You have a habit of classifying anything as "theory" or "speculation" if it hasn't been formally or solemnly defined. So, for instance, you claimed this of the Church's disciplinary infallibility and overall indefectibility ... even though the propositions related to both disciplinary infallibility and indefectibility flow directly from Catholic teaching and have a much higher theological note than "speculative". For you there seem to be only two categories, de fide and speculation. That's in line with your limiting of infallibility to solemn definitions. As with the different ramifications of indefectibility which are denied by no theologian, the notion of fides ecclesiastica is very widely held. This distinction appears in every listing of the "theological notes" that I have ever seen.
But for people of your mindset, anything short of things defined solemnly by the Church are optional.
The term “speculation” has as its primary meaning the contemplative consideration of a subject. Its modern sense to conjecture or surmise unrelated to known facts is the fourth or fifth meaning of the word depending on your dictionary reference used. The Church Fathers at Nicaea speculated on the divine revelation of the Trinity before formulating the dogma that the Father and the Son are consubstantial.
Fr. Fenton has a nice article in AER on half dozen or more speculations on the nature of the Communion of Saints, a formal object of divine revelation. The Indefectibility of the Church is a matter of divine revelation as well but its exact nature and its method of operation have not been dogmatically defined and are open to further speculation.
It is grossly absurd mischaracterization to claim that I have
“two categories, de fide and speculation….. limiting of infallibility to solemn definitions” making “anything short of things defined solemnly by the Church are optional.” I have made many post posts in the past and several posts directly to you that demonstrate this as calumny.
Furthermore, since I obviously adhere to the Catholic principle that dogma is the proximate rule of faith, it would be corruption of the dogma:
Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium. Vatican I
It is not clear to me what you are trying to say in this post. So what are claiming? That there is such a thing as "mere ecclesiastical faith"? And that my denial of its existence represents a
"habit of classifying anything as 'theory' or 'speculation' if it has not been formally or solemnly defined?" This question has been considered in detail before and you have contributed to the posts in that thread. If you need to be reminded of the details, they can be covered again.
The article by Fr. Fenton demonstrates an example where popular theological speculation has proved to be utterly useless and even harmful to the Church. My argument was essentially a detailed review of Fr. Fenton's article which buries the theological absurdity of mere ecclesiastical faith ultimately denying that it even exists. The discussion in the thread went beyond what Fr. Fenton presented and addressed some of the theological consequences of believing this myth.
If Fr. Fenton did not convince you I can guess at the reason. Fr. Fenton uses dogma as his rule of faith from which he draws necessary and certain theological conclusions. From these derived truths, he agrees with the theologians who concluded that mere ecclesiastical faith has no basis in reality
. It is true the mere ecclesiastical faith was a common error at the time of Fr. Fenton's article and in fact is even more common today because it makes the pope the rule of faith. But popular as it is, it is still an absurd myth and I am grateful to Fr. Fenton for having addressed it.
Indefectibility is essentially the power the Church possesses to offer true worship to God and sanctify the faithful. This first and fundamental truth cannot be forgotten in any consideration of the nature of Indefectibility and how it is preserved in the Church.
One of the first things that need to be grasped is that
“disciplinary infallibility” is an oxymoron. Discipline is in the order of Authority-Obedience and Infallibility is in the order of Truth-Falsehood.
Once this idea is dumped it is possible to move toward understanding the nature of immemorial ecclesiastical traditions. I have made a repeated claim to you and others that immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are not matters of mere discipline, but rather, necessary attributes of the faith. The iconoclasts were condemned as heretics for rejecting images of the faith. Every immemorial ecclesiastical tradition is an image of the faith by which is can be known and communicated to others.
Dogma is expressed in words. Those words are images of specific concepts that are joined in categorically judgments that are infalliblely true. The words of a dogmatic definition and the immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are analogous. They are both the work of the Holy Ghost. Immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are not mere matters of discipline; they possess elements of discipline, but are essentially direct properties of Catholic truth.
They are the incarnational manifestation of truth. This explains why immemorial ecclesiastical traditions have been the object of dogmatic definitions and therefore cannot be a matters of simple discipline, i.e.: objects mere ecclesiastical faith. Clarity on this matter begins with holding Dogma as the proximate rule of faith. This should be evident to everyone reading this thread by this one fact alone: the definition of heresy is the rejection of Dogma, that is, heresy is failure to keep Dogma as the proximate rule of faith. Once you understand this you can clearly see that the overturning of any immemorial ecclesiastical tradition is an attack on the faith itself and the virtue of Religion. No human person regardless of their authority can legitimately command anything against the virtue of Religion and no Catholic can be obedient to such a command without sin. This is fundamental principle of Catholic moral theology. That holds true whether the authority is father and son or the Pope and a faithful Catholic.
A heretical pope does not possess any authority by his grace of state to command any attack against the faith and it does not require removing him from his office or destroying the office to correct the problem both of which lead to the overturning of Catholic dogma. And, as I have already said, it is absurd for sedevacantists or sedeprivationists to accuse R & R Catholics of problems regarding the Attribute of Indefectibility especially when they end up on a church of their own making that is without a necessary attribute of the Church founded by Jesus Christ and without any material or instrumental cause to ever correct the problem. Whatever church this is, it is not the Catholic Church. It cannot worship God or sanctify the faithful. It is therefore a most defective church.
Drew