Infallibility Revisited

O n July 5, 1973, the newswires across the world were buzzing with reports that the Holy See had come out with a new document on infallibility, condemning, it was suspected, the positions of Hans Kung. The document, popularly referred to by its opening words as Mysterium Ecclesiae ("The Mystery of the Church"), is a Declaration of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as the Holy Office), signed by Cardinal Franjo Seper as Prefect and Archbishop Jerome Hamer as Secretary. (The document is officially described as a "Declaration in Defense of the Catholic Doctrine on the Church Against Certain Errors of the Present Day.") The declaration, having been ratified and confirmed by Pope Paul VI in a private audience, was signed on June 24. In entitling this document a "declaration," the Congregation wished to indicate, according to a Vatican Press release, that it "does not teach new doctrines, but it recalls and summarizes the Catholic doctrine that has been defined or taught in former documents of the magisterium of the Church; it gives the right interpretation of this Catholic doctrine and indicates its limits and scope."

The major points in this statement are a reaffirmation of what has become common teaching over the past century. All 60 footnotes refer to official Catholic documents. There are some 40 references to Vatican II, some 10 references to Vatican I, and several references each to Trent, to the Synod of Bishops of 1971 and to various utterances of Paul VI. As this documentation suggests, the declaration does not offer any new exegetical or historical evidence for the positions it adopts. It relies almost solely on earlier Church documents as authorities. For this reason, the declaration will not satisfy the objections of some scholars; nor is it intended to do so. "The Mystery of the Church" falls into six sections that are concerned with four main topics. Section I deals with the unity of the Church; Sections II to IV, with infallibility; Section V, with the historical conditioning and reinterpretation of dogma; and Section VI, with the priesthood. There is no evident unifying theme except that everything in the declaration has some reference to the Church. It has been suggested that the common denominator might be that Hans Kung has written on all the points touched in this declaration-but so have many other authors. Fr. Kung has not taught anything resembling some of the positions here condemned-for example those relating to the unity of the Church. Thus it is probably better not to presume that there is any particular thematic unity. The declaration is a kind of Syllabus of recent errors concerning the Church. No adversaries are named, but it seems quite evident that Fr. Kling is alluded to in Section IV, and the Vatican press office, in a release accompanying the declaration, referred to "some ideas of Professor Hans Kung."

The various sections of the declaration call for separate study. The first section is an effort to establish a very close, or even absolute, identity between the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church. This represents a subtle but important change from Vatican II, which took pains to distinguish between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church, stating that the former "subsists in," but is not exclusively identified with, the latter. The present declaration blurs over this distinction by stating that Catholics are bound to profess that "they belong to that Church which Christ founded and which is governed by the successors of Peter and the other apostles.... " In this sentence, the first "which" refers to the Church of Christ, the second to the Roman Catholic Church. The phrasing seems to imply what Vatican II refused to assert, that Jesus Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church.

Section I insists rather unilaterally on the institutional perfection of the Catholic Church. It presents the Church not primarily as a communion or community of persons assembled under the lordship of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, but as a "general means of salvation." The Church is said to bring its members to salvation because it is "endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all the means of grace with which Christ wished to enhance His messianic community." Peter and the other apostles are described as "the depositaries of the original apostolic tradition, living and intact, which is the permanent heritage of doctrine and holiness of that same Church"that is, of the Catholic Church. ­

By concentrating on what Fr. Yves Congar, O. P., once called the "hierarchical machinery of mediation," the declaration, in my opinion, unduly narrows the very concept of the Church. Vatican II, more adequately, depicted the Church primarily as a mystery of grace, a wonderful gathering of men brought into union by the Spirit of Christ. The declaration, by considering only the "means of grace" entrusted by Christ to His apostles and their successors, gives the impression that the Catholic Church lacks nothing and that other Christian communities can have nothing positive to contribute to the ecumenical dialogue. Whatever good things they have, the Catholic Church has in even greater measure. Without using these precise words, the declaration conveys this impression.

Section I closes with a condemnation of two errors. The first is the idea that "Christ’s Church is nothing more than a collection (divided, but still possessing a certain unity) of Churches and ecclesial communities"; the second, that "Christ’s Church nowhere really exists today, and that it is to be considered only as an end which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach." I am not aware of anyone who holds either of these positions in the crude form here stated. Many theologians, both Catholic and Protestant. believe that something of the Church of Christ is to be found in the various Churches and ecclesial communities, and that the perfection of the Church is an eschatological reality toward which all existing communities should aspire. These moderate positions, however, are clearly endorsed by Vatican II. It would be unfortunate if the present condemnation were to cast suspicion on these sound and ecumenically fruitful initiatives of Vatican II.

Sections II and III of the declaration deal respectively with the infallibility of the universal Church and of the magisterium. With regard to the infallibility of the faithful as a whole, the declaration combines, but does not adyance beyond, the teaching of the Constitution on the church (sect. 12) and the Constitution on Divine Revelation (sect. 8). On the infallibility of the magisterium the doctrine of Vatican II, as found in these two constitutions, is presented with several significant nuances.

For example, it is asserted that the charism of infallibility does not dispense the Pope and the other bishops from studying with appropriate means the treasure of divine revelation contained in Scripture and tradition. This concession raises (but does not answer) the question whether a definition would be infallible if, in a given instance, insufficient study were given to the sources. Some Christians answer that Divine Providence would never allow such a catastrophe to happen, but I suspect that theology can do better than to invoke such a deus ex machina. More attention must be given to the necessary conditions for an infallible declaration.

Also, in Section III, the declaration asserts that the Church has from the beginning always believed that the magisterium possesses infallibility in expounding the deposit of faith. As a historical assertion, this statement raises serious problems, if only because the term "infallibility" was not applied to the magisterium until late in the Middle Ages. Whether some equivalent claim may be said to have been made from the beginning is far from clear. A great deal depends upon how one understands infallibility. The interpretation given to infallibility in the present document is not something that can plausibly be ascribed to churchmen of the early centuries. ­­­­

Similar objections will be raised regarding the statement at the end of Section III that the dogmas, as "the objects of Catholic faith, have always been the unalterable norm both for faith and for theological science." The term "dogma" is here used in a sense given to it only since the 18th century. There is nothing precisely corresponding to this notion in the theology of the patristic or medieval periods. In our own time, many theologians would say that the object of faith is God as He comes to us in Jesus Christ, rather than dogmas,
which are human formulations of certain aspects of the mystery of our redemption. ­

Section IV contains the passage most evidently directed against Hans Kung. It states that the faithful are in no way permitted to see in the Church merely a fundamental permanence in the truth that could be compatible with occasional errors even in the definitive teaching of the magisterium. In proposing his theory of the Church’s "indefectibility" in the truth, Kung has quite consciously set himself against the doctrine’ of magisterial infallibility as commonly understood in the Church since Vatican I. The present declaration tells us, not surprisingly, that the Holy See is not presently prepared to accept Fr. Kung’s thesis. No effort is here made to meet the exegetical, historical and systematic arguments KUng has presented. ­­

Personally, I believe that a purely juridical understanding of infallibility, such as the declaration here seems to favor, is not theologically viable. I would hold that the entire Church has a kind of permanence in the truth of Christ that may appropriately be called "infallibility." Going beyond Fr. Kung (as I understand him), I would add that the Church’s infallibility may at times come to determinate verbal expression through the pronouncements of Popes, bishops or councils, when it is given to them to ­­see clearly how a controversy should be resolved. On such occasions, the Church at large may react somewhat as did the Fathers at Chalcedon when they exclaimed: "Peter has spoken through Leo."

Recognizing the necessity for "reception," Vatican II asserted that when the magisterium teaches infallibly the assent of the Church can never be wanting, because the same Holy Spirit directs both the magisterium and the body of the faithful. The assent of the Church, to be sure, is not the source of the magisterium’s ­­infallibility (God is the source), but it is a sign that the magisterium, in a specific pronouncement, has not acted without the help of the Spirit.

Section IV concludes with a brief discussion of the so-called hierarchy of truths which, according to the Decree on Ecumenism (§ 11), exists among the Church’s doctrines. The declaration interprets this hierarchy with reference to the order of derivation: "Some dogmas are founded upon other dogmas which are the principal ones, and are illuminated by these latter." Then occurs the statement that all the dogmas, since they are revealed, must be believed with the same divine faith. The declaration here goes beyond Vatican II, which was content to say in the Constitution on the Church (sect; 25) that the definitions of Popes and councils must be believed "with the submission of faith." In insisting that the dogmas themselves must be believed on a motive of divine faith, the declaration here minimizes the human element in the formulation of dogma. ­­­­­

Most interpreters would understand the doctrine of the hierarchy of truths, in the Decree on Ecumenism, as implying that not all dogmas are equally important. It is more necessary to believe the central mystery of Christ than to accept some peripheral connected truth, such as the Immaculate Conception. The declaration, in basing the assent of faith solely on the fact of divine attestation, seems to put all dogmas on the same level, and thus to undermine the clear intention of the Decree on Ecumenism. ­­­­

Section V, which deals with the human conditioning of doctrinal affirmations, was perhaps written by a different hand than the paragraphs just considered. At any event, it shows a much more sophisticated theology, hardly reconcilable with some of the statements in Section IV. The first paragraph declares that the hidden mysteries of God, which we accept in faith, by their nature far transcend the human intellect. This seems to imply that no human formulation, even though it be a defined dogma, ­can adequately express the mystery to which we assent. The assent, therefore, can hardly be to the dogma in isolation. ­

Then, in a remarkably deep and concise paragraph, the declaration points out that statements of revelation are conditioned in four ways by the historicity of the human subject. The meaning is affected, in the first place, by the expressive power of human language at a given time and place. Second, dogmatic truths are sometimes expressed in reference to a limited human context, so that a formulation well suited to its original context may be found inadequate in the framework of a later context. Third, official Church pronouncements are commonly directed to the solution of particular questions or the refutation of particular errors, and this purpose must be borne in mind by future interpreters. Fourth, it can sometimes happen
that doctrines are enunciated by the magisterium in terms that bear traces of changeable human conceptions. ­­­

This fourth concession is particularly remarkable in view of the fact that two encyclicals-Humani Generis (1950) and Mysterium Fidei (1965)-rejected the idea that the concepts employed in dogmatic formulations are time-conditioned. In the second of these encyclicals, Paul VI taught that transubstantiation, and the other formulas used by councils to propose the dogmas of the faith, "express concepts which are not tied to a certain definite form of human culture, or to a certain stage of scientific progress, but exhibit that which the human mind, in its universal and necessary experience of reality, perceives .... Hence they are suited to men of all times and places." Vatican II, especially in the Decree on Ecumen ism and in the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, pointed out that revelation is and should be understood in different ways according to the temperament and culture of different peoples. That this important theme of Vatican II should now be taken up again and stated even more explicitly by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is surely cause for rejoicing. ­­­­­­­­­

The remainder of Section V deals with the problem of the reinterpretation of dogma. It explains that the formulas that were at one time suitable for expressing divine revelation may subsequently be in need of clarification. In fact, it may even happen that some older dogmatic formulas might give way to new expressions that present the meaning more clearly and completely in a new context of understanding. All of this might well seem applicable to a technical term such as "transubstantiation." ­­­

Lese concessions are then reviewed in the light of the Vatican I teaching that the meaning (sensus) of the dogmas remains constant. At this point, the declaration, taking up Pope John XXIII’s famous distinction between the deposit of faith and the manner of presentation, asserts that the former remains identical while the latter varies. This seems to me to be an oversimplification, in view of what the declaration itself acknowledges regarding the reconceptualization and reinterpretation of dogma in new human contexts. The Church’s understanding of revelation, and not simply her exposition of it, changes and develops over the centuries. ­­­

The sixth and last section of the declaration has no organic relationship with what precedes. It deals with priesthood. After some passing mention of the priesthood of Christ and the common priesthood of the faithful, the congregation turns to the ministerial priesthood, the main point of concern. The English translation gives the impression of saying that priestly ordination can come only through the laying on of hands by a bishop whose lineage goes back to the apostles. This would imply that Christian communities that have lost the apostolic succession of bishops cannot have a true Christian ministry or a genuine Eucharist. An attentive reading of the Latin text, however, shows that the congregation has carefully measured its words. It states that the rite of ordination comes down from apostolic times and that, because the early bishops ordained presbyters, there arose in the Church the ministerial priesthood. The document does ­­­­­not deny that priestly ministry could be received in some other way than through the laying on of hands by a bishop who stands. in the apostolic succession.

Priestly ordination, according to the declaration, confers an indelible character to which special powers are attached .. The Synod of 1971 is quoted as an authority for holding that "only the priest can act in the person of Christ and preside over and perform the sacrificial banquet." Hence follows the conclusion: "The faithful who have not received priestly ordination and who take upon themselves the office of performing
the Eucharist attempt to do so not only in a completely illicit way but also invalidly." ­­­

This sentence, at first reading, appears to say more than, on careful scrutiny, it clearly teaches. Does it mean that no sacramental event takes place when an unordained minister presides at the Lord’s Supper? Perhaps not. For one thing, the declaration is speaking of those who "take upon themselves" the function (qui proprio ausu munus sibi sumant) of offering the Eucharist. This leaves open the possibility that one who is, in extraordinary circumstances, designated by the community for this function might be competent to officiate. Second, the term "invalidity" has various meanings in modern theological literature. Some would understand it as signifying that the Church cannot or does not guarantee the efficacy of the rite; others, as signifying that the rite is inefficacious. If the first of these meanings is here intended, the declaration may be teaching simply that the Church does not officially recognize a Eucharist in which an unordained person arrogates to himself the role of celebrant. The fact that the declaration leaves open the possibility of such an interpretation is of considerable ecumenical significance. ­­­­­­­­­

What is notable in the whole treatment of the priesthood is an intense preoccupation with powers, especially sacramental powers. This represents a movement away from the thrust of Vatican II, which attempted to focus more on priestly service and to set the sacramental activity of the priest in the wider context of his functions ­as minister of the word and builder of community. It is to be hoped that the present declaration, in its change of emphasis, does not represent a general trend; for in that case one would have to admit that the theology of ministry is regressing to a pre conciliar stage. ­

Since the Second Vatican Council, Rome has produced a number of encouraging and progressive documents, especially those bearing on communications and the social apostolate. The present declaration, unfortunately, does not rank among these positive achievements. It is defensive in tenor, reactionary rather than forward-looking. Although it contains some excellent observations on particular points, such as the historicity of dogmatic formulations, the document as a whole lags behind the best theology of the day. On the other hand it is not a repressive statement. It is moderate in tone and is worded with great circumspection. ­­­­­

"The Mystery of the Church" does not live up to the promise of its own title. To judge from its contents it might better have been named, ’The Power of the Hierarchical Church." In reading it, one wonders what became of the biblical and ecumenical renewals that were so recently under way, not least in Rome. The pluralism and openness to dialogue so warmly recommended by the late council seem to have been eclipsed. The philosophy behind this declaration is still predominantly juridical, clerical, authoritarian and objectivistic-somewhat outdated. ­­­­

Claims of authority may at times be necessary, but they do not normally increase the prestige of the claimant. Generally speaking, Rome teaches most credibly, not when it asserts its own prerogatives, but when it manifests its confidence in the Lord and its concern for the interests of the Gospel. ­­