Author: Jimmy Akin

A reader writes:

How do you differentiate infallible declarations of a Pope from a fallible opinon? Is there a specific formula or phrase used? Also, are the decisions of councils considered infallible? (for example the Council of Trent) Thanks for all the information.

No prob!

While theoretically a pope or a council can engage the Church’s infallibility by using any form of words that adequately communicates the pope or council’s intent to make an infallible definition, in practice there have developed certain standard forms of expression that are understood to communicate this intent.

In the case of a pope, the standard form of expression uses the verb "define," as in "I declare and define that X."

In the case of a council, the standard form involves the word "anathema," which (contrary to a popular impression to the contrary) does not mean the automatic damnation of someone. (Instead it refers to an exclusion from communion with the Church; SEE HERE). The typical formula was "If anyone says X, let him be anathma."

Formulas of the latter nature, of course, have to be on a matter of faith or morals and not simply on disciplinary or similar matters.

Attention also has to be given as to whether these terms had come to signal the engagement of the Church’s infallibility in a particular age (there may be early examples in which the language is used before its intent to trigger infallibility had become fixed).

And in all cases the matter that is defined must be understood in its historical context (i.e., we have to read the language they use in the context of the time and not as if it had been uttered in earlier or later ages) and the matter being defined must be given a strict construction, in keeping with canon law’s provision that:

Can. 749 §3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly
unless this is manifestly evident.

This means that only the claim being specifically made is defined, not similar or related claims.

It also means that in cases of doubt, a matter is assumed not to be defined.

From the foregoing, it can be seen that the Church has a preference for not defining things and only engaging its infallibility when there is a pressing need (for the most part).

A non-Catholic reader writes:

I was discussing several issues with a Romanist Apologist on the Planet Envoy forum. He indicated that the Magisterium declares that anyone who believes in Sola Fide is a heretic, and that as a result, their damnation is certain. What say you on the matter?

I’ll tell you. But before I do, let me say something else: Didn’t your momma teach you any manners at all?

Unless you are uncommonly unfamiliar with the standard use of the terms you are using, you must realize that the term "Romanist" is a religious slur that is highly offensive and used to express contempt for Catholics.

Would you really walk up to an African American and say something like, "So I was talking with a <INSERT RACIAL SLUR> activist, and he said . . . "?

Or would you e-mail a Jewish scholar and say, "I was in a chat room with a <INSERT ETHNO-RELIGIOUS SLUR> guy and was wondering if you, as one of his fellow <SLURS>, could comment on what he said?"

If you wouldn’t do these things, what the HECK are you doing writing to me, asking for my opinion on something, and throwing a religious term of contempt in my face?

Whatever bigoted language you may choose to use when among your own co-religionists, common sense should tell you how rude it is to go throwing such language in the faces of those from whom you are asking favors.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Having made this point, let us now go the extra mile to address the subject of your query.

Since I have not read the exchange in question, I cannot comment on what the Catholic apologist said. I can only comment on what you report him as saying. There may be important nuances that have been lost in transmission.

That being said, there are two difficulties with the position as you present it.

The first concerns the use of the phrase "sola fide." While certain interpretations of the proposition that we are justified "by faith alone" (sola fide) have been infallibly rejected by the Magisterium, and while it would be materially heretical to endorse these interpretations, it is not the case that every possible use of the phrase has been infallibly rejected as heretical.

The use of the phrase is intrinsically misleading and contrary to the language of Scripture (since the only time the phrase is ever used in Scripture, in James 2:24, it is rejected under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost), but it is nevertheless possible to ascribe a meaning to the phrase that is non-heretical. For example, if (a) one understands the faith in question to be faith that results in hope and charity and if (b) one understands this phrase (as Luther did) non-exclusively of baptism, then the result is non-heretical. (See the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.)

It is thus not the case that every possible interpretation (however forced or improbable) of the phrase "sola fide" has been infallibly rejected as heretical.

The second problem with the position you articulated concerns the damnation of heretics. While it is true that one who is formally guilty of heresy loses the state of grace and will be lost unless he responds to God’s grace and repents, it is not the case that all who embrace heretical positions lack the state of grace.

Those who, though excusing causes such as ignorance, hold in good conscience positions that are materially heretical are not formally guilty of heresy and so do not commit mortal sin by holding these positions and do not lose the state of grace.

The Church thus does not hold that all who use the formula "sola fide" (whether in non-heretical or even heretical senses) are damned.