A reader writes:
You have remarked before that the Pope’s infallibility is invoked when he declares someone a saint. Is there any similar invocation of infallibility when someone is declared a Doctors of the Church?
No, there’s not. This may be illustrated by comparing the formula used in canonization with, for example, the declaration of St. Therese of Lisieux as a doctor of the Church.
As Vatican I and II point out, a pope triggers the Church’s charism of infallibility when he makes a definition, and so popes conventionally do this by using the verb "We (or I) define . . . "
In the case of a typical saint canonization, the formula used is as follows (this particular one being the canonization of Josemaria Escriva):
In honor of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity, for the uplifting of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, after careful deliberation, having called frequently upon God’s help, and with the advice of many of our brother Bishops, We declare and define Blessed Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer to be a Saint, and We inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that, throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [SOURCE].
You’ll note the bolded verbs: "We declare and define." The money verb is "We define." That’s what triggers the Church’s infallibility. It’s the traditional verb used by popes in engaging the charism of infallibility.
You’ll note that this verb is absent from proclamations that someone is a doctor. For example, when St. Therese of Lisieux was declared a doctor of the Church, this was the form of words used by John Paul II:
Fulfilling the wishes of many Brothers in the Episcopate and of a great number of the faithful throughout the world, after consulting the Congregation for the Causes of Saints and hearing the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding her eminent doctrine, with certain knowledge and after lengthy reflection, with the fullness of Our apostolic authority We declare Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face, virgin, to be a Doctor of the Universal Church. In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [SOURCE].
There’s no "We define" in that. Therefore, the pope is not making a definition and so is not triggering infallibility.
The same goes for the proclamation of other titles among saints. For example, here is the form of words used to proclaim St. Thomas More the patron of statemen and politicians:
Therefore, after due consideration and willingly acceding to the petitions addressed to me, I establish and declare Saint Thomas More the heavenly Patron of Statesmen and Politicians, and I decree that he be ascribed all the liturgical honours and privileges which, according to law, belong to the Patrons of categories of people [SOURCE].
Again, no "I define."
Now, I’ve answered the question so far on textualist grounds–pointing out that the texts do not use the language popes conventionally use in triggering infallibility. I haven’t pointed out why.
The basic reason is that the status of being a doctor is different than being a saint. If someone is a saint, that means that the person is in heaven. That’s a binary, on/off thing that can be the subject of a definition more easily than what is at issue when the title of "doctor" is bestowed. Someone either is in heaven or he isn’t. But in the case of a doctor the Church is honoring someone for being a really good teacher. The quality of someone’s teaching isn’t an on/off, binary kind of thing, though. The quality of teaching is something that exists on a continuum, and one that cannot be measured except impressionistically. As a result, it would be less clear what is being defined if a pope attempted to define that someone "is a really good teacher" (whatever words this might be put in) rather than that someone "is in heaven."
Now, in the case of both saints and doctors there are ancillary concepts associated with the Church’s bestowal of these titles. In both cases there is the idea that the person was holy and a good example for the faithful to emulate, but these are slippery concepts that also exist on continua.
The core of sainthood is still a binary, on/off condition: being heaven.
Something similar applies in the case of patrons. Here there is also the idea that the person was holy and worthy of emulating but the core of patronage is different: The patron is a person from whom the faithful (or certain groups of the faithful) ask intercession, either in general or concerning a particular matter. The proclamation of a patron thus is more a directive to the faithful–a directive to look to this guy for intercession and to emulate his example.
Thus when John Paul II proclaimed Thomas More the patron of statesmen and politicians he used the verb "I establish" rather than just "I declare." In establishing him as a patron of certain individuals, the pope thereby directed those individuals to seek his intercession and emulate his example.
Thus there is no attempt to engage the Church’s infallibility here either since no matter is being defined; rather an exhortation or directive is being given.
Thanks for this clarification, Jimmy. Could one invoke the notion of the Church’s indefectible holiness in this case? For example, the Church could not over a long period of time promote and sustain a Mass which is valid but inherently disrespectful to God; similarly, the Church could not consistently and over a period of time promote a person as a reliable teacher if that person were not somewhere on the high end of the continuum of reliability.
Does this work?
On second thought, maybe this is not a case of appeal to the Church’s indefectible holiness, but rather a kind of gray zone at the edge of the ordinary magisterium. That is to say, despite the fact that these declarations are practical directives rather than doctrinal pronouncements, their intrinsic connection with doctrinal matters means that the Church actually implies some level doctrinal approval by making the directive. When this directive is repeated and emphasized over time, one can eventually build a case for the author in question having a general reliability based on a teaching of the ordinary magisterium.
Hmm. What do you think?
With all due respect, I think you are on very, very shaky ground here concerning verbs. Neither Vatican I nor Vatican II said anything at all about the language to be employed in a dogmatic definition. As I understand things, the the Fathers of Vatican I studiously decided to strictly avoid any suggestion that certain words are to be required or even understood to be required. Of course, I agree with your analysis of the theology underlying the three different situations you discuss.
OK, the verb thing. Nobody can teach without communicating. Communication requires conventional signs. It has become conventional to signify an infallible teaching by means of a particular verb. If a pope chose NOT to use this verb, he would know beforehand that those with whom he was communicating would NOT take him to mean that the teaching is infallible, and so he would be voluntarily accepting the fact that his audience will understand him that way. Hence he would have voluntarily chosen NOT to teach that doctrine X is infallible. That’s not theology: that’s a simple fact about human communication happens.
Last time we got into a discussion about whether X is infallible, people got really bogged down about the verb thingy. Can we move on to the interesting stuff?
One more note. Someone might object that the use of a particular verb is NOT a convention. Whether it is or not is not something which can be settled by means of theological argumentation, just like you couldn’t use philosophy to settle the issue of whether “zatch” is an anatomical reference. (It is, but only in Thurber stories.) The ONLY way to settle the issue is to be familiar with current theology and how people are interpreting things, or at the least to be familiar with how popes have phrased their teachings over the last several decades. Someone who is not involved in the theological profession and who has not reviewed papal teaching with care has nothing to say on this issue. Jimmy is and has and does, and in fact has provided the evidence for this particular convention before.
Charity restrains me from responding further, Mr. Holmes to your peremptory ipse dixit.
First, let me apologize for an overly aggressive set of posts. Sometimes when I write under a time constraint, my all-too-human imperfections show through!
Second, my posts do not constitute an ipse dixit, but an actual argument: the first post reasons through the verb issue, while the second demonstrates why a key premise in the first argument can only be disputed on experiential grounds. If there is something wrong with my arguments, charity should not restrain you from responding further, but should impell you to show your erring brother where the truth lies.
I do understand your comment about charity, though: I think you mean that you did not want to continue a conversation in the unfortunate tone I had taken. You are correct, and again, my apologies. Tone gone! You may proceed now.
I agree with the folks who say Jimmy’s wrong here. I don’t see anything in VCII, VCI, or the Catechism which agrees with Jimmy’s restrictive “verb” idea. Neither VCI or VCII contain a “verb” limitation — the limitations they contain revolve around what sort of statement the Pope is making (and “doctor”izing somebody clearly doesnt’ fit into “faith or morals”) and how he invokes his authority.
Perhaps I can offer a clarification, pfairban?
1) You are absolutely right that no official documents state the need for a particular verb. This need is not built on doctrine, but on customs surrounding papal pronouncements. Just as we have to interpret the book of Psalms in light of Hebrew idioms of several thousand years ago, so we have to interpret papal pronouncements in terms of the customs surrounding such speech.
2) You are correct again that “doctor”izing somebody is not a faith or morals pronouncement; as Jimmy pointed out, it more of a practical directive or exhortation: “Read this guy!” My question has to do with the fact that the doctors of the Church are accorded a certain authority in the theology, and I’m trying to understand where that authority comes from and how it is connected with “doctor”izing somebody. Suggestions are welcome!
This isn’t a question of interpretation, Jeremy — that’s the road of infinite regression. I’ve read and heard folks who want to get into that (including the whole question of whether the Pope actually went and sat down on the actual physical chair in St. Peters!) and I’ll stick with what the Church has dogmatically stated. Since there’s no quarrel about whether VCI’s statement on this was a dogmatic definition, and since VCI doesn’t require the pope to use the word define, or use a special stamp, or sit in a special chair, I’m not going to limit my view of dogma to any of that stuff.
Pfairban: On this thread, my question really has to do with the authority of the doctors of the Church and how it is connected with their status as officially proclaimed doctors.
But to respond to your note: your point is well taken about avoiding absurd, externally imposed requirements, as though the pope has to sit on a chair just because we describe his statement as ex cathedra. If I may niggle a bit about logic, the problem you raise is not really a question of infinite regression, because one can have a finite number of requirements without any reason for going on to infinity.
If you want to locate Jimmy’s position within the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church, locate it in the verb “proclaim” (LG 25). To proclaim something, the Pope must communicate via human means. Because Catholic doctrine has developed to the point that the Pope is consciously aware of his ability to proclaim doctrine infallibly, it has become possible for him consciously to intend either to do so or not to do so. Because this has become possible, Catholic theologians ’round the world have taken to hanging on his every word to see whether he means to “do it”. Being aware of this bird-watching behavior among theologians, the Pope knows that if he does not give them certain cues, they will think he hasn’t “done it”. So if he chooses NOT to give those cues, then he has chosen to be understood as NOT teaching infallibly, which means he has chosen NOT to proclaim the teaching as infallible.
Of course, none of this is applicable to the days before Catholic doctrine surrounding papal infallibility had developed to its modern clarity, or to any time before the development of this particular custom.
Moreover–this is key, now–the need for a particular verb will NEVER appear in the dogmatic statements, because it is not PER SE needed. The Pope could stand up tomorrow and say, “I’m tired of being expected to provide a specific verb. I’m just going to speak my mind and let you guess at my intentions!” And that would be that. The dogmatic statements of the Church cover only things which are ESSENTIAL to an infallible statement, such as that the Pope speak as the head of the Church rather than as a private individual, and that it be in a document of importance rather than something he scribbled (as head of the Church) on a post-it note, it has to concern faith or morals, etc. The Pope could not abbrogate these elements, because they are of the essence of an infallible statement. While it is essential that he “proclaim”, that is, make known his mind to others, the particular signs or words he uses to do so are a matter of custom and cannot be defined as unchangeable dogma.
In other words, the reason you won’t find a verb requirement in the dogmatic statements of the Church is because such a requirement is a convention and therefore mutable.
Here’s an example. An encyclical has more authority than an apostolic letter. Back in the days of Peter and Clement, there were no such names for papal documents to help us sort through what has been taught by the ordinary magesterium. But now a whole complex of papal documents has sprung up, each with its customary level of importance and authority as papal teaching. This is custom, and the system of documents could be shuffled over the next several hundred years, to the point that you and I wouldn’t recognize the genres being used. That’s why the Church can’t define as doctrine that a particular genre of writing is required for a particular level of authority–because it’s mutable.
“Tone gone! You may proceed now.” Thanks, but no thanks. God bless.