http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/br-bugnolo-redefines-dogmatic-facts-to.html
Dogmatic facts are a secondary
object of infallibility. They are facts “connected with a dogma and on which
the application of the dogma to a particular case depends.” (Catholic
Encyclopedia 1913). They are not simply “legitimate acts” of the Church as
Bugnolo pretends, but specific facts that must be infallibly true due to their
intimate connection with revealed truths quoad nos.
For example, the binding force of
the dogmatic decrees promulgated by the Council of Trent is dependent upon the
Council itself being a true Council (a dogmatic fact). Similarly, the
infallible certitude that the Immaculate Conception is true, is dependent upon
the infallible certitude that Pius IX (who defined the dogma) was a true Pope
(another dogmatic fact). Any doubt about the legitimacy of Pius IX’s
pontificate ipso facto results in doubt about the dogma he defined - and about
the First Vatican Council that he approved and ratified. Thus, a dogmatic fact
must be infallibly true because of its relationship to a revealed truth that
the Church has infallibly defined, and to preserved the deposit.
The following is from Fr. E.
Sylvester Berry’s book, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic
Treatise, which was originally published in 1927, during the pontificate of
Pope Pius XI.
“DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is
one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine
of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain
knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the Vatican Council truly
ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid?
Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any
council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It
is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts,
and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it
follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in
accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected,
gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.”
Here is how another real theologian,
Tanquerey, explains dogmatic facts in Vol. I of Dogmatic Theology (1959).
“The Church is infallible in regard
to dogmatic facts. A dogmatic fact is one which is so much connected with a
doctrine of the Church that knowledge of it is necessary in order to understand
the doctrine and to preserve it safely. Dogmatic facts can be threefold:
historical, doctrinal and hagiographical. Thus, dogmatic facts are the
legitimacy of the Holy Pontiff, the ecumenical (universal) nature of a Council.
That the Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts is certain.”
(Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1, 1959, p. 146.)
Again, we see that a dogmatic fact
must be believed with faith because of its connection to revealed truth, and is
a fact that the Church judges infallibly due to its relation with a revealed
truth. We will see how the Church infallibly judges them infallibly in a
minute.
Msgr. Van Noort provides the same
explanation in his manual of Dogmatic Theology, The Church of Christ, published
in 1957:
“A dogmatic fact is a fact not
contained in the sources of revelation, on the admission of which depends the
knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The following
questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: ‘Was the Vatican Council a
legitimate ecumenical council? Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful
translation of the original books of the Bible? Was Pius XII legitimately
elected Bishop of Rome? One can readily see that on these facts hang the
questions of whether the decrees of the Vatican Council are infallible, whether
the Vulgate is truly Sacred Scripture, whether Pius XII is to be recognized as
supreme ruler of the universal Church." (Christ’s Church, Westminster,
Maryland: Newman Press, 1957, p. 112)
Notice that the reason Van Noort
said the papacy of Pius XII (the presently reigning Pope) was a dogmatic fact,
was not because of its connection to any dogma he defined (although he could
have made such an appeal, since Pius XII did define a dogma), but because of
the connection between his papacy and the previously defined dogma that the
Pope is the supreme ruler of the universal Church. The dogma that the Pope is
the supreme ruler of the Church is intimately related to the knowledge (quoad
nos or, according to us) of who that supreme ruler is. What this shows that the
Church’s infallibility in judging dogmatic facts doesn’t only apply to past
Popes, but to the presently reigning Pope as well (and that is because the
dogma applies to the reigning Pope). In other words:
The Dogma: The Pope is the supreme
ruler of the Church.
Dogmatic Fact: The person that the
Church currently recognizes as Pope is the supreme ruler of the Church.
Van Noort also explains how the
Church infallibly judges a dogmatic fact:
“Meantime, notice that the Church
possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matters in solemn
fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority
through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an
absolute assent, which we call ‘ecclesiastical faith,’ the following
theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly defined in
solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout
the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held
(tenendas). So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the
proposition: ‘Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter’; similarly …
one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII possesses the
primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.’ For — skipping the question of
how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual
was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place [i.e., the doctrine of UPA]
— when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and
practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church,
it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly
clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession.” (Van Noort, Sources of
Revelation (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1957, p. 265.)
As Van Noort and others have explained,
if a man has been practically recognized by the bishops and the universal
Church as Pope (as is the case with Pope Francis), the Church has infallibly
judged that he is the Pope. And if the Church has infallibly judged that a man
is Pope, his legitimacy as Pope cannot later be called into question due to
alleged defects in his election. To do so would be a rejection of the Church’s
infallibility, at least implicitly. This explains why the ‘universal
acceptance’ of a Pope is a one-time event that eliminates any future doubts
about the validity of his election.
The Consequences of Rejecting this
Doctrine
If the entire hierarchy could
“theoretically and practically” recognize a man as Pope, and then find out
years later that he was not the true Pope, it would mean the Church is not
infallible in judging dogmatic facts “when she is exercising the full weight of
her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching,” and giving “utterly
clear-cut witness” to the legitimacy of a Pope,” by accepting “the legitimacy
of his succession.” And if that were the case, then no pontificate (past or
present) would be safe; and if no pontificate is safe, no Cardinal appointed by
a Pope and no dogma defined by a Pope is safe. Any possible doubt about the
legitimacy of a Pope who the entire hierarchy has accepted as Pope, is
potential doubt about every papal act, and every dogma that has been defined by
a Pope, who the universal Church accepted as Pope. This, of course, is
impossible.
Now, there have been times when the
identity of the true Pope was not known with certainty, such as during the
Great Western Schism, or other times when there were multiple papal claimants.
When this happens, the Church herself does not consider the legitimacy of any
Pope to be dogmatic fact (“a doubtful Pope is considered no Pope),” unless and
until the doubt is cleared up. But this applies to a Pope whose election has
always been in doubt, not one that was accepted by the entire Church and later
became doubtful. As Fr. Wernz explains in his teaching on a doubtful Pope, “the
words 'No pope' are not necessarily understood of a Pope who has previously
been received as certain and undoubted by the whole Church, but concerning
whose election so many difficulties are subsequently brought to light that he
becomes 'a doubtful pope' so that he would thereby forfeit the pontifical power
already obtained. This understanding of the axiom concerning 'a doubtful pope'
should be reproved…” (Fr. Franz X. Wernz, Ius Decretalium, Tomus II, Romae: De Propoganda
Fide, 1898, Scholion 618).
When the entire Church has
recognized a man as Pope, his legitimacy cannot later be doubted without
calling into question the infallibility of the Church in judging dogmatic
facts, and implicitly undermining the legitimacy of every previous Pope and
every papal act.
Listen to what Fr. Hunter says about
dogmatic facts in his book, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology (1894). His
explanation shows how Catholic theologian in the nineteenth century refuted the
Protestants who pointed to legal defects in past papal elections, in an attempt
to prove that the line of true Popes had come to an end.
“Dogmatic Facts: - But besides these
speculative truths, there are certain matters of fact concerning which the
Church can judge with infallibly certainty. These are called by many writes
dogmatic facts [.]
“First, then, the Church is
infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the
person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in
communion with the Pope; (…) Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted
objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who
think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was
simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who
owed their appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered
that the Papacy has been vacant since that time. A volume might be occupied if
we attempt to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to
lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops
agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for
otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the
Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined.” (Hunter, Outlines of
DogmaticTheology, Volume I (New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Benzinger Brothers,
1894) ch. VI, N. 211.
Here is how Fr. Kavanagh replied to
this same Protestant argument:
“Mr. Gladstone need not be alarmed
about the papal succession. Independently of all previous proceedings, the
acceptance of Martin V by the Universal Church as lawful Pope proves that his
election was canonical and legitimate; for the recognition of the true Pope is
a dogmatic fact in which the Universal Church cannot err.” (Rev. James
Kavanagh, D.D., A Reply to Mr. Gladstone’s Vaticanism, Dublin, James Guffy,
1895, p. 54)
Notice Fr. Kavanaugh says the
acceptance of the universal Church “proves” the election was legitimate and
canonical. That’s how the Catholic theologians and canonists of the nineteenth
century refuted the Protestants who used arguments that are essentially
identical to those of Br. Bugnolo as the basis for rejecting the legitimacy of
numerous Popes. This bring us to Bugnolo’s final objection.
What is a Legitimate Election?
Br. Bugnolo: “Siscoe also ignores that
John of St. Thomas explicitly said that the concept of universal acceptance
regards a legitimate election. That any theologian before or after omits that
condition proves nothing, because as anyone who knows theology knows, many
authors repeat doctrines imprecisely and incompletely, and their doing of such
does not alter the doctrine. Thus you cannot escape from the fundamental
condition of the notion of universal acceptance which only regards LEGITIMATE
ELECTIONS.”
This objection further highlights Bugnolo’s
ignorance of the subject matter he pretends to know. If he had actually read
John of St. Thomas’ treatise, he would have learned what is required for a
“LEGITIMATE ELECTION,” and would no doubt have been disappointed to learn that
Francis’ election meets the necessary criteria. Here is John of St. Thomas’
explanation:
“whoever is elected by the persons
that the Church designates to choose a pope in her name, by the very fact that
he is accepted by the Church as legitimately elected, is in fact pope. This
latter is what the definition of Martin V, related above, as well as the
acceptance of the Church, is really about. (…)
As we can see, the two requirements
for a legitimate election are: 1) that he is elected by those chosen by the
Church to elect (the Cardinals). 2) that the Church accepts the election as
legitimate. In other words, a papal “election” is “legitimate” when the Church
accepts it as such. Here is what the Dominican theologian further says about
the second condition.
“Christ the Lord entrusted it to the
Church to choose for herself a man who, for a certain period of time, would be
the sort of rule of faith just described; and, consequently, the Church also
received the commission to determine, by her own act of acceptance, that this man
was canonically and legitimately elected. (…)
Thus, it is the Church’s act of
acceptance that determines if the election is “legitimate and canonical.” It
doesn't require the “act of acceptance” from Br. Bugnolo or Ann Barnhardt,
regardless of how authoritative they imagine their interpretation of canon law,
their private judgment of the facts, and their personal act of acceptance to
be.
Also notice in the previous quote
that John of St. Thomas said this second condition is what “the definition of
Martin the V is about.” This is another critical point. John is explaining the
Magisterial foundation of the doctrines of UPA and dogmatic facts. The
definition he is referring to comes from the Council of Constance, in the form
of a proposition that those suspected of heresy were required to affirm in
order to determine if they “believed rightly.” It is a proposition that
pertains to the Faith itself, and those who did not answer “yes” were marked as
heretics.
Here is the definition along with
John of St. Thomas’ commentary:
“Martin V, in the Council of
Constance, in the condemnation of the errors of Wyclif, which is to be found
after the fourth, fifth, and last sessions of the Council, in the
interrogations that are to be made of those whose faith is suspect, to see
whether they rightly believe, puts this question. ‘Also, whether he believes
that the Pope canonically elected, who is reigning at the time (his proper name
being given), is the successor of Blessed Peter, having supreme authority in
the Church of God?’ [Denz. 674] These words do not speak of the truth of that
proposition understood in a general sense—namely, that whoever is lawfully
elected is the Supreme Pontiff—but in the particular, concerning whoever is
pope at the time, giving his proper name, for instance, Innocent X. It is of
this man, whose proper name is given, that the pope is bidding the person
suspect in faith to be asked, whether he believes that such a person is the
successor of Peter and the Supreme Pontiff: therefore this pertains to the act
of faith—not to an inference or a moral certitude; for neither of the latter
two is a matter of faith….
“Therefore, we have the certainty of
faith, by a revelation implicitly contained in the Creed and in the promise
made to Peter, and made more explicit in the definition of Martin V, and
applied and declared in act (in exercitio) by the acceptance of the Church,
that this man in particular, canonically elected according to the acceptance of
the Church, is Pope. The certainty of faith touches this alone; and whatever is
prerequisite to, or else follows upon, the fact of the election, is inferred as
a theological conclusion drawn from the proposition that is de fide, and is
believed mediately. … The Church accepts the election and the elect as a matter
of faith, because as she receives him as the infallible rule of faith, and as
the supreme head to whom she is united—for the unity of the Church depends upon
her union with him.
Notice that the legitimacy of a Pope
is de fide if he has been “canonically elected according to the acceptance of
the Church,” not the according to the acceptance of Br. Bugnolo or Ann
Barnhardt.
Those who refuse to accept a Pope
whose election the Church has accepted as legitimate – and who the Church
recognizes as its supreme head – reject a matter of the faith itself.
The renowned is the
eighteenth-century canonist, Louis Ferraris, confirms that the legitimacy of
the currently reigning Pope is de fide, by virtue of this definition of Martin
V. He also confirms that it is the Church’s acceptance that determines if the
election is legitimate:
“It is of faith (de fide) that
Benedict XIV [currently reigning Pope], for instance, legitimately elected and
as such by the Church’s acceptance, is the true Pope. This is proved from the
Council of Constance, sess. ult. where Martin V. Const. Inter Cunctus, decrees
that those who return from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other
points, ‘Whether they believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time
being, his name being expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter,
having supreme authority in the Church of God.’ For thereby he supposes it to
be an article of faith, since those who abjure heresy are ‘interrogated only as
to truths of faith.’ … and it is certain from the fact that the Church receives
him as legitimately elected, that God himself reveals to us the election is
legitimate (quoque est certa, quia eo ipso quod Ecclesia ipsum recepit ut
légitime electum, revelat Deus ipsius electionem esse legitimam); (Ferraris,
Louis, Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica Iuridica Moralis Theologica. (Romae: S. C.
De Propaganda Fide, 1764) article Papa, Nos. 67).
This is how all the scholastic
theologians interpreted and applied the definition of Martin V. To read other
theologian’s commentary on this definition, see here.
To sum up our reply to Br. Bugnolo’s
objection. The legitimacy of Francis’ election meets both requirements listed
by John of St. Thomas: 1) He was elected by those designated by the Church to
elect a Pope, and 2) his election has been accepted as canonically valid and
legitimate by the Church ever since. Therefore, the legitimacy of his election
must be affirmed as a matter of faith, according to the definition of Martin V.
And, ironically enough, the same has been affirmed by the very man Alex Bugnolo
claims is still the Pope: Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) himself.
Cardinal Ratzinger: Benevacantists
are Outside the Church
In 1998, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope
Benedict), as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, issued a
commentary on the 1989 Professio fidei (Profession of Faith). In the
commentary, the very man that Bugnolo thinks is the true Pope, explains that
the legitimacy of a papal election (that the Church accepts as legitimate, as
is the case with Pope Francis), must be held as de fide, based on the
infallibility of the Church’s Magisterium. Ratzinger’s theology is consistent,
of course, with that of Berry, Tanquery, Van Noort, John of St. Thomas, and
every other theologian who has addressed the subject matter (we list 40 of them
on our website at www.trueorfalsepope.com).
The 1989 Professio fidei includes
three categories of truths: (a) dogmas, (b) doctrines definitely taught by the
Church (but not defined as formally revealed), and (c) doctrines taught
authoritatively, but not definitively, by the Magisterium. In his commentary,
Cardinal Ratzinger explains the nature of assent that is owed to truths
contained in each of the respective categories, and describes the consequences
of failing to give the required assent. The legitimacy of a papal election
falls into the second category, as a dogmatic fact. Here is how Cardinal
Ratzinger describes the second category of truths:
“The second proposition of the
Professio fidei states: ‘I also firmly accept and hold each and everything
definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.’
“The object taught by this formula
includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area, which are
necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if
they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally
revealed. Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he
speaks 'ex cathedra' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they
can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the
Church as a ‘sententia definitive tenenda’. Every believer, therefore, is required
to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy
Spirit's assistance to the Church's Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine
of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters.”
The commentary goes on to explain
precisely what truths are contained in the second category and (you guessed it)
it includes the legitimacy of the election of a Pope:
“The truths belonging to this second
paragraph can be of various natures, thus giving different qualities to their
relationship with revelation. There are truths which are necessarily connected
with revelation by virtue of an historical relationship [i.e., dogmatic facts];
(…) With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity
and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as
divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the
election of the Supreme Pontiff…”
What is the consequence of denying a
truth in the second category? Cardinal Ratzinger explains:
“Whoever denies these truths [second
category] would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine [1]
and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.”
So, according to the official
commentary on the 1989 Profession of Faith, issued by Cardinal Ratzinger as
head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, anyone who refuses to give a
definitive assent to the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff is
guilty of denying a Catholic doctrine, and therefore is no longer “in full
communion with the Catholic Church;” or, to use pre-Vatican II terminology, has
cut himself off from the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
