Category: Theology

A reader writes:

Gallup reports today that 42% of liberals believe in ghosts – but only 25% of conservatives.

As G. K. Chesterton said, "When people stop believing in God, they do not believe in nothing. They believe everything."

First,

GET THE STORY.

Second, I’m not so sure that one should so quickly dismiss this subject. While there are, no doubt, many liberals who are attracted to the ghost hypothesis on account of New Age beliefs, consider the following:

• "Ghost" is simply the German-derived equivalent of the Latin-derived word "Spirit." That’s why the Holy Spirit is sometimes referred to as the Holy Ghost. Originally in English "ghost" and "spirit" referred to the same thing. Indeed, in German the word for "spirit" is still "geist." Rather than get hung up on semantics, we may wish to analyze claims about ghosts in terms of what we know about spirits.
• First, spirits exist. This is a truth of the faith.
• Second, spirits can sometimes manifest themselves to those in this life, as in the apparitions of the saints.
• Third, there are even reports in Catholic history that spirits in purgatory have–by God’s will–occasionally manifested themselves to those on earth. In these cases, those on earth may see the spirits experiencing their purgation in some way.
• Therefore, if these reports are true, God may at times allow spirits to manifest to those on earth in a way that might lead folks to describe them as "ghosts."

Now, I’m not saying that this actually happens. I’m just saying that we shouldn’t quickly scoff at the idea. It certainly has a place in Catholic tradition (lower "t" tradition). I know that folks today often repeat the mantra "There’s no such things as ghosts," but it seems to me that this may have more with the influence of a secular/scientistic worldview than anything else. I see no theological reason to say that God doesn’t allow this to happen on occasion. (On the other hand, I see no theological reason that compels us to the conclusion that he does, either.)

One note on the possibility of ghosts: Sometimes folks think of ghosts (or some ghosts) as malevolent. I don’t see how that would be possible on the above account. Souls experiencing purgatory might seem strage or disquieting to individuals in this life and might appear malevolent, but they would not be. I don’t see any evidence, though, that genuinely malevolent souls–i.e., the souls of the damned–could manifest on earth. Thus any genuinely malevolent ghosts would more likely represent demonic activity as far as I can tell.

These two phenomena–the "purgatory ghosts" and demons–also might explain so-called haunted houses and poltergeists ("noisy ghosts" in German).

Earlier today I linked a couple of Zenit stories on the release of the Compendium of the Catechism. Zenit also carried a story excerpting certain questions from the Compendium. Here goes:

3. How is it possible to know God only with the light of reason?

Starting from creation, that is, from the world and the human person, man, with reason alone, can know with certainty a God as origin and end of the universe and as the highest good, truth and infinite beauty.

23. What unity is there between the Old and New Testaments?

Scripture is one, as the Word of God is one; the salvific plan of God is one, the divine inspiration of both Testaments is one. The Old Testament is a preparation for the New, and the New is the fulfillment of the Old: both illuminate one another mutually.

32. How should non-Catholic Christians be regarded?

There are many elements of sanctification and truth in the Churches and ecclesial Communities, which have distanced themselves from the full communion of the Catholic Church. All these goods come from Christ and lead to Catholic unity. The members of these Churches and Communities are incorporated to Christ in Baptism: for this reason, we recognize them as brothers.

171. What is the meaning of the affirmation: "There is no salvation outside the Church"?

It means that all salvation comes from Christ-Head through the Church, which is his Body. Therefore, those cannot be saved who, knowing the Church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, do not enter it and do not persevere. At the same time, thanks to Christ and to his Church, those can attain eternal salvation who, without fault, do not know the Gospel of Christ and his Church, but seek God sincerely and, under the influence of grace, try to do his will known through the dictates of their conscience.

471. Why must society protect every embryo?

The inalienable right to life of every human individual, from his conception, is a constitutive element of civil society and of its legislation. When the State does not put its force at the service of the rights of all, and, in particular, of the weak, among whom are the unborn conceived, the very foundations of the State of law are undermined.

475. When are scientific, medical or psychological experiments with persons or human groups morally legitimate?

They are morally legitimate if they are at the service of the integral good of the person and society, without disproportionate risks for life and the physical and psychic integrity of the individuals, opportunely informed and with their consent.

482. What is required for peace in the world?

It requires the just distribution and protection of the goods of people, free communications between human beings, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, [and] the assiduous practice of justice and fraternity.

502. What are the offenses to the dignity of marriage?

They are: adultery, divorce, polygamy, incest, free unions (living together, concubinage), the sexual act before or outside of marriage.

514. To what type of work does every person have a right?

Access to secure and honest work must be open to all, free of unjust discrimination, in respect of free economic initiative and a just compensation.

533. What is man’s greatest desire?

Man’s greatest desire is to see God. This is the cry of his whole being: "I want to see God!" Man attains his authentic and full happiness in the vision and the blessedness of the One who created him out of love and attracts him to Himself by his infinite love.

SOURCE.

Now, I don’t know how the official English translation will come out, but if it reads like this one in some places, the Compendium will not–as advertised–be suitable for all people of all ages. Seven year-olds are not going to find it easy to memorize and understand what it means to say that "The inalienable right to life of every human individual, from his
conception, is a constitutive element of civil society and of its
legislation."

The answer to question 514 also gets progressively more unintelligible as it goes. I’m thinking that’s just a translation problem, though.

In any event, thanks to Zenit for giving us this glimpse into the Compendium!

Lotsa good stuff in the news about the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCCC or 4C).

HERE’S A BASIC ARTICLE ABOUT IT BEING RELEASED.

Highlights of this piece include the facts that the Compendium is 200 pages long and has 598 questions in it (so, I guess about three or so questions per page on average, which would suggest really small pages given what we’ll see below).

The Compendium is divided in the same four parts of the Catechism.

Part I, "The Profession of Faith," includes 217 questions; Part II, "The Celebration of the Christian Mystery" covers questions 218 to 356; Part II, "Life in Christ," questions 357 to 533; and Part IV, "Christian Prayer," questions 534 to 598.

The book ends with a double appendix on "Common Prayers" (from the sign of the cross, the Gloria and the Our Father, to the Prayer for the Dead and the act of contrition) and "Catholic Doctrine Formulas" (such as the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, corporal and spiritual works of mercy, the Beatitudes, etc.).

It’s also (unfortunately) out only in Italian at the moment, so we’ll have to wait to get an English version. (I’m currently being tempted to order the Italian version and start studying Italian. . . . Subito, y’know?)

Now: HERE’S THE MOTU PROPRIO (A KIND OF PAPAL DOCUMENT) IN WHICH B16 AUTHORIZES THE WORK.

The money passage of this is the following:

The Compendium, which I now present to the Universal Church, is a
faithful and sure synthesis of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

This conveys the level of authority for the Compendium. It is describe as "a faithful and sure synthesis of the Catechism of the Catholic Church," which makes its authority corelative to that of the Catechism. The Catechism, as we’ve quoted Ratzinger here before to demonstrate, synthesized Catholic teaching without changing the authority level of any of the teachings. Since the Compendium doesn’t do anything but synthesize the Catechism accurately, it therefore also doesn’t affect the doctrinal authority of any of the teachigns it contains.

B16 also goes on to make a rather interesting claim:

It
contains, in concise form, all the essential and fundamental elements
of the Church’s faith, thus constituting, as my Predecessor had wished,
a kind of vademecum which allows believers and non-believers alike to
behold the entire panorama of the Catholic faith.

It is important to note here that this does not claim that everything in the Compendium is an essential or fundamental element of the Church’s faith. It would be a basic logical fallacy to take that from what the pope said. ("This contains all X" is not equivalent to "All this contains is X.") Undoubtedly there will be items in the Compendium of different levels of authority, and some may not fit the bill of being "essential and fundamental."

I’m a little surprised, though, that he would claim that the Catechism contains all the essential and fundamental elements. I haven’t read the text, of course, but my native instinct would be to shy away from claims of that nature on the off chance that someone could mount a case that we left out something that is essential or fundamental. Nevertheless, he’s probably on safe ground here because (a) it probably does contain all such truths and (b) because "essential" and "fundamental" are sufficiently ambiguous words that one could defend the claim in any event.

One other tidbit: You may remember that when the Catechism was released there were all kinds of theological dissidents in the catechetical establishment (and elsewhere) who tried to assure us that the Catechism was "just for the bishops and experts" and that we layfolk need not trouble ourselves with reading it as it would be too much for us and that the Vatican never intended for us to read it. This was part of a strategy to minimize the impact of the Catechism and allow faulty catechetical texts to stay in place.

The reception that the Catechism got–at least in many places (the U.S. among them) totally steamrollered this stratagem.

Well, there’ll be none of that this time. Not only does the format of the work itself cry out that it is meant for the common layperson, the pope himself in his motu proprio says:

I entrust this Compendium above all to the entire Church and, in
particular, to every Christian, in order that it may awaken in the
Church of the third millennium renewed zeal for evangelization and
education in the faith, which ought to characterize every community in
the Church and every Christian believer, regardless of age or
nationality.

But this Compendium, with its brevity, clarity and
comprehensiveness, is directed to every human being, who, in a world of
distractions and multifarious messages, desires to know the Way of
Life, the Truth, entrusted by God to His Son’s Church.

A reader writes:

I was recently told by my sister that the father where she attends mass, had said that tattoos  were bad because catholic doctrine says they’re bad.  I have read your March 2004 response on the subject of tattoos and confirmed that there is NOT a catholic doctrine on this.  My question would then be, what gives a deacon, father, or bishop the right to say these things?  My sister believes her deacon, father, and bishop on this subject.  My sister is also a catechism teacher that is teaching her students that the religion condemns tattoos and any kind of body piercings (including earrings).  How can a father say this, if in fact, it’s not part of the catholic teachings.  I believe in the Catholic Church and it’s teachings, but I’m reluctant to accept anybodys personal opinion on any subject. Please help me clear this up.

To answer your first question as posed: Nothing gives the a deacon, priest, or bishop the right to say that things are Church teachings when they aren’t. Doing so is misrepresenting the Church, and nobody has a right ot misrepresent the Church.

That being said, there are many people–and the priest may be one of them, as is your sister–who are simply misinformed about what constitutes Church teaching and who are not intentionally misrepresenting it. In such circumstances, they are not likely culpable for their misrepresentation and are even attempting to do a spiritual service to others by trying to communicate what they perceive to be Church teaching.

On the other hand, anyone who seeks to convey Church teaching to others has a responsibility to do due diligence in verifying that what they are telling others is, in fact, something taught by the Church. Regrettably, many fall down on this duty and are responsible for the damage they do to others’ belief systems by leading them to think that the Church teaches something when it doesn’t.

Sometimes they are even aware that they are stretching Church teaching because they want the Church to support something even though they know that this isn’t quite what the Church’s documents say.

I would talk to your sister, if you are able, and encourage her to go back and examine the Church’s official documents–things written by the popes or ecumenical councils or Vatican congregations–and try to back up her statements regarding tattoos and her even more extreme statements regarding ear piercings (which the Church clearly will not support). She will not be able to back these up, of course.

She may find certain passages that she may wish to use in this regard–like the Mosaic Law’s prohibition on tattoos or the Catechism’s statement regarding mutilating our bodies–but Christians are not bound by the Mosaic Law, and the Catechism has in mind things like cutting off your fingers–things that actually impede bodily function, not just making minor, harmless pricks in one’s skin or flesh. (Clearly not all such actions are illicit or one could never have surgery or sand off callouses or cut a hangnail or snip excess skin around your finger and toenails to prevent getting an ingrown nail–nor could one circumcize a baby as was required under the Mosaic Law!)

The only way to get these passages to support your sister’s position would thus be to stretch them beyond their proper meaning, which cannot be done legitimately. Once your sister realizes this, she needs to go back and tell her class that she was wrong about this and use the instance as an illustration about how important it is to distinguish personal opinion from Church teaching.

Even before then she needs to stop telling the kids this until she can undertake a careful study of the relevant Church documents. If she needs assistance with that, I’d be happy to help.

A reader writes:

I was recently told by my sister that the father where she attends mass, had said that tattoos  were bad because catholic doctrine says they’re bad.  I have read your March 2004 response on the subject of tattoos and confirmed that there is NOT a catholic doctrine on this.  My question would then be, what gives a deacon, father, or bishop the right to say these things?  My sister believes her deacon, father, and bishop on this subject.  My sister is also a catechism teacher that is teaching her students that the religion condemns tattoos and any kind of body piercings (including earrings).  How can a father say this, if in fact, it’s not part of the catholic teachings.  I believe in the Catholic Church and it’s teachings, but I’m reluctant to accept anybodys personal opinion on any subject. Please help me clear this up.

To answer your first question as posed: Nothing gives the a deacon, priest, or bishop the right to say that things are Church teachings when they aren’t. Doing so is misrepresenting the Church, and nobody has a right ot misrepresent the Church.

That being said, there are many people–and the priest may be one of them, as is your sister–who are simply misinformed about what constitutes Church teaching and who are not intentionally misrepresenting it. In such circumstances, they are not likely culpable for their misrepresentation and are even attempting to do a spiritual service to others by trying to communicate what they perceive to be Church teaching.

On the other hand, anyone who seeks to convey Church teaching to others has a responsibility to do due diligence in verifying that what they are telling others is, in fact, something taught by the Church. Regrettably, many fall down on this duty and are responsible for the damage they do to others’ belief systems by leading them to think that the Church teaches something when it doesn’t.

Sometimes they are even aware that they are stretching Church teaching because they want the Church to support something even though they know that this isn’t quite what the Church’s documents say.

I would talk to your sister, if you are able, and encourage her to go back and examine the Church’s official documents–things written by the popes or ecumenical councils or Vatican congregations–and try to back up her statements regarding tattoos and her even more extreme statements regarding ear piercings (which the Church clearly will not support). She will not be able to back these up, of course.

She may find certain passages that she may wish to use in this regard–like the Mosaic Law’s prohibition on tattoos or the Catechism’s statement regarding mutilating our bodies–but Christians are not bound by the Mosaic Law, and the Catechism has in mind things like cutting off your fingers–things that actually impede bodily function, not just making minor, harmless pricks in one’s skin or flesh. (Clearly not all such actions are illicit or one could never have surgery or sand off callouses or cut a hangnail or snip excess skin around your finger and toenails to prevent getting an ingrown nail–nor could one circumcize a baby as was required under the Mosaic Law!)

The only way to get these passages to support your sister’s position would thus be to stretch them beyond their proper meaning, which cannot be done legitimately. Once your sister realizes this, she needs to go back and tell her class that she was wrong about this and use the instance as an illustration about how important it is to distinguish personal opinion from Church teaching.

Even before then she needs to stop telling the kids this until she can undertake a careful study of the relevant Church documents. If she needs assistance with that, I’d be happy to help.

A non-Catholic reader writes an e-mail titled "Re Your quote on Gary’s site" and says:

Greetings Mr. Akin

I was reading Gary’s quote of your words:

A: Well, aside from the fact that the Magisterium has ruled on the issue and that Apostolic Tradition teaches it (both of which are sufficient to prove the matter), the Bible also teaches it.

http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q040.htm

What "apostolic tradition"?

Could you refer me to the text or material you refer to?

Thanks.

May God grant your house peace

Thanks. Yours, too.

I’m not sure who Gary is, but the link you provide goes to a question I wrote some years ago (like 10 years ago, actually) on how we can be assured that those in heaven can hear our prayers.

This subject is dealt with in apostolic Tradition, which is conveyed in the writings of the Church Fathers. There is a pronounced stream from the early centuries onward showing that Christians recognized the practice of asking the saints (both human and angelic saints) for their intercession. Magisterial intervention has clarified that this is, indeed, part of the deposit of faith and thus apostolic Tradition (meaning that it was present in the deposit of faith at the time of the apostles either explicitly or implicitly).

For sample quotes from the Church Fathers and other early Christians,

SEE HERE.

There is an inscription in a cemetery near St.
Sabina’s in Rome that I find personally very moving. It dates from
about the year A.D. 300 and says:

 

Pray for your parents, Matronata Matrona. She
lived one year, fifty-two days.
 
 

The asking of the saints for their intercession implies an awareness on their part of our prayers. How this is accomplished is a matter of theological speculation. The most common theological speculation is that it is God who makes them aware of our requests for their intercession. They are united with him, and he knows everything, so if they could learn of them through no other means, they could learn of them through God.

Scripture, as I point out in under both of the links provided above, also depicts them being aware of our prayers.

Hope this helps!

A non-Catholic reader writes an e-mail titled "Re Your quote on Gary’s site" and says:

Greetings Mr. Akin

I was reading Gary’s quote of your words:

A: Well, aside from the fact that the Magisterium has ruled on the issue and that Apostolic Tradition teaches it (both of which are sufficient to prove the matter), the Bible also teaches it.

http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q040.htm

What "apostolic tradition"?

Could you refer me to the text or material you refer to?

Thanks.

May God grant your house peace

Thanks. Yours, too.

I’m not sure who Gary is, but the link you provide goes to a question I wrote some years ago (like 10 years ago, actually) on how we can be assured that those in heaven can hear our prayers.

This subject is dealt with in apostolic Tradition, which is conveyed in the writings of the Church Fathers. There is a pronounced stream from the early centuries onward showing that Christians recognized the practice of asking the saints (both human and angelic saints) for their intercession. Magisterial intervention has clarified that this is, indeed, part of the deposit of faith and thus apostolic Tradition (meaning that it was present in the deposit of faith at the time of the apostles either explicitly or implicitly).

For sample quotes from the Church Fathers and other early Christians,

SEE HERE.

There is an inscription in a cemetery near St.

Sabina’s in Rome that I find personally very moving. It dates from

about the year A.D. 300 and says:

 

Pray for your parents, Matronata Matrona. She

lived one year, fifty-two days.

 

 

The asking of the saints for their intercession implies an awareness on their part of our prayers. How this is accomplished is a matter of theological speculation. The most common theological speculation is that it is God who makes them aware of our requests for their intercession. They are united with him, and he knows everything, so if they could learn of them through no other means, they could learn of them through God.

Scripture, as I point out in under both of the links provided above, also depicts them being aware of our prayers.

Hope this helps!

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.

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.