(The following is an article I wrote some months back)
Dr. Rafael Xavier Gonzalez
The Catholic Youtuber Michael Lofton loves to remind traditional Catholics that authentic non-infallible Magisterium should be adhered to by the faithful with internal religious assent. This is the Obsequium religiosum translated as both “religious assent” and “religious submission”:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking” (LG 25a)
There is no doubting the existence of doctrinally controversial documents coming from the Vatican, particularly Fiducia Supplicans, which basically allows “blessings of couples in irregular situations and of couples of the same sex”. Yet as a Declaration from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith, with papal approval, the clearer problematic Fiducia Supplicans—rejected by various Episcopal Conferences and destroying Ecumenical relations with the Orthodox Church—forms part of the authentic ordinary Magisterium.
So if the document is not infallible it can in principle teach error (though of course these instances are rare in Church History), even though internal religious assent is obligatory by the faithful.
From here we can conclude, following the traditional manualist position, that internal religious submission, cannot be absolute and can, in rare instances, be suspended.
Originally, the theological “Manuals” were works that provided guidelines for confessors to address the faithfuls’ more concrete moral issues; they are a distinct genus litterarium used by many seminaries. Yet the manualist tradition evolved and went beyond moral casuistry and began to deal with issues in systematic theology. This makes sense since Catholic morality and dogmatic theology are intimately related. The two cannot be divorced though there seems to be a push today in theology to disassociate abstract principles and historical redemptive acts with concrete contemporary praxis (Apparently Fiducia Supplicans is orthodox in principle but it promotes heteropraxis, as per the bishops of Africa who officially stated that they accept the doctrine of the Declaration but that they cannot in conscience put the document in practice).
In the end, the manuals are very much the fruit of Neo-Scholasticism which is mostly based on the (traditional) Jesuit intellectual School.
It is commonly believed that the “Manualist” Jesuits of the 19th century were Ultramontanists, and there is truth to that. Fr. Louis Billot, S.J. (1846-1931), his theology, represents the summit of Ultramontanism. In his manual, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, he writes ““while the bishops are pastors and teachers with respect to the people, they are sheep and disciples with respect to the Pontiff”. He basically believed that all papal doctrine is infallible, not just when he the Pope is teaching ex Cathedra. For Billot, even papal minor censures are infallible.
Yet I want to focus on Fr. Ludwig Lercher (1864-1937). The second book of Lercher’s multi-volume manual, “De Ecclesia Christi,” discusses the teaching authority of the pope. Lercher, following the 1917 Code of Canon Law, asserts that no papal teaching is ipso facto definitive and should not be held as such unless this fact is manifestly established. Nevertheless it is true that Catholics owe a certain kind of assent to these non-definitive teachings, not merely “reverential silence” (silentium obsequiosum vel reverentiale), but “internal religious assent” (assenses internus religious). As mentioned, there is a possibility of error, though very unlikely. Here’s the main point: when there are grave reasons for doubting the truth of such a teaching, one may suspend, contact the Holy See to inform them of the problem, and then maintain reverential silence until the Holy See resolves the issue.[1]
Fr. Florian Schlagenhaufen, S.J, updated Fr. Lercher’s manual after the latter died. Fr. Schlagenhaufen was more explicit, to the point of going into the most detail about the possibility of error in non-definitive papal teaching, probably more so than all the Manualists. Here are his words:
“If the Roman Pontiff authoritatively, but not with the highest authority, obliges all [the faithful] to assent to a matter as true (either revealed truth or truth connected to revelation), it does not seem that he is infallible de jure. Neither is it necessary to say that the Holy Spirit would never permit the Pontiff to promulgate such an erroneous decree.
Certainly the Holy Spirit will never permit the Church to be led into error by such a decree. The means by which such error will be rejected is probably this: the assistance of the Holy Spirit will be given to the head of the Church, by which such an erroneous decree will be prevented. However, it cannot be absolutely ruled out that the error would be removed by the Holy Spirit in this manner: the pope’s subjects would discover the error and cease to internally assent to the decree”.[2]
According to Fr. Schlagenhaufen, it would be the Holy Spirit that would make internal assent to an erroneous decree cease to exist. This stems from the double aspect of infallibility that the Catholic Church has: one active from teaching Church and one passive from the learning Church. The Holy Spirit protects the latter infallibility in the rare case that a non-infallible papal magisterium is erroneous.
I say rare case but it seems to be happening now with papal ordinary non-fallible magisterium, as is made clear in the recent article which was a call for the resignation of Pope Francis (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2024/05/major-statement-crimes-and-heresies-of.html). The main error, as can be assessed by the adverse reaction of multiple bishops (Catholic and Orthodox) and conferences, is the error stemming from Fiducia Supplicans. The aforementioned article states under the subtitle, “heresies of Pope Francis”:
“The declaration Fiducia supplicans, issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith with Pope Francis’s approval, asserts that Catholic priests can bless couples when the basis of the relationship between the members of the couple is adultery, fornication, or homosexual relations”.
This goes back to my point of internal religious submission not being absolute. This also applies to papal doctrinal authority regarding non-infallible teaching, which is non-definitive. Only God has absolute authority.
The Pope must conform to the Natural Law and to Divine Positive Law. Only then will he be a true guardian of tradition and not a technician of doctrine. In Fiducia Supplicans, the Natural Law, in praxis is being violated, and hence religious assent must be (and has been) suspended regarding its practical pastoral teachings.
In the end the Pope is subject to the law of all laws mentioned at the end of Canon Law (last law), called the “Supreme Law of the Church”, namely, Canon 1752 which states “…“…the salvation of souls, which must always be the supreme law in the Church, is to be kept before one’s eyes.”
[1] Lercher, Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae, 2nd ed., vol. 1, 520-21 (book 2, ch. 4, art. 1, thes. 50, n. 499), from the excellent PhD thesis by Lawrence Jerome King, The Authoritative Weight of Non-Definitive Magisterial Teaching (Catholic University of America).
[2] Ibid., 3rd ed., vol. 1, 297 (book 2, ch. 4, thes. 52), updated by F. Schlagenhaufen, trans. by Lawrence Jerome King (Innsbruck: Rauch, 1939).
