Theological Grades of Certainty

[rkwright]

L_D posted an answer to my earlier question about differences in level of doctrine, but could L_D or someone post some examples so that I have a reference point to go off of?

Heres a summary of what L_D posted
1- fides divina, fides catholica
2- fides ecclesiastica
3- sententia fidei proxima
4- sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa
5- sententia communis
6- sententia probabilis, probabilior
6B- opimo tolerata

Thanks!

[Laudate_Dominum]

I think the list you give above needs to be simplified and clarified:

#1 and #2: [i]fides divina[/i], [i]fides catholica [/i]and [i]fides ecclesiastica [/i]pertain to dogma and definitive doctrines, therefore I’d say it makes more sense to just speak of this category as [i]de fide [/i]teachings.

[b]1. De Fide - Infallible teachings.[/b]
[i]De fide [/i]doctrines are those taught definitively by the extraordinary magisterium, or continuously taught by the ordinary magisterium. Teachings of the extraordinary magisterium come by way of conciliar decrees or dogmatic papal pronouncements. For example, the Council of Ephesus formally declared Mary to be [i]Theotokos [/i]([i]Mater Dei[/i], Mother of God), thus it is [i]de fide[/i]. Pope Leo XIII formally declared Mary’s Immaculate Conception, therefore it is [i]de fide[/i]. The ordinary magisterium refers to the constant and repeated teachings of the Pope and Bishops in union with him, which have not been formally defined by an act of the extraordinary magisterium. For example, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was a [i]de fide [/i]teaching of the ordinary magisterium before it was formally defined. In current times I’d say the teaching that only men can be ordained to the priesthood is an obvious definitive teaching of the ordinary magisterium, and thus we know that it will never be “overturned”, despite the cries of dissenters. John Paul II and the Pope formally known as Cardinal Ratzinger have said as much. Historically, it is often when definitive teachings of the ordinary magisterium are challenged that they are then formally defined by an act of the extraordinary magisterium. Often times a teaching of the ordinary magisterium may be the subject of controversy as to its precise theological formulation.

The dogma of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception is a good example of this. The tendency throughout history, and the discernable teaching of the ordinary magisterium, was to regard Our Lady as the holiest human person and the greatest saint, she enjoyed a singularly privileged state. But the exact nature of her singular status was at times disputed. Some theologians saw it only possible to attribute Our Lady with a kind of sanctification in the womb like St. John the Baptist, but to a higher degree. Others speculated that Our Lady was immaculately conceived and never knew sin. Many theologians never addressed the issue directly, but their theology implied the Immaculate Conception. In some cases a theologian saw fit to even speculate that Our Lady was subject to venial sins and faults because of the fact that we are all redeemed by Christ, and it would seem that if Mary was totally free from sin she did not need a redeemer; yet she was nonetheless regarded as the holiest human being by such theologians. The sense of the faithful embodied in both public and private devotion testify to the belief in Mary's singular holiness and immaculate state. Through an act of the extraordinary magisterium, the centuries of speculation and controversy have been closed and we have an infallible formulation of Our Lady’s singular grace that at the same time explains how she was redeemed by Christ in a most profound way. The truth contained in the teachings and devotion of the Church through the centuries, of Our Lady as the archetype and mother of the Church, has been illuminated by the brilliance of this formulation.
In the Church of more recent times, one may regard the teaching of Our Lady as Mediatrix to be similar. It is clearly a definitive teaching of the ordinary magisterium because it has been repeatedly taught by the Popes, as well as many great saints and doctors of the Church, yet the precise formulation and extent of this doctrine is still a matter of dispute to some extent. Perhaps one day this doctrine will be elevated to the level of formally proclaimed dogma, as many seem to believe (including myself).
Here we can see examples of the distinction between implicitly revealed and explicitly revealed truths. Prior to its definition, the Immaculate Conception was more an implicitly revealed truth.

After this ([i]de fide [/i]teachings), there are theological propositions or opinions; I’ll simply call them teachings, which fall under one of four possible levels of certainty:

[b]1. Sententia Fidei Proxima – Teachings proximate to the faith.[/b]
These are teachings or opinions which are regarded as truths of revelation that have not been formally declared or addressed by the magisterium. For example, that Confirmation is not necessary for salvation. The Church has declared the necessity of Baptism, and said teachings do not rule out the possibility of further disputing the necessity of Confirmation; but it is simply taken for granted that Confirmation is not necessary for salvation, even though there is no formal decree which addresses the matter specifically. Or perhaps the view that the outward sign of a sacrament is both the physical matter and the spoken word. This has always been regarded to be the case although I don’t know of any formal decree which concretizes this distinction. So for example, baptism with water which lacks the uttering of the baptismal formula is obviously not valid; or simply saying the words of consecration without the bread and wine. This is an obvious theological opinion based on revealed truth, although it may be lacking an explicit formulation in official teaching. Another example would be the teaching that Mary never committed a venial sin in her life. This is simply taken for granted in light of the Immaculate Conception, although this precise theological proposition may be lacking an explicit expression in magisterial teachings.

[b]2. Sententia Certa – Theologically certain teachings.[/b]
These are teachings that have not been formally decreed but which can be known to be true because of their close connection with formally revealed truths. For example, that the human race can be traced back to a single pair of common ancestors (Adam and Eve). The denial of this is incompatible with dogma or at least highly problematic; therefore we can know with high certainty that it is true. My example on a recent thread in the debate table was the view that the future does not exist even to God’s foreknowledge except as possibility. This philosophical view undermines certain dogmatic formulations and thus I concluded that it is proximate to heresy. In fact the teaching that the future, including our future free acts, has a definitive existence in relation to God that is more than possibility is clearly a [i]sententia certa [/i]opinion or teaching.

[b]3. Sententia Communis – Common teachings.[/b]
These are teachings or formulations that belong to the area of free opinion, but which tend to be the common consensus among faithful theologians. For example, that the saints in heaven are able to intercede for the souls in purgatory, or perhaps that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Another example might be the teaching that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are infused with sanctifying grace, or that God gives sinners the necessary grace for conversion (as distinct from the teaching that God desires the salvation of all which is at least [i]sententia fidei proxima[/i]).

[b]4. Sententia Probabilis – Probable teachings.[/b]
These are teachings that are of lesser certainty and are regarded as more or less probable, rather than more or less certain. One example would be the theological opinion that Mary suffered a physical death before being assumed into heaven. You could hold the contrary view without being a heretic by any means, but the common view among theologians is that Mary actually suffered death before being assumed. However, I think one could make a case for consider this view as a matter of [i]sententia communis[/i]. I would regard Molinism and various limbo theories as of this category of teaching. Views regarded as [i]opimo tolerata [/i]are simply theological opinions which are tolerated (because they aren’t heretical) but which have the lowest degree of grounding or probability in the faith.

It should be noted in light of this that the common assertion that there are only two infallible dogmas (Assumption and Immaculate Conception) is utterly false. If you were to comb through Denzinger's text or Ott's book and count the number of [i]de fide[/i] statements and formulations you will end up with at least 250 infallible dogmas.
The actual process of identifying the degree of certainty for non-dogmatic teachings and opinions can be a bit grey at times and is itself open for dispute. But the above represents the classical categories as best as I understand them.

God bless.