

Likewise of prime importance in the early years of the twentieth century were Van Noort's two works on the subject of fundamental dogmatic theology, De vera religione6 and De ecclesia Christi.7 The influence of these two excellent works has been increased tremendously as a result of the English translation and adaptation of these works done by the Sulpician Fathers Castelot and Murphy. Another enormously and deservedly popular manual translated into English was Brunsmann's Fundamental Theology,8 made available to our scholars by the famed Arthur Preuss.

The first volume of Archbishop Zubizarreta's Theologia dogmatico-scholastica ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis likewise influenced many students for the priesthood in the earlier part of this century. This volume was entitled Theologia fundamentalis.9 It contained the same material found in the first volume of Tanquerey's series. Like Tanquerey, Zubizarreta wrote a shorter treatise on dogmatic theology, placing the matter covered in the four volumes of the regular edition within the content of one volume. Tanquerey's was the Brevior synopsis theologiae dogmaticae.10 Zubizarreta entitled his the Medulla theologiae dogmaticae.11

In 1930 the brilliant German Jesuit Herman Dieckmann continued the tradition of the manuals of the turn of the century by publishing his De revelatione Christiana: Tractatus philosophico-historici.12 Previously he had published the two volumes of his De ecclesia: Tractatus historico-dogmatici.13 Contemporary with Dieckmann's manuals, and likewise of primary importance in the history of twentieth-century theology was the three-volume text of the Jesuit Father Emil Dorsch, Institutiones theologiae fundamentalis.14In line with the teachings of Dorsch is the doctrine contained in a highly important American manual, The Theory of Revelation,15 by the great Rochester theologian, Monsignor Joseph J. Baierl.

The manual of Tanquerey was certainly the most widely distributed among all those that appeared during the early part of this century. In the perspective of history, it would seem that two authors must share the prize for theological acuмen. One, of course, was Billot, whose text, De Ecclesia Christi: sive Continuatio theologiae de Verbo Incarnato,16 still remains the best theological treatment on the Church produced during the course of the past hundred years. The other was the French Dominican, Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, whose classical De Revelatione per ecclesiam catholicam proposita17 is still basically the best manual of scholastic apologetics available to the student today.

Later than the manual of Tanquerey, but like it destined for tremendous success in the world of ecclesiastical studies, was the first volume of Herve's Manuale theologiae dogmaticae, the one entitled De vera religione: De ecclesia Christi: De fontibus revelationis.18 The first volume of Bartmann's Precis de theologie dogmatique,19 a textbook very popular a quarter of a century ago, dealt with the sources of revelation and other topics which entered into what Father Baum calls the "conflict" at the Second Vatican Council.

Tremendously influential in their own time were other manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology, which are not in common use today. Among these is the Elementa apologeticae sive theologiae fundamentalis 20 by the Austrian priest Anton Michelitsch. The Elementa theologiae fundamentalis,21 by the Italian Franciscan, Clemente Carmignani, is another of these texts. In this same class we must place Cardinal Vives's Compendium theologiae dogmaticae 22 the first volume of Mannens's Theologiae dogmaticae institutiones,23 which was entitled Theologia fundamentalis, and the first volume of MacGuiness's Commentarii theologici, a book containing the treatises De religione revelata ejusque fontibus and De ecclesia Christi.24

In the Spanish speaking world the Lecciones de apologetica 25 of Father Nicolas Marin Negueruela were outstandingly popular. There is much material on fundamental dogmatic theology in Father John Marengo's Institutiones theologiae fundamentalis and in Canon Marchini's Summula theologiae dogmaticae.26 The publication of these books in the last decade of the nineteenth century marks them as genuinely "turn of the century," and they incorporate the kind of theological teaching which seems to displease Father Baum. Much more influential, however, was the treatise De theologia generali, in the first volume of Herrmann's Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae 27 a work which, incidentally, earned for its author a letter of thanks from St. Pius X himself.

The first volume of Monsignor Cesare Manzoni's Compendium theologiae dogmaticae 28 contains a typical "turn of the century" treatise on fundamental dogmatic theology. So too does Bishop Egger's Enchiridion theologiae dogmaticae generalis.29 The same type of doctrine can also be found in the Franciscan Gabriel Casanova's Theologia fundamentalis,30 in the Synthesis sive notae theologiae fundamentalis of Father Valentine Saiz Ruiz,31 and in the Theologia generalis seu tractatus de sacrae theologiae principiis32 by Father Michael Blanch.

The first volume of nearly every set of manuals of dogmatic theology issued during the early part of this century and the last decade of the nineteenth century carried a treatise on fundamental dogma. Typical of such works were Tepe's Institutiones theologicae, Prevel's Theologiae dogmatica elementa,33 Lercher's Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae,34 and Christian Pesch's Praelectiones dogmaticae.35 The texts by Pesch and Lercher have been especially influential in the training of seminarians throughout the first half of this century.

The two volumes of Hilarin Felder's Apologetica sive theologia fundamentalis 36 were widely used during the past few decades. And, in the historical part of apologetics, Felder's Christ and the Critics 37 was and continues to be almost uniquely valuable. Also outstanding in this field was the two-volume work, Jesus Christ: Sa Personne, Son Message, Ses Preuves,38 by Leonce de Grandmaison.

Father Berthier, the founder of the Missionaries of the Holy Family, wrote, during the reign of Pope Leo XIII, an Abrege de theologie dogmatique et morale,39 which contains a relatively complete and typically "turn of the century" treatise on fundamental dogmatic theology. The brilliant Father Bainvel published a treatise De vera religione et apologetica,40 which had a wide and powerful influence. And among the multitudinous and now almost forgotten writings of Cardinal Lepicier were a Tractatus de sacra doctrina 41 and a Tractatus de ecclesia Christi.42

The American Jesuit Father Timothy Cotter published an eminently successful and accurate Theologia fundamentalis.43 Among the most recent of our twentieth-century manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology is the Theologia fundamentalis, the first volume in the text of Iragui and Abarzuza.44 The Capuchin Father Iragui is the author of this first volume.

Of primary importance among the ecclesiological manuals of our century is the two-volume Theologica de ecclesia,45 by the Jesuit Bishop Michel d'Herbigny. Other intensely influential texts in the same area are the De ecclesia Christi 46 by the Jesuit Father Timothy Zapelena and the De ecclesia Christi47 by the Franciscan Father Antonio Vellico.

Another excellent and widely used manual in this field is The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise,48 by the late Father E. Sylvester Berry of Mount Saint Mary's. And in Canada we find an extraordinarily useful pair of manuals, the Apologetica authored by the Sulpician Fathers Yelle and Fournier and the De ecclesia et de locis theologicis,49 written by Father Yelle. From Spain comes one of the very best recent traditional manuals in this field, the Theologia fundamentalis by the Jesuit Fathers Salaverri and Nicolau.50 This is the first volume of the famed Sacrae theologiae summa.

Pegues's Propaedeutica thomistica ad sacram theologiam 51 contains an unusual statement of many of the central theses of the traditional fundamental dogmatic theology. Another Dominican, Father Joachim Berthier, wrote a Tractatus de locis theologicis,52 in which he deals accurately with the matter of the sources of revelation and the Church. The Dominican tradition in the field of ecclesiology was kept up in the "turn of the century" literature by, among others, Father De Groot, who published his magnificently accurate Summa apologetica de ecclesia catholica ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis,53 by Father Gerard Paris, who followed the teaching of De Groot to a great extent in his Tractatus de ecclesia Christi,54 and by Father Reginald Schultes, whose De ecclesia catholica: Praelectiones apologeticae55 is still a classic in the field.

Forty years ago the outstanding controversy among theologians was the debate about the definability of the theological conclusion. In the discussion Schultes and Father Francis Marin-Sola were the most prominent spokesmen for the two sides. Schultes's teaching was set forth in his Introductio in historiam dogmatum.56 Marin-Sola presented his teachings in his L'Evolution homogene du dogme catholique.57 Both authors, however, were "penetrated" by what
Father Baum has called "anti-modernist emphasis." And the material in these books definitely influenced the content of subsequent manuals in the field of fundamental dogmatic theology.

There has been considerable writing in the field of fundamental dogmatic theology, in line with the "turn of the century" tradition of Catholic and anti-Modernist theology, among English-speaking priests. Immensely popular some years ago was Devivier's Christian Apologetics,58 a translation edited and arranged by Bishop Messmer, one of the first faculty members at The Catholic University of America. In line with the teachings of Father Garrigou-Lagrange were Father Walshe's The Principles of Catholic Apologetics 59 and my own We Stand With Christ.60

The Jesuit Father John T. Langan wrote a fine Apologetica,61 which has been too little used by his fellow Americans. Another Jesuit, Father Joseph de Guibert, published a De ecclesia,62 which is recognized as one of the finest texts in this field produced during the course of our century.

During the past twenty years we have had many more texts which have kept up the teachings and the spirit of the manuals of the turn of the century, and which have certainly continued their anti-Modernist emphasis. Among these we may mention in passing the Theologia fundamentalis of the Jesuit Father Francis X. Calcagno,63 the Theologia fundamentalis64 of Archbishop Parente, the present Assessor of the Holy Office, and the Theologia fundamentalis65 of the Franciscan Father Maurus Heinrichs, as well as the magnificent treatise De revelatione christiana66 by Father Sebastian Tromp. There are also the very complete and accurate Theologia fundamentalis 67of the Jesuit Father Joseph Mors, the first volume of Conrad Baisi's Elementa theologiae scholasticae,68 and the first volume of the Theologiae dogmaticae theses 69 of Canon Joseph Lahitton.

The "turn of the century" spirit, and the anti-Modernist emphasis so deplored by Father Baum are also quite manifest in the articles published in the Dictionnaire de theologie catholique and the Dictionnaire apologetique de la foi catholique.

Father Baum’s Position

Now it must be noted that there is no complete agreement among the works we have mentioned (and we have mentioned only a small part of the literature which might be called twentieth century manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology), with reference to theological opinions. Certainly there are theses in the book by Christian Pesch, which are impugned in the work of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. And not everything that is taught by Tanquerey is approved in the manuals of Louis Billot.

Yet, if we examine the matter closely, the opposition of Father Baum is directed, not towards any individual opinion or group of opinions within the field of fundamental dogmatic theology, but against the common teaching of all these texts. It is Father Baum's contention that one of the contending groups at the Second Vatican Council is seeking "to consecrate as eternal Catholic wisdom the theology of the manuals of the turn of the century and the antimodernist emphasis which penetrated them." If his words have any meaning at all, he must be convinced that what is the common teaching of all these manuals of the turn of the century, and the common teaching of the manuals which followed them throughout the course of the twentieth century, is definitely not Catholic wisdom, and that this teaching must be abandoned if the life of the Church is to be renewed, and if we are to return to what he calls "the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages."

Now it is quite obvious that the common teaching of the manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology since the turn of the twentieth century has been the doctrine, which has been taught to the candidates for the priesthood within the Catholic Church, at least up until the past few months. We are dealing with books, which have been employed in teaching in seminaries and universities. If these books all contain common teaching opposed to or even distinct from genuine Catholic doctrine, then the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Catholic Church has been very much at fault during the course of the twentieth century.

It must be noted that we are speaking of the common teaching of these texts or manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology. Father Baum charges that one of the two conflicting groups at the Second Vatican Council was trying "to consecrate as eternal Catholic wisdom the theology of the manuals of the turn of the century." Of course this is the language of Madison Avenue rather than of the university lecture hall. It is calculated to make his readers imagine that many of the Fathers of the council were attempting to give to the teaching of the manuals in fundamental dogmatic theology a status, which that teaching had not previously enjoyed.

What seems to displease Father Baum is the fact that the unanimous teaching of the scholastic theologians in any area relating to faith or morals is the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. The manuals, like those to which we have referred, are books actually used in the instruction of candidates for the priesthood. They are written by men who actually teach in the Church's own approved schools, under the direction of the Catholic hierarchy, and ultimately, through the activity of the Congregation of Seminaries and Universities, under the direction of the Sovereign Pontiff himself. The common or morally unanimous teaching of the manuals in this field is definitely a part of Catholic doctrine.

It is quite obvious that the individual opinions of individual authors do not constitute Catholic doctrine, and could not be set forth as such. But there is a fund of common teaching (like that which tells us that there are truths which the Church proposes to us as revealed by God, and which are not contained in any way within the inspired books of Holy Scripture), which is the unanimous doctrine of the manuals, and which is the doctrine of the Catholic Church. The unanimous teaching of the scholastic theologians has always been recognized as a norm of Catholic doctrine. It is unfortunate that today there should be some attempt to mislead people into imagining that it has ceased to be such a norm in the twentieth century.

Father Baum tries to make it appear that there was a considerable group among the Fathers of the council who thought that the life of the Church could be renewed and that we could return "to the most authentic Catholic tradition of all ages" by setting aside the common and unanimous teaching of the scholastic theologians of our time. On the other hand, it is the teaching of Sylvius, who follows Melchior Cano here almost verbatim, that: "concordem omnium theologorurn sententiam in rebus fidei aut morum rejicere, si non est haeresis, est tamen haeresi proximum."70 Especially since there is absolutely no evidence that there was any party in the council with aims like those described by Father Baum, it would seem wiser to follow the basic Catholic teaching expressed by Cano and Sylvius.

Anti-Modernist Emphasis

It was most unfortunate that the distinguished Canadian priest should have spoken out on the subject of Modernism in this particular context. In his article it is apparent that he considers the anti-Modernist "emphasis" of the theological manuals of the turn of the century, and by inference of those manuals, which have followed in the same traditional path during the course of the twentieth century, as something, which can and should be abandoned. The original Modernists frequently attempted to delude people into imagining that the opposition to their erroneous teachings constituted a sort of theological excess, and that a proper doctrinal balance would be struck only when a sort of halfway house between Modernism and anti-Modernism was reached. Perhaps unintentionally Father Baum seems to be promoting the same message.

Actually Modernism was a heresy, or, to put it more accurately, a cluster of heresies. If one wants to know what the condemned teachings of the Modernists really were, he has only to read the propositions condemned in the Lamentabili sane exitu 71 and see the content of the Oath against the Errors of Modernism.72 If he makes this study, he will find that the Catholic dogmas denied by the Modernists are the fundamental teachings that God has revealed to us about His Church and about His message. Since there was a campaign aimed at bringing Catholics to reject these teachings, it was and it remains necessary for any accurate and competent treatise in the field of fundamental dogmatic theology to state, or, if Father Baum prefers the word, to emphasize, these teachings which were denied by the Modernists, and which were proclaimed as authentic and basic Catholic doctrine by the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic priest knows perfectly well that there is never going to be, and that there never could be, any "return" to a more authentic Catholic doctrinal tradition through the abandonment of the common teaching of all the twentieth-century manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology. The living and infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church never abandons the most authentic Catholic tradition. That tradition is manifest in the common teaching of the twentieth-century manuals, and in the condemnations of the various Modernistic propositions.

The abandonment of the dogmas attacked or called into question by the original Modernists or by their successors would be an abandonment of the divine teaching within the Catholic Church. We may thank God that there is no evidence that any group of Fathers of the Vatican Council in any way wanted to abandon this doctrine.

Joseph Clifford Fenton
The Catholic University of America
Washington, D.C.

Endnotes

1 Commonweal, LXXVII, 17 (Jan. 18, 1963), 436.
2 Ibid. The author of this second article is Gunnar D. Kumlien.
3 A fourth edition of this work was published at Rome by the Gregorian University in 1929.
4 The Gregorian University also brought out a fourth edition of this brilliantly anti-Modernist work in 1929, shortly after Billot had resigned from the College of Cardinals.
5 This set was published by Desclee and Co., of Paris, Tournai, and Rome. Later editions of these manuals were prepared by the Sulpician Father J. B. Bord.
6 The third edition of this work was prepared by Father E. P. Rengs, and was published at Amsterdam by C. L. Van Langenhuijsen in 1917.
7 Van Langenhuijsen published the third edition of this work in 1913. The English translations were published by the Newman Press in 1955 and 1957.
8 A Handbook of Fundamental Theology, by The Rev. John Brunsmann, S.V.D. Freely adapted and edited by Arthur Preuss. Four Volumes. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1928, 1929, 1931, 1932.
9 The firm of Elexpuru in Bilbao, Spain, published a third edition of this Theologia fundamentalis in 1937.
10 Desclee published a seventh edition of this work, produced with the co-operation of J. B. Bord, in 1931.
11 A second edition of the Medulla theologiae dogmaticae was published by Elexpuru in 1947.
12 Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Herder, 1930.
13 Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Herder, 1925.
14 This work was published by Rauch in Innsbruck, Austria. A second and third edition of the first volume appeared in 1930, a second edition of the second volume in 1928, and a second edition of the third volume in 1927.
15 This book was published by The Seminary Press, in Rochester, N. Y. The first volume appeared in 1927, and the second in 1933.
16 A fifth edition of the first volume of this work was published by the Gregorian University in Rome in 1927. A third edition of the much smaller, but still immensely important second volume appeared in 1929. The De ecclesia is generally recognized to be the finest of all the theological writings of Cardinal Billot. It must not be forgotten that the late Pope Pius XII, in an address to the students of the Gregorian, named Billot as a theologian who should be a model for all of the teachers of sacred doctrine in our time.
17 The publishing house of Ferrari in Rome published a third edition of the complete De revelatione (in two volumes), in 1929 and 1931. The original edition appeared in two volumes and the preface is dated on the feast of the Holy Rosary in 1917. Afterwards there was a one-volume edition, which was not successful. Ferrari published a fourth edition of the two-volume work in 1945.
18 This first volume was published in Paris by Berche et Pagis in 1929.
19 The translation of this work into French was made by Father Marcel Gautier. A second edition of the first volume, translated from the eighth edition of the German original, was published in Mulhouse, France, by Les Editions Salvator in 1935.
20 A third edition of this book was published by the firm of Styria at Graz and Vienna in 1925.
21 Carmigiani's Elementa theologiae fundameiitalis was published in Florence by the Libreria Editrice Fiorentina in 1911.
22 The firm of Pustet published a fourth edition of this work in 1903.
23 The first volume of Mannens's Theologiae dogmaticae institutiones, the Theologia fundamentalis, was published by J. J. Romen and Sons in Roermond, in Holland, in 1910.
24 The third edition of the first volume was brought out in Paris by Lethielleux and in Dublin by Gill in 1930.
25 The Libreria Internacional, in San Sebastian, Spain, brought out a fifth edition of this two-volume work in 1939.
26 The Salesian Press in Turin published a third edition of Marengo's two-volume work in 1894. Marchini's Summula was published at Vigevano in 1898.
27 The publisher Emmanuel Vitte brought out a seventh edition of Herrmann's Institutiones in Lyons and Paris in 1937.
28 The fourth edition of Monsignor Manzoni's first volume was published in Turin in 1928 by Lege Italiana Cattolica Editrice.
29 The publisher Weger of Brescia brought out the sixth edition of Bishop Egger's work in 1932.
30 This work was published in Rome by the Typographia Sallustiani in 1899.
31 The Press and the Bookshop of the Centro Catolico published this work in Burgos, Spain, in 1906.
32 Father Blanch's book was published by the Montserrat Press of Barcelona in 1901.
33 Tepe's book was published by Lethielleux in Paris in 1894. In 1912 the same publisher brought out a third edition of Prevel's first volume. It was edited by Father Miquel, SS.CC.
34 The second edition of Lercher's first volume appeared in 1934, published at Innsbruck by Rauch. Father Schlagenhaufen, S.J., edited a very useful fifth edition of this volume, which was published by Herder in Barcelona in 1951.
35 Herder, in Freiburg-im-Breisgau brought out a sixth and seventh edition of this work in 1924.
36 A second edition of the two volumes of Felder's Apologetica was published in Paderborn in 1923 by Schoeningh.
37 The English translation was made by the famous John L. Stoddard and was published in London in 1924 by Burns, Oates, and Washbourne, Ltd.
38 The brilliant French original, one of the most powerful works in the field of Catholic apologetics, was published by Beauchesne in Paris. A seventeenth edition appeared in 1931. One of the sad phenomena in English Catholic letters was the appearance, two years ago, of a small and relatively unimportant section of this work set forth as a complete book. This radically bowdlerized edition is published as Jesus Christ, by Leonce de Grandmaison, S.J., with a preface by Jean Danielou, S.J., and has been brought out by Sheed and Ward in New York.
39 A fifth edition was published by Vitte at Lyons and Paris in 1928.
40 Beauchesne of Paris published this work in 1914.
41 Rome: The Buona Stampa Press, 1927. Basically this work is a commentary on the first question in the Pars Prima of the Summa theologica. It takes in, however, a good deal of anti-Modernist teaching.
42 Rome: The Buona Stampa Press, 1935.
43 The book was published by Weston College, in Weston, Massachusetts, in 1940.
44 The Theologia fundamentalis of Father Serapius de Iragui, O.F.M. Cap., was published by the Ediciones Studium in Madrid in 1959.
45 Beauchesne published third editions of the two volumes in 1927 and 1928 in Paris. D'Herbigny's manual is outstanding for its use of oriental Christian theological literature.
46 The fourth edition of the first volume of this fine work was published in Rome by the Gregorian University in 1946. The first public edition of the second volume did not appear until 1954. Previous editions, like that of 1940, were "ad usum auditorum."
47 Rome: Arnodo, 1940. Vellico's text is extraordinarily valuable.
48 Herder of St. Louis published a second edition of this book in 1927.
49 Both of these highly useful volumes were published by the Grand Seminary, in Montreal, in 1945.
50 The Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos published a fifth edition of this Theologia fundamentalis in Madrid in 1955.
51 This was published by the Libreria del S. Cuore in Turin in 1931.
52 A second edition of this was published by Marietti in Turin in 1900.
53 The publishing house of Manz in Ratisbon brought out a second edition of this in 1892.
54 The full title of this work is Ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis tractatus de ecclesia Christi ad usum studentium theologie fundamentalis. Marietti published it in Turin in 1929.
55 A later edition of this work, edited by Father Edmund Prantner, O.P., was published in Paris by Lethielleux in 1930.
56 Lethielleux also published this work, which appeared in 1922.
57 A second edition of this two-volume work was published in Fribourg in Switzerland in 1924 by the Imprimerie et Librairie de l'Oeuvre de Saint Paul.
58 This translation was published in 1903 by Benziger Brothers of New York.
59 Longmans, Green and Company published this in 1919.
60 Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1942.
61 Chicago: The Loyola University Press, 1921.
62 A second edition of this work "in auditorum usu," was published in Rome by the Gregorian University Press in 1928.
63 Naples: D'Auria, 1948.
64 Turin: Marietti, 1946.
65 The Studium Biblicuм Franciscanum of Tokyo bought out a second edition of this work in 1958.
66 Fifth edition, Rome: The Gregorian University Press, 1945.
67 This is a two-volume text, the second edition of which was published in Buenos Aires by the Editorial Guadalupe in 1954 and 1955.
68 Milan: Editrice Ancora, 1948.
69 Paris: Beauchesne. 1922.
70 Controversies, Bk, 6, q. 2, art. 4, concl. 3. The passage in the works of Melchior Cano is to be found in the De locis theologicis, Bk. 8, cap. 4, concl. 3.
71 Denz., 2001-65.
72 Denz., 2145 ff.