Infallible Safety? – What Cardinal Franzelin actually taught
Have we misunderstood what these theologians were talking about, when they talk about infallible safety? It seems that separate issues have become conflated...
Introduction:
Vatican II and the decades following seemed to bring a wholesale transformation of the Catholic religion, along with a tidal wave of errors and even heresies. This transformation and tidal wave have had all the hallmarks of having come "from the top".
In the face of this, some traditionalists turned to the distinction between infallible and non-infallible acts as a means of explaining the situation, and of justifying their rejection of the new religion, in favour of true religion which they had always practiced. Conservatives and other self-styled "moderates" have done something similar, in favour of their unhappy compromise with the religious revolution.
The distinction between infallible and non-infallible acts is a true one. Not everything that the Pope says is an ex cathedra definition or infallible. The famous nineteenth century Jesuit theologian, John Baptist Cardinal Franzelin, wrote:
“No Catholic has ever actually denied, or could do so, that it is necessary to distinguish between ex cathedra definitions and other statements, even of a doctrinal nature, made by both the Popes themselves and the Pontifical Congregations.
“The enemies of the Holy See and the opponents of infallibility alone have always tried to eliminate this necessary distinction contained in the decree of the definition of the Vatican Council.”[1]
An implication of the argument mounted in response to Vatican II is that, so long as errors and novelties are not presented to us as ex cathedra definitions or as assisted with the charism of infallibility, they may contain or entail any manner of heresy or error.
This is proposed as a full and satisfactory explanation of what is going on in our current period, and further conclusions (such as the illegitimacy of recent papal claimants) are deemed unnecessary.
Infallibility extends further than ex cathedra definitions
However, limiting infallibility to ex cathedra definitions is itself questionable. It seems to forget that the universal ordinary magisterium is also infallibly assisted under the conditions mentioned by Vatican I.[2] It also seems to forget that certain objects deemed to fall under the secondary object of infallibility are normally proposed to us without a direct ex cathedra definition – for example, dogmatic facts and the well-established doctrine of the "infallible safety" of universal disciplinary laws.[3]
However, even if we were to concede that infallibility is limited to ex cathedra definitions, it still seems wrong to think that the Church and popes can, for a period of sixty years, authoritatively give the Church oceans of heresy and errors against divine revelation and Catholic theology.
Such an idea makes it very hard to understand the purpose of having a Church, papacy and magisterium in the first place – and seems to make a mockery of Our Lord’s promise to be with the Church until the end of time, and of the Holy Ghost guiding and protecting her.
So what should we make of it all?
Infallible safety
Some have tried to mitigate this idea – that non-infallible papal teaching can contain errors and perhaps even heresies – as follows.
While not every doctrinal instruction given authoritatively and universally by the Church or the Pope is infallibly true, it is however “infallibly safe” by virtue of the Church’s “charism of safety”; and this means that all the faithful can and must give an absolute religious assent to everything presented to us by Rome; and that one will not be able to lose one's soul in so doing.
In other words, universal but non-definitive and non-infallible papal teaching may be able to contain errors; but it cannot contain dangerous errors which will take us off the way of salvation. This is because (as is indisputably true, and must be accepted by all parties to this discussion) the Church is governed and protected by the Holy Ghost. This protection has in turn been dubbed “doctrinal providence”.
While this idea sounds similar to the infallible safety of universal disciplinary laws, it is quite distinct, for reasons which we will address in due course.
Recently, Dr John Joy wrote an article on this idea, which has prompted a range of responses.[4] In an article critiquing Dr Joy, Mr Michael Lofton cited and accepted Dr Joy’s definition of the idea, with a suggested clarification of terms:
“Dr. Joy begins by defining terms. He notes the ‘infallible safety thesis’ means 'the pope may teach some errors in his non-infallible magisterium, but not dangerous errors.'
“He also explains that if this teaching were true, then it would mean the pope could not teach heresy in his magisterium – though he could be a heretic as a private theologian.
“This definition is acceptable, but the term infallible in this context can be easily misunderstood […] I think it is better to refer to the Church’s doctrine as a charism of safety in order to avoid all of the unnecessary rabbit trails the term infallible may lead to.”[5]
We should be clear that everyone agrees that the Church enjoys a “charism of safety”, and of “doctrinal providence”, in that, at least in some general sense, the execution of her mission in the world is guided by the Holy Ghost. The idea expressed above under the name of “infallible safety” is a particular interpretation of this. Therefore, with all due respect to Mr Lofton, I shall continue to use “infallible safety” as a way of demarking the specific interpretation we are discussing.
This interpretation has several different kinds of proponents, and they end in different places.
Some sedevacantists argue that, because Vatican II and the post-conciliar claimants to the papacy have taught errors which are dangerous or even heretical, neither Vatican II nor the claimants have been legitimate. As such, this understanding of the “charism of safety” is presented as proof that Francis and his recent predecessors have not been legitimate popes.
Others, such as Mr Lofton himself, use this to promote the idea that, underneath all the supposed spin, Vatican II and the post-conciliar claimants are in fact all orthodox, and that we must assent to everything which they teach us.
These latter proponents – who have been dubbed “popesplainers” and “post-trads” – justify their position with post-conciliar documents such as Donum Veritatis. But both these and the former proponents refer to a shared set of authorities.
But do these authorities really teach this idea?
Franzelin
The standard authority cited for this interpretation of the Church’s “charism of safety” is the nineteenth-century Jesuit theologian John-Baptist Franzelin. The phrases “infallible safety” and “doctrinal providence” seem to have been popularised by the extract which these proponents cite from his work.
Here is the text:
“The Holy Apostolic See, to which God has entrusted the preservation of the deposit of faith and has imposed the task and duty to shepherd the Universal Church for the salvation of souls, can not only prescribe theological statements or those related to theological statements as acceptable or condemn them as unacceptable to definitively clarify the truth with an infallible judgment.
“It can also do this out of the necessity and intention to assure, either in general or under certain circumstances, the safety of Catholic doctrine.
“Even if in such declarations the truth of the doctrine is not infallible because no decision is intended, there is still infallible safety. This pertains to both the objective safety of the doctrine presented (in general or under the appropriate circumstances) and the subjective safety, insofar as it is safe for all to follow it, while it is not safe and cannot be done without violating due subordination to the divinely established teaching office to not comply with it.”[6]
A closer look at the extract in question shows that his text is by no means addressing “everything coming from the Holy See” (as is held by the proponents of “infallible safety”), but rather a very specific exercise of teaching authority by the Roman congregations.
What is this exercise of teaching authority? There was a time, even quite recent, in which the Roman congregations issued authoritative decisions, judgments and decrees which ruled that given doctrines were (or were not) safe to hold and be taught. Such declarations and prescriptions can be found in a collection such as Denzinger.[7]
The key question is whether what Franzelin refers to as "declarations" and to the "prescri[ption of] theological statements" refers to the whole body of authoritative but non-defintive papal teaching, or the specific decrees, declarations and prescriptions of the Congregations mentioned. It seems clear from the text and context, as well as those theologians who followed him, that he is referring to the latter.
Franzelin’s point in the text cited is that such judgments of safety are infallible, even if the truth or falsity of the doctrine could not be guaranteed. In other words: when the Holy Office decreed that a particular doctrine was unsafe to hold, we can be sure that the Holy Office is right: the doctrine really is unsafe to hold until further notice.
This text addresses these declarations in contradistinction to infallibly-assisted ex cathedra definitions by the pope or council. Even if this text may imply points relevant to exercise of the merely authentic papal magisterium in documents such as encyclicals, we must recognise that this famous text is not clear on the matter itself.
Billot
Louis Cardinal Billot cites Franzelin at length on this topic. He explains why it is that we must accept these declarations of safety, and what it means for them to be reformable:
“[W]hen the Sacred Congregations declare that some doctrine cannot safely be handed on (that is, it is not safe) [emphasis added], we are bound to judge that this doctrine is, I do not say in itself erroneous or false or anything like that, but simply that it is not safe, and so in the future not to adhere to it because it is not safe.
“And if they declare that some other doctrine cannot safely be denied (that is, it is safe), we are bound to judge that this doctrine is, not only safe, but also to be followed and embraced as safe (and I am not saying that it is in itself certain precisely in virtue of this decision).
“But strictly speaking, that which now is not safe, especially in the composite sense of the decision, afterwards can turn out to be safe, if perhaps the competent authority, having discussed the matter again and in the light of new reasons, promulgates another decision...”[8]
It is clear from the relevant section of his De Ecclesia that Billot is primarily discussing the decrees and decisions of the Roman Congregations, and not the content of documents such as encyclicals (which he addresses differently elsewhere).
Choupin
After quoting the above text from Cardinal Billot, Salaverri notes that “Dieckmann and Choupin embrace this same explanation.”[9]
But as we have seen, "this explanation" is not justifying the interpretation of “infallible safety” under discussion, and so cannot be marshalled in its favour.
Choupin does extend Franzelin's principle to decrees from the Holy Office as to whether a proposition is true or false (rather than just whether it is safe or unsafe):
"For example, if the Holy Office, by an authentic sentence, declares a proposition to be true or erroneous, I must say and believe inwardly, not that the proposition is true or erroneous absolutely, as if it were a definitive judgment, of itself irreformable, but that it is not imprudent, that it is safe to regard this proposition as true or erroneous, or rather that this proposition is sure, or is not sure."[10]
But throughout this section, Choupin is clearly talking about the authentic (authoritative) sentences, decisions and judgments of the Congregations. Extending it further to the whole body of the Roman Pontiff's non-definitive teaching would require further premises and argument.
Ward
We could also consider the example of Dr William George Ward, who could not be called a minimalist with regards to the rights of the Holy See (or indeed, it seems, with regard to anything at all). He too explains, in now familiar terms, the same interpretation we have seen throughout: that Franzelin was discussing the prescription of theological opinions to be followed or avoided, rather than the general body of papal teaching:
"... Cardinal Franzelin lays down the principle that the Holy Apostolic See may prescribe theological opinions, or opinions bearing on theology, as to be followed, or proscribe them as to be avoided; and that, too, not solely with the intention of deciding the truth by a definitive sentence, but even without any such intention, from the need it has and the design it entertains of looking to the security of Catholic doctrine, whether absolutely, or relatively only to particular circumstances.
"Now, although in declarations of this sort there is not infallible truth of the doctrine, since the supposition is that there is no intention of definitely deciding such truth, still there is infallible security, both objectively, as regards the teaching so put forth, and subjectively, inasmuch as it is safe for all to embrace it; whereas to refuse to embrace it would not be safe, and would be a violation of the law whereby Christians are bound to be submissive to the teaching authority which has been instituted by God."[11]
Fenton
Even Mgr Joseph Clifford Fenton himself – who argued for a wide extension of this idea, and is often cited by its proponents – granted that Franzelin was talking decrees of safety, rather than the safety of everything coming from Rome. After giving a summary of Franzelin’s teaching, he adds:
“The explanations developed by Franzelin and by Palmieri are adequate and exact. The first gives an excellent account of those teachings presented by the Holy See as propositions which can be taught safely.
“Palmieri, for his own part, offers a fine exposition of the status of propositions taught by competent authority, yet not presented as infallibly true. Both explanations can be employed profitably in dealing with some of the pronouncements of the various Roman congregations and with much of the teaching of the encyclicals.
“It would seem, however, that it would be a serious mistake to imagine that they can properly be applied to the entire body of doctrine set forth in these papal documents. It must be noted that neither Franzelin nor Palmieri made such an explicit application in the development of their own theories.”[12] (Emphases added)
In other words, Fenton clearly states that Franzelin did not apply his idea of doctrinal providence “to the entire body of doctrine set forth in these papal documents [such as encyclicals].”
Salaverri
Salaverri’s treatment of the matter in his De Ecclesia is along the same lines as the other authorities mentioned.
In an article on the authority of encyclicals, he explicitly rejects the idea that a non-definitive assertion of a doctrine calls only for us to assent to the implicit statement that the doctrine is safe. He also draws attention to the existence of the decrees of safety discussed:
“Secondly, to claim that the Pope, in non-infallible direct assertions in Encyclicals, only intends that they be accepted, not necessarily as true or false, but as secure or not secure, seems insufficient.
“This might apply in cases where the Magisterium explicitly affirms that a doctrine is secure or not secure.
“However, in those cases, since what the Magisterium formally teaches is precisely that, namely, that such a doctrine is secure or not secure, the mental assent required from the faithful cannot extend to more than what it authentically affirms.”[13] (Emphasis added)
He goes on to state that when the Pope proposes a doctrine in an encyclical, he normally proposes it as true; and that our assent is given to the doctrine itself, based on the doctrinal authority of the teacher and the magisterium proposing it – not to the idea that it is safe.
Conclusion
To summarise, Franzelin’s comments on doctrinal security pertain to an exercise of authority – that of Roman congregations issuing judgments of safety – which is defunct in the Novus Ordo milieu. Today few realise that Roman congregations ever made such judgments – and perhaps this explains how treatments of "quasi-definitive" judgments of safety have come to be understood as referring to the safety of non-definitive teaching.
But as we have seen, Franzelin was not saying “Everything coming from Rome is necessarily infallibly safe”; rather, he was saying: “When Rome (either through the Pope or the Congregations) prescribes something as safe, it truly is safe.” This is what he meant by “infallible safety”; and as we have seen, this is borne out by theologians, of varying degrees of authority, who followed Franzelin in this doctrine.
Once this is understood, some obscure and strangely-phrased elements in the relevants texts become clear.
I have suggested throughout that the idea of "infallible safety" may be inferred from the authorities cited. But it is necessary that we recognise that these authorities cannot simply be cited in support of this idea, as if they directly taught it themselves.
Often, it is merely assumed that the clear decrees and judgments of the Roman Congregations, and what theologians have written about the Congregations "prescribing" propositions, can be treated as equivalent to every passing statement of doctrine in a papal encyclical. These assumptions may or may not be true, but further premises and argumentation are necessary to establish it; and such a conclusion will only be as secure as the argumentation upon which it is based.
But this may raise a number of questions. If these authorities cannot simply be cited in support of "infallible safety", does this mean that the authoritative but non-definitive teaching of the popes can be full of errors?
Does it mean that we can disregard such teaching at will – recognising the legitimacy of the teacher, whilst resisting the teaching which we hold to be false?
Where does this leave the doctrine taught by Pius XII in Humani Generis, on our obligation to assent to the merely authentic exercise of the papal magisterium?
And does this mean that the Church is in fact capable of teaching a host of dangerous doctrines for sixty years, so long as they aren’t proposed with the hallmarks of an infallible definition?
These vexing questions will be the subject of subsequent parts.
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone. If you have benefitted from our content please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material!
Thank you!
[1] Ioannis Bapt. Franzelin, Tractatus de Divina Traditione er Scriptura, 1882, Sectio I., Caput II., Th. XII., Princ. VII. Translated by a friend of The WM Review, available at https://wmreview.co.uk/2023/11/09/infallible-safety/
[2] Vatican I taught: “All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed.” Vatican I, Dei Filius, Ch. 3, “Concerning Faith”, Dz 1792, trans. J.S. Daly
[3] Salaverri describes the secondary object of infallibility as “all the truths that are connected necessarily with per se revealed truths” – which he lists as follows:
“Truths of this kind necessarily connected with revealed truths are usually reduced to three kinds, which are: A. Speculative truths logically connected either consequently or in a presupposed way with the revealed truths; B. Dogmatic facts whether simply such or especially doctrinal; C. Dispositive decrees about discipline in general, and in particular on the canonization of Saints and on the approbation of religious Orders, which are said to be connected with revealed truths in a purposeful way, because they help very much to obtain the end of revelation which is the sanctification of souls.”
Joachim Salaverri, ‘On the Church of Christ,’ in Sacrae Theologia Summa IB (based on the version with the imprimatur dated 1955) 2015, n. 700. Trans. Kenneth Baker SJ, Keep the Faith.
[4] John Joy, ‘Is There a Charism of Infallible Safety?’ in One Peter Five, December 27 2023. Available at https://onepeterfive.com/is-there-a-charism-of-infallible-safety/.
[5] Michael Lofton, ‘A Response to Dr. John Joy: Is There a Charism of Infallible Safety?’ in Where Peter Is, Jan 10 2024. Available at: https://wherepeteris.com/a-response-to-dr-john-joy-is-there-a-charism-of-infallible-safety/
[6] Franzelin, Ibid.
[7] Cf. for example the list of propositions entitled “Errors of the Ontologists” from the decree of the Holy Office, Sept. 18, 1861, of which the Holy Office judged that: “they cannot be safely taught” (nn. 1659-1665).
Cf. also the Dubium on Craniotomy and Abortion, n. 1889-90s, and from the Biblical Commission in n. 2175. Cf. also nn. 2183-5, 2198, 2296. Denzinger, published as Sources of Catholic Dogma, available online at http://patristica.net/denzinger/
[8] Billot, De Ecclesia (1927) th. 19 p.445-47, cited in Salaverri n. 663.
[9] Salaverri n. 663.
[10] Lucien Choupin, Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siège, pp 83-6. G. Beauchesne, Paris, 1913.
[11] Dr. William George Ward, “The Assent due to certain Papal Utterances”, The Dublin Review, Volume XXXI (New Series), July 1878, p 155. Available at https://archive.org/details/sim_dublin-review_1878-07_31/page/155/mode/1up
[12] Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, ‚The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals – Part I‘ in American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August 1949, pp 136-150. Available at: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
[13] Joaquín Salaverri, Value of the Encyclicals in the light of the “Humani Generis”, 1951, published in Miscelánea Comillas XVII. Translated by a friend of The WM Review.
This was very good. I'm looking forward to the publication of part 2.