A theological note (nota theologica) is a brief description of how a proposition relates to divine revelation. This includes its relation to the magisterium and often also the level of certainty the proposition currently enjoys in theological science. Such brief descriptions are called “notes” because they serve as indicators and are used to classify the propositions to which they are attached. They are called “theological” because they (1) aid the science of theology and (2) to distinguish the use of notes in theology from moral or canonical judgments.

A theological note can be defined formally as “a statement whereby the relationship of a theological proposition to revelation and the magisterium is exactly identified in all its aspects” (Koser, De notis theologicis, 205–206). Such aspects may include: whether a proposition expresses a truth that is itself divinely revealed or one that is only connected with revelation; the weight the magisterium has so far given to the proposition; the kind of assent the proposition requires from the faithful; and the way in which the magisterium has engaged with the proposition (such as by formally defining it, teaching it by the ordinary and universal magisterium, or simply allowing theologians to promote it).

An example of a theological note is “of divine and Catholic faith” (de fide divina et Catholica). This note directly expresses two things about the proposition to which this note is given: (1) that the proposition articulates a truth that God has revealed; (2) that the magisterium has taught the proposition as divinely revealed. This note therefore implies that the proposition requires the faithful to assent to it by an act of belief with the theological virtue of faith.

If this note is further expanded to “defined, of divine and Catholic faith” (de fide divina et Catholica definita), then it also directly states the way in which the magisterium has taught the proposition, namely, by formal definition. One example of a proposition with the note “defined, of divine and Catholic faith” (de fide divina et Catholica definita) is that “the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” (Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, no. 44). This proposition articulates a truth (1) revealed by God, (2) taught by the magisterium as revealed, (3) by a defining act.

I. Historical Development of Theological Censures

The history of theological notes begins with censures. The Church was confronted with the more urgent duty of protecting the faithful from false teachings before she had had the leisure to reflect on the deposit of faith and teachings derived from it with the time and precision needed to parse out positive theological notes.

The need to reject distortions of Christian doctrine is evidenced from the Church’s beginning: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal 1:8). Although the “anathema” threatened by Paul is not identical with later, technical uses, this passage and others (cf. 1 Jn 2:22; 1 Tm 6:20; 2 Tm 1:14) show the apostolic Church’s concern for preserving “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). The Church’s faithfulness to Jesus includes listening to his voice (Jn 10:27), which is the voice of truth (Jn 18:37). Thus, faith requires the disciple to embrace certain doctrines while rejecting others (Finsterhölzl, “Theological Notes,” 227–228).

Although individual members of the faithful have been able to identify and warn against false teachings, the Church has recognized from the beginning that the authoritative exercise of this task falls to bishops, as successors of the apostles. (cf. Vatican II, Dei Verbum, no. 8) Rejecting false doctrines has always been part of the episcopal teaching office. Thus, St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. ca. 110), in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, begins by professing his faith in the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus. He then continues by identifying and condemning the Docetic denial of the fleshly reality of these events. In doing so, St. Ignatius makes clear the positive effects he hopes his condemnation of heterodoxy will have: clarifying the orthodox truth, protecting believers from falling into error, and calling the heterodox to repentance. “I am urging these things on you, beloved, although I know that you are of the same mind. I am cautioning you betimes, however, against wild beasts in human form, whom you ought not only not to receive, but, if possible, even avoid meeting. Only pray for them, if somehow they may change their mind—a difficult thing! But that is in the power of Jesus Christ, our true Life” (Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, no. 4).

When exercising the magisterium in a formal, solemn manner, bishops often employed positive and negative expressions in tandem. For instance, the Council of Nicaea (325) follows its profession of faith (that is, its symbol or creed) with this condemnation: “And those who say ‘there once was when he was not,’ and ‘before he was begotten he was not,’ and that he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis or substance, affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration—these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises” (Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 1:5). This tandem approach became common, so that ecumenical councils often issued both chapters and canons. Chapters profess and explain doctrines while canons identify and censure propositions deemed incompatible with doctrines.

For much of Church history, condemned propositions were often identified simply as false, heretical, or incompatible with Christian faith. Beginning in the late thirteenth century, inquisitorial processes began to use more precise theological notes, specifically in relation to ecclesiastical censures (Koser, De notis theologicis, 154). The year 1270 marked a turning point. In that year, the Bishop of Paris condemned thirteen propositions, a prelude to his much more extensive condemnations of 1277. In both cases, the bishop was concerned about the spread of philosophical opinions drawn from certain interpretations of Aristotle and Averroes that were incompatible with Catholic teaching. The propositions condemned in 1270 had been discussed by St. Albert the Great (ca. 1200–1280). In his assessment, St. Albert did not simply state that these propositions were false but evaluated them individually with terms such as “ridiculous,” “absurd,” and “rash” (St. Albert the Great, De quindecim problematibus).

The trend of condemning propositions with censures less serious than “heresy” or “anathema” continued. In 1318, Pope John XXII listed errors of the Fraticelli (the “Spiritual Franciscans”) on the sacraments, condemning them as “partly heretical, partly senseless, partly fabulous” (Constitution Gloriosam Ecclesiam, January 23, 1318, DH 916). This is an example of the common magisterial practice of condemning sets of propositions as a group (in globo) without specifying which censures corresponded to which propositions. Another significant example is Exsurge Domine, Leo X’s Bull condemning errors attributed to Martin Luther. After listing forty-one such propositions, Leo concludes by saying, “All and each of the above-mentioned articles or errors, as set before you, We condemn, disapprove, and entirely reject as respectively heretical or scandalous or false or offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds and in opposition to Catholic truth” (Bull Exsurge Domine, June 15, 1520, DH 1492).

The first ex professo study of theological notes appears in the unfinished Dialogus of William of Ockham (ca. 1287–ca. 1347). In the first part of this work, Ockham is concerned with both the theological and canonical use of notes, particularly censures and the identification of heresy and heretics. Scholastics of the late-medieval and early-modern periods continued to employ and explicitly consider theological notes and censures. (See, for instance, the works of Juan de Torquemada (1388–1468) (Summa de Ecclesia, book 4, part 2), Melchor Cano (ca. 1509–1560) (De locis theologicis, book 12, chaps. 5–9), Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) (De fide theologica, disp. 19, sect. 2), and Matthias Joseph Scheeben (1835–88) (Handbook of Catholic Dogmatics, book 1, part 1, chap. 5)).

The last few centuries have seen an increase in positive teaching acts not necessarily connected with the correction of errors. The two most notable examples among papal acts of teaching in this time period are the definition of Mary’s Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the definition of her Assumption in 1950. In both cases, the pope defined a dogma of faith, not because it was being especially challenged, but for positive reasons (e.g., the honor of God and of Our Lady). In terms of ecumenical councils, it is significant that the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) issued no canons, that is, no formulaic condemnations of erroneous propositions. Instead, all of the teachings declared in its sixteen documents were given in positive form. Finally, it is clear that the ordinary exercise of the magisterium by the Holy See has also grown by leaps and bounds in the modern era. The length and frequency of encyclicals, exhortations, etc., has increased greatly. In other words, in contrast to earlier practices, the magisterium in the last two centuries has issued much more positive teaching than censures.

II. The Relationship among Theological Notes, Qualifications, and Censures

Authors differ in how they use the terms “note” (nota), “qualification” (qualificatio), “censure” (censura), “dogmatic value” (valor dogmaticus), and so forth. It is important, especially when reading older sources, to understand how a given author uses terms and to avoid reading other meanings into them (Koser, De notis theologicis, 199–204).

There are several reasons for the variations in terminology. One is simply the natural development that would be expected in any area of theology over time. Another is that the study of theological notes depends on study of the magisterium and the act of teaching, areas which themselves began to receive greater attention in the late-medieval period and beyond. Another is that theological notes were used in practice before they became themselves the object of study. A final reason is that the magisterium has typically made greater use of censures than it has of positive notes. This makes perfect sense given that, historically, the magisterium has exercised its teaching authority more often by intervening (when necessary) with corrections than by positively advancing uncontroversial teachings.

From a systematic perspective, Constantin Koser’s (1918–2000) proposal, which itself reflects a growing consensus among modern authors, seems preferable. He recommends that “theological note” be understood as a generic term that encompasses both “theological qualification” and “theological censure.” In other words, theological qualifications and theological censures are types of theological notes. In his schema, a qualification is a note that identifies a relationship of conformity, whereas a censure is a note identifying a relationship of discrepancy (Koser, De notis theologicis, 206). This approach has the advantage of including both positive judgments (qualifications) and negative judgments (censures) within a common genus (notes).

This clean and simple schema makes it easier to employ theological notes in the positive advancement of theology. In such a system, a theological note can also be considered as “a statement whereby the state of a theological question is identified.” A theological qualification, then, would be “a statement whereby the state of the question for a theological proposition is identified in terms of its acceptance,” and a theological censure would be “a statement whereby the state of the question for a theological proposition is identified in terms of its rejection” (Koser, De notis theologicis, 206).

III. Theological, Moral, and Canonical Considerations

The history of theological notes and censures is complicated by the fact that authors have not always clearly distinguished the theological, moral, and canonical aspects of the judgments reflected by such notes and censures. To be sure, these judgments overlap and, at times, are so interrelated as to seem practically equivalent. However, clarity demands that they be distinguished even when they are inseparable.

How, then, are the theological, moral, and canonical judgments involved in notes and censures distinct? Consider as an example the proposition “the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” This is a dogma of divine and Catholic faith. It has been revealed by God and defined by the Church as revealed. Therefore, it must be believed with the theological virtue of faith.

From a theological perspective, this means that the contradictory proposition, “Mary was not assumed body and soul into heavenly glory,” is assigned the theological censure of “heresy.” This marks the heretical proposition out as incompatible with Christian faith. A heretical proposition is not only false, it is immediately destructive of faith. It amounts to a denial of the truth that God himself has spoken.

From a moral perspective, this means that someone who refuses to believe in the Assumption as defined above commits the sin of heresy. If he does so with the knowledge that he is contradicting a dogma of faith, he is a formal heretic. If he does so unknowingly, then his heresy is only material. A mortally culpable sin of heresy also results in the loss of the theological virtue of faith, since the person thereby rejects the formal motive of faith, which is God’s own authority. It is impossible to accept God’s veracity and authority as absolute while simultaneously rejecting them in a particular instance.

It should also be noted from a moral perspective that the sin of heresy consists not just in denying a dogma of faith but in refusing to believe such a dogma. This can occur either by denial (such as by assenting to a proposition that opposes the dogma) or by doubt. Thus, “heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same” (CCC no. 2089, quoting Code of Canon Law, can. 751). It is crucial to recognize that “doubt” in this context does not mean “wonder,” “difficulty understanding,” or “asking questions.” It means a withholding of intellectual assent. In doubt, as in denial, there is an obstinate refusal to accept the dogma as true.

From a canonical perspective, what is at issue is not directly the sin of heresy but the crime or delict of heresy. As a society existing by divine law, “the Church has its own inherent right to constrain with penal sanctions Christ’s faithful who commit offences.” (Code of Canon Law, can. 1311, § 1). Since the Church has the mandate of teaching the Christian faith, she also has the right to penalize offenses against the faith, especially those that may harm the faith of others. Thus, there are canonical penalties established for the crime of heresy and other kinds of dissent from Church teaching. However, the application of these penalties is subject to the restrictions set forth in Church law (see e.g., Code of Canon Law, can. 1323).

It is important to distinguish the theological, moral, and canonical use of terms like “heresy.” Not everyone who assents to a heretical proposition is therefore culpable for the sin of heresy, and not everyone culpable for the sin of heresy is actually liable to the canonical penalties for the crime of heresy.

IV. Who Can Assign Theological Notes?

The magisterium can assign theological notes in a binding way. In fact, as stated above, this is one of the ways in which theological notes are most useful. By assigning theological notes, the magisterium expresses to the faithful the degree and kind of assent expected of them.

In addition to the magisterium, theologians also assign theological notes to express their own opinion about the current status of given propositions in their science. The magisterium generally allows theologians this freedom, though occasionally theologians have been forbidden from assigning certain theological censures. For example, instead of settling the famous De auxiliis controversy, the pope decreed that neither the Molinist nor Bañezian systems should be censured by their opponents as heretical (Astrain, “Congregatio de Auxiliis,” 239).

V. Individual Notes and Censures

Keeping in mind that theologians differ in which notes they use and how they use them, it is helpful to consider an example. Sisto Cartechini (1914–94) identifies the following notes (Cartechini, De valore notarum theologicarum, 134–35):

A dogma “of divine and Catholic faith” (de fide divina et Catholica) is a teaching on faith or morals that has been taught by the Church as revealed by God. Such dogmas are formally contained in the deposit of faith either explicitly or implicitly. Dogmas contained in the deposit explicitly are those expressly found in it, while those contained implicitly are immediately deduced from other dogmas.

A doctrine “of ecclesiastical faith” (de fide ecclesiastica) is one that has been taught definitively by the Church but not as divinely revealed. In contrast to dogmas of divine and Catholic faith, these doctrines are not understood as formally contained in the deposit of faith. Proper theological conclusions (i.e., those that follow from a combination of revealed and non-revealed premises) fall into this category.

This note is called “of ecclesiastical faith” because the teachings of this category are accepted on the Church’s authority and not directly on God’s authority. Confidence that such teachings are true comes from the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit, by which the Church could not bind all the faithful to accept as definitive something connected with faith that could turn out to be false. Not all authors use the note “of ecclesiastical faith.” Furthermore, the validity of the concept of ecclesiastical faith is disputed. This is due to disagreement as to whether theological conclusions involve truly new information derived from a combination of revealed and non-revealed premises or are merely explications of revelation itself. Some authors use the note “of Catholic faith” (de fide Catholica) for definitive but non-revealed teachings. The contemporary magisterium uses the expression de fide tenenda (a doctrine of faith that “must be held”).

A dogma “of divine faith” (de fide divina) is one that is divinely revealed but that has not yet been explicitly taught by the Church as divinely revealed. For example, all the assertions of Scripture are, by that very fact, divinely revealed. “Everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, no. 11). While the Church has not explicitly taught each and every assertion of Scripture individually as divinely revealed, the Church proposes the whole Bible for belief in a general way. Thus, a clear assertion of Scripture that the Church has not explicitly identified or taught would be an object of divine faith but would not, strictly speaking, be a dogma of divine and Catholic faith.

A proposition that is “proximate to faith” (fidei proxima) is one that has not yet been proposed by the magisterium as revealed but that theologians unanimously or almost unanimously consider to be revealed. Such a proposition could be defined by the Church as a dogma of divine and Catholic faith.

A proposition that is “theologically certain” (theologice certa) or “certain in theology” (certa in theologia) is one that is considered to be certainly true but not divinely revealed. Such a proposition differs from one that is “of ecclesiastical faith” because the latter has been taught by the magisterium as certainly true but non-revealed, whereas the former is considered certainly true but non-revealed in the judgment of theologians.

A “Catholic doctrine” or “Catholic teaching” (doctrina Catholica) is one that has been taught with authority by the Church’s magisterium, though in a non-definitive way. Such a teaching could be one that is possibly revealed (though not yet recognized as such) or one that is not revealed but still taught authentically.

A proposition that is “certain” (certa), “common and certain” (communis et certa), or “morally certain” (moraliter certa) is one that various theological schools of thought generally agree is correct. However, a “common and certain” proposition is less immediately connected with revealed truth than a “theologically certain” one.

A “secure” (secura) or “safe” (tuta) thesis is one that can be held without danger to the integrity of the faith. This note involves a practical, prudential judgment based partly on circumstances. Thus, an opinion that is unsafe at one time might become safe at another time.

A “more common” (communior) opinion or the “most common” (communissima) opinion is not the same as “the common opinion.” In fact, in this context “more common” and “most common” indicate less agreement than “common.” This is because “the common opinion” implies unanimity or near unanimity among theological schools of thought, whereas “a more common opinion” or even “the most common opinion” implies only that many schools of thought or the majority of them agree.

A “probable” (probabilis) opinion is one that has reasonable arguments in favor of it. Such an opinion remains “probable” so long as the opposite opinion is uncertain. It is possible for contradictory opinions to be “probable” at the same time, since the truth of the matter may not yet be established and there may be good arguments on both sides.

As far as theological censures go, bearing in mind the distinction among theological, moral, and canonical considerations outlined above, the most serious censure is that of “heresy” (haeresis). A proposition with the censure of “heresy” is one that is contrary or contradictory to a dogma of faith. In other words, the heretical proposition and the dogma of faith cannot both be true. Thus, one who affirms a heretical proposition thereby denies a dogma of faith.

Some authors use the expression “heresy against ecclesiastical faith” (haeresis contra fidem ecclesiasticam) or “error in ecclesiastical faith” (error in fide ecclesiastica) as a censure for denials of truths to which the note “of ecclesiastical faith” is attached. (cf. ST II-II, q. 11, a. 2) In contemporary usage, however, the word “heresy” is reserved strictly for the denial of revealed dogma.

Here it is helpful to state that the use of the term “anathema” does not always indicate heresy. It can be used even for disciplinary matters. This is because the formula anathema sit is first of all one of a juridic nature, indicating that a person can be liable to ecclesiastical penalties such as excommunication if he embraces the anathematized position. It often does point to a definitive teaching (since heresy is liable to excommunication), but this is not always the case. The Council of Trent (1545–63), for example, used the formula anathema sit to defend the obligation of going to confession and receiving Holy Communion at least once a year, and this obligation is not divinely revealed (Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 8, DH1708; and sess. 13, can. 9, DH 1659).

An “error in faith” (error in fide) is the denial of a revealed truth manifestly evident in Scripture or Tradition, though not expressly proposed as such by the Church. Such an error does not rise to the level of heresy because the truth in question has not been proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, but it does offend grievously against the virtue of faith.

A proposition that is “proximate to error” (errori proxima) is one that denies a proposition that many theologians hold to be revealed. It indicates high likelihood of an error in faith.

An “error in theology” (error in theologia) is the denial of a proposition that is considered theologically certain. It indicates a failure in the practice of theological science.

A proposition that is “rash” or “temerarious” (temeraria) is one that runs the risk of error, given the current state of magisterial teaching and theological understanding. Such rashness can occur in a variety of ways, such as contradicting the consensus of the Church Fathers, disapproving of approved Church practice, or proposing a novel theological opinion without sufficient foundation. This censure indicates a lack of due caution in the practice of theological science.

The magisterium and theologians have also historically used a wide variety of other censures that do not necessarily denote falsity but instead highlight other kinds of defects in what is said. While these censures may apply to statements that are false, they may also apply to statements that are technically correct but that should not be said. These censures are sometimes used in combination.

A statement that is “offensive to pious ears” (offensiva piis auribus or offensiva piarum aurium) is one that is irreverent or inappropriate for prudent Christian sensibilities. For example, it would be offensive to pious ears to invoke the saints in a manner such as “St. Mary Magdalene, prostitute, pray for us; St. Peter, perjurer and apostate, pray for us” (Cartechini, De valore notarum theologicarum, 124).

A statement that is “bad-sounding” (male sonans) is likely to mislead. For instance, the proposition “in God there are three relative essences” is bad-sounding because it uses the word “essence” in an unusual sense. This makes bad-sounding propositions harmful to people’s correct understanding of Christian faith. In this way, bad-sounding propositions subvert theological science, whose purpose is to aid faith. Thus, bad-sounding propositions are an abuse of theology, not only of words (Salmanticenses, De fide, no. 52).

A statement that is “scandalous” (scandalosa) unduly discourages people from the active practice of their faith. This could be by instilling doubt, skepticism, cynicism, despair, or some other quality that dissuades people from exercising religion and piety. For instance, it would be scandalous to belittle the rosary as a devotion for the simple-minded or to disparage the consecrated life or the clerical state (cf. Cartechini, De valore notarum theologicarum, 122).

A statement that “smacks of heresy” (sapiens haeresim) or is “suspect” (suspecta) is one that tends to make one wonder whether its author is secretly a heretic. The proposition itself may not be clearly heretical or erroneous, but the way it is expressed naturally engenders doubt about its author’s orthodoxy.

A statement that is “ambiguous” (ambigua) can be easily interpreted in more than one way, at least one of which is false.

A statement that is “captious” (captiosa) uses correct-sounding terminology to express something false. This censure is especially used for propositions that are intentionally designed to mislead.

VI. The Usefulness of Theological Notes

Theological notes serve Christian faith. They do so primarily in two ways. First, they help believers respond to God’s Word and other Church teachings with the proper assent. Second, by facilitating theological science, theological notes aid the Church’s understanding of what she believes along with the implications of that belief.

God’s decision to communicate truth to humanity through Jesus Christ demands a response. “Since man is wholly dependent on God as his Creator and Lord, and since created reason is completely subject to uncreated truth, we are bound by faith to give full obedience of intellect and will to God who reveals. But the Catholic Church professes that this faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, is a supernatural virtue by which we, with the aid and inspiration of the grace of God, believe that the things revealed by Him are true, not because the intrinsic truth of the revealed things has been perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.” (Vatican I, Dei Filius, chap. 3) “Through divine revelation, God chose to show forth and communicate Himself and the eternal decisions of His will regarding the salvation of men. That is to say, He chose to share with them those divine treasures which totally transcend the understanding of the human mind.” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, no. 6)

Through the Incarnation, God has manifested himself in person. He has thereby shared publicly with humanity certain truths that must be accepted. The Church herself is the privileged recipient and custodian of these truths, which are contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and together form the deposit of faith. The magisterium has the task of authentically interpreting this deposit (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, no. 10).

The Church’s exercise of her teaching authority therefore requires that she sometimes evaluate a given proposition as to whether it is contained in the deposit of faith, implied by the deposit of faith, or at least compatible with the deposit of faith. Theological notes encapsulate such judgments.

Theological science serves the Word of God and the magisterium as it interprets the deposit of faith. “This service to the ecclesial community brings the theologian and the Magisterium into a reciprocal relationship. The latter authentically teaches the doctrine of the Apostles. And, benefiting from the work of theologians, it refutes objections to and distortions of the faith and promotes, with the authority received from Jesus Christ, new and deeper comprehension, clarification, and application of revealed doctrine. Theology, for its part, gains, by way of reflection, an ever deeper understanding of the Word of God found in the Scripture and handed on faithfully by the Church’s living Tradition under the guidance of the Magisterium. Theology strives to clarify the teaching of Revelation with regard to reason and gives it finally an organic and systematic form” (Donum veritatis, no. 21). Here, too, theological notes are useful because they give theologians and the magisterium itself a way of delineating the current state of Church teaching as it develops.

An example of this can be seen in the mutual cooperation of the magisterium and theologians leading up to the 1950 definition of Mary’s Assumption as a dogma of divine and Catholic faith. While the fact of the Assumption had long been universally held by the Catholic faithful, it was not always clear whether or how this fact could be considered to have been divinely revealed. Just because a religious truth is agreed upon or is held to be certain does not mean that it has been revealed by God. Theologians discussing the Assumption could use theological notes as a convenient way to express their opinion on its relationship to the deposit of faith (see, for instance, Carol, “Definability of Mary’s Assumption,” 161–77). Before the definition, some theologians held that the Assumption was at least implicitly revealed and, therefore, able to be defined as a dogma of faith. Others held that, even if the Assumption were true, it could not be established as revealed. The former could assign notes such as “proximate to faith” or “of divine faith,” while the latter might assign lesser notes such as “theologically certain” or “common opinion.”

At times, theological notes help theologians to parse their teachings more precisely. For example, when they were created the angels were given the opportunity to choose for or against God. This is a traditional and non-controversial teaching. But, in fact, it is a teaching that combines two distinct elements which the application of theological notes helps to clarify. Because it is clear from revelation that some angels turned against God, there is a direct inference that they were given the opportunity to choose. However, the extension of this opportunity to the good angels, while it is certainly true, is not as direct an inference from divine revelation.

The inference that the good angels were given a chance to choose for or against God requires the additional (and quite reasonable) premise that God created the fallen and the non-fallen angels in a similar primordial state. Thus, Ludwig Ott (1906–1985) assigns the note “certain opinion” to the proposition that the fallen angels were subject to moral testing, but the slightly lower note of “common opinion” to the proposition that the good angels were subject to testing (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 118). This is an instance where theological notes aid the science of theology by making explicit that there are actually two parts to the generally accepted view that the angels were all once subject to some kind of probationary period and by expressing that these two parts relate to God’s Word in more and less immediate ways.

VII. Theological Notes and the Analogy of Faith

Theological notes are a practical reflection of the depth of Christ and his mysteries. Revelation has not been given as a fixed list of propositions. God did not send a tractatus into the world. Rather, “‘In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.’ Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one” (CCC no. 65, quoting Heb 1:1–2). Revelation has been given exhaustively in the very person of the Son of God made man.

“Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries” (CCC no. 66). While Christ, in his teaching, expressed certain truths in propositional form, the propositional teachings of the Lord are not the sum total of what he has revealed. Even if they were, new conclusions could undoubtedly be drawn from them. Confronted with the Lord’s mysteries, the Church imitates the Blessed Virgin Mary, who “kept all these things, pondering them in her heart” (Lk 2:19; cf. 2:51).

Theology, which is “faith seeking understanding” (St. Anselm, Proslogion, Preface), has a special role to play in this process. It aids the Church by the development of new terminology, by making explicit what was previously implicit, by drawing conclusions based on faith, and by responding to new challenges and questions. Theology is not limited to quoting the Bible and magisterial documents. Defending the integrity of scriptural and traditional faith sometimes requires the development of new, precise ways of speaking and the formulation of new propositions. For instance, the Church has acknowledged that her faith requires affirming the consubstantiality of the Father and Son. She could not remain faithful to the person of Jesus or effectively proclaim him were she to deny that he is consubstantial with the Father. The images, words, concepts, and propositions used in this process may not be perfectly adequate to the realities they express, but they can still be truthful and binding.

Within the tapestry of faith some truths are more foundational than others. They may be more directly related to God himself, or they may be more clearly and distinctly revealed than other truths. “The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ. ‘In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith’” (CCC no. 90, quoting Vatican II, Unitatis redintegratio, no. 11).

However, this does not make any truths of faith optional or dispensable. ”…[T]he objects of Catholic faith–which are called dogmas–necessarily are and always have been the unalterable norm both for faith and theological science” (Mysterium Ecclesiae, no. 3). In the Catholic view, one must assent to whatever God has revealed and whatever it necessarily entails. “It is true that there exists an order [and] as it were a hierarchy of the Church’s dogmas, as a result of their varying relationship to the foundation of the faith. This hierarchy means that some dogmas are founded on other dogmas which are the principal ones, and are illuminated by these latter. But all dogmas, since they are revealed, must be believed with the same divine faith” (Mysterium Ecclesiae, no. 4).

Because all dogmas must be believed “with the same divine faith,” to deny one of them is to damage the faith whereby all the others are believed. This means that the culpable denial of a single dogma of faith results in the total loss of the theological virtue of faith (along with charity and hope). It is impossible to pick and choose what one will accept out of the things known to be revealed by God and at the same time believe anything else because of God’s absolute veracity. Thus, a person guilty of denying a dogma of faith may indeed accept other dogmas, but not precisely as dogmas. His assent is no longer based on the obedience of faith but on his own private judgment. This is why such a person has traditionally been branded a “heretic,” from the Greek word hairetikos, meaning “one who chooses.” “Since faith is one, it must be professed in all its purity and integrity. Precisely because all the articles of faith are interconnected, to deny one of them, even of those that seem least important, is tantamount to distorting the whole. Each period of history can find this or that point of faith easier or harder to accept: hence the need for vigilance in ensuring that the deposit of faith is passed on in its entirety (cf. 1 Tim 6:20) and that all aspects of the profession of faith are duly emphasized. Indeed, inasmuch as the unity of faith is the unity of the Church, to subtract something from the faith is to subtract something from the veracity of communion” (Francis, Lumen fidei, no. 48).

Theological notes reflect all this in a practical way, since they designate the place that individual propositions hold within the web of Catholic teaching and the science of theology. Positive notes (qualifications) express how certain and how foundational different teachings are understood to be. They also provide a way of integrating new formulations into the pattern of Catholic teaching and of evaluating them in comparison to what is known with greater certainty. Negative notes (censures), in turn, warn the faithful of teachings that are certainly or possibly incompatible with the faith and to what degree. In this way, notes aid the articulation and defense of Christ’s mysteries.

VIII. The Fate of Theological Notes after Vatican II

Theological manuals of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century made heavy use of theological notes. Such manuals typically presented the reader with a series of theses, each a clearly stated proposition with a corresponding theological note assigned by the author.

As in other areas, the Second Vatican Council marks a turning point in the history of theological notes. The council fathers shifted away from the manualist style familiar to them from their own theological education. This stylistic shift is reflected, for instance, in the fact that the council employs no canons. Its sixteen documents consist only of positive teaching along the lines of the chapters of prior councils. The conciliar documents do, of course, condemn certain teachings, such as “that ominous doctrine which attempts to build a society with no regard whatever for religion, and which attacks and destroys the religious liberty of its citizens” (Lumen gentium, no. 36). However, they do so, not by formally singling out specific propositions for anathema, but in the course of their general teaching.

After Vatican II, theological manuals disappeared with rare exceptions, such as the 1966 Theologia dogmatica by Emmanuel Doronzo (1903–1976). As the manuals went out of style, theological notes went with them. New theologians and clergy were no longer trained through the use of systematically arranged textbooks consisting of theses with corresponding notes and arguments.

However, even when the older system of theological notes had gone out of fashion, the question of levels of teaching authority remained relevant. For instance, Vatican II itself had issued distinct kinds of documents, such as “dogmatic constitution,” “pastoral constitution,” and “declaration.” There was also great interest in evaluating the weight of particular magisterial teachings, such as that of Humanae vitae (1968), and in comparing the teachings of Vatican II to pre-conciliar magisterial teaching. Both those who saw Vatican II’s doctrine as a rupture from earlier teaching and those who interpreted it in continuity with earlier teaching had to have a way to parse levels of teaching authority.

However, theologians did not develop a unified approach to weighing magisterial texts. As Avery Dulles (1918–2008) observed:

In the decade following the council these theological notes disappeared from textbooks. There was a period of confusion as to what doctrines were binding, on what grounds, and in what measure. Some theologians acted as though it were acceptable for Catholics to contest every doctrine of the Church that had not been solemnly defined. A few authors contended that since revelation was not originally given as a set of propositions, no Christian should be required to subscribe to any propositions as matters of faith. Or alternatively, the doctrines of the Church were regarded as being so historically and culturally conditioned that none of them could be classified as revealed or irreversibly true. Individuals were at times encouraged to construct creeds and confessions of their own, thus blurring the contours of the Church as a visible, universal, and abiding community of faith. (Dulles, <em>Magisterium</em>, 84)

Even critics of manualist approaches, such as Karl Rahner (1904–1984), complained that theology students of the post-conciliar era were not as familiar as they should be with the “conceptual exactitude of neoscholasticism and of its orientation to declarations of the magisterium.” (“The Abiding Significance of the Second Vatican Council,” 20:94).

In 1989, the International Theological Commission called for a revival and renewal of theological notes:

The fact that tradition is a really live reality explains why there are so many declarations by the Magisterium of varying importance and varying degrees of obligation. To gauge these exactly and to interpret them, theology has worked out the doctrine of theological qualifications or notes, which, to some extent, the Magisterium has adopted. In recent times, this approach has unfortunately been more or less forgotten. But it is useful in the interpretation of dogma and should therefore be repristinated and developed further. (<em>The Interpretation of Dogma</em>)

The magisterium itself, in line with the description of the teaching office of the bishops found in paragraph 25 of Lumen gentium, distinguishes definitively binding teachings (either belonging to the deposit of faith or necessarily connected with it) from non-definitive teachings and, since 1989, has explained and clarified these distinct levels.

IX. Current Magisterial Usage

The contemporary magisterium applies notes at three levels: dogmas de fide credenda (dogmas of faith that “must be believed”), doctrines de fide tenenda (doctrines of faith that “must be held”), and teachings to which “religious submission of will and intellect” is owed. The last of these covers a broad range of teachings of greater or lesser weight. While it may be helpful for theologians to identify more specific notes for teachings of this third category, the magisterium usually has no need for such precision.

These three levels of teaching are reflected in the current profession of faith, which was published together with the oath of fidelity in 1989. Canonical penalties corresponding to the denial of teachings at these different levels are expressed in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (canons 750 and 752) and the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (canons 598 and 599) as updated by Pope St. John Paul II in his 1998 letter Ad tuendam fidem.

Further aspects of the way in which a doctrine is taught can be elaborated. Both dogmas de fide credenda and doctrines de fide tenenda can be taught by defining or non-defining acts. Defining acts include the definitions of an ecumenical council or those given by the Bishop of Rome acting ex cathedra. Non-defining acts are those of the ordinary and universal magisterium. All of such acts, both for dogmas de fide credenda and doctrines de fide tenenda, are covered by the charism of infallibility..

Truths de fide credenda are taught as contained in the deposit of faith. As such, they must be believed with the theological virtue of faith, whose motive is the very authority of God himself, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Examples of dogmas de fide credenda include “the articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas and [M]arian dogmas; the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace; the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration; the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ; the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff; the doctrine on the existence of original sin; the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death; the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts; the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being” (Commentary on the Professio fidei, no. 11).

Doctrines de fide tenenda are not taught as contained in the deposit of faith, but they are related to it. “These truths, in the investigation of Catholic doctrine, illustrate the Divine Spirit’s particular inspiration for the Church’s deeper understanding of a truth concerning faith and morals, with which they are connected either for historical reasons or by a logical relationship” (Ad tuendam fidem, no. 3). “There are truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historical relationship, while other truths evince a logical connection that expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding of revelation which the Church is called to undertake. The fact that these doctrines may not be proposed as formally revealed, insofar as they add to the data of faith elements that are not revealed or which are not yet expressly recognized as such, in no way diminishes their definitive character, which is required at least by their intrinsic connection with revealed truth” (Commentary on the Professio fidei, no. 7).

Examples of doctrines de fide tenenda that are connected by a logical relationship to the deposit of faith include the reservation of priestly ordination to men and the illicitness of euthanasia. In these cases, the Church has a definitive teaching based on the Word of God even if not explicitly expressed in it.

Examples of doctrines de fide tenenda that are connected by a historical relationship to the deposit of faith include “the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations” (Commentary on the Professio fidei, no. 11).

While assent to dogmas de fide credenda “is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God,” assent to doctrines de fide tenenda “is based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium” (Commentary on the Professio fidei, no. 8). The magisterium has the authority to teach on matters that are not themselves revealed precisely because a binding decision on such matters is sometimes needed to preserve the deposit of faith intact. “By its nature, the task of religiously guarding and loyally expounding the deposit of divine Revelation (in all its integrity and purity), implies that the Magisterium can make a pronouncement ‘in a definitive way’ on propositions which, even if not contained among the truths of faith, are nonetheless intimately connected with them, in such a way, that the definitive character of such affirmations derives in the final analysis from revelation itself” (Donum veritatis, no. 16).

The possibility that truths not directly belonging to the deposit of faith could be covered by the charism of infallibility was foreseen by Vatican I (1869–70), which defined the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff as follows:

We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks <em>ex cathedra</em>, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church [<em>doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa Ecclesia tenendam</em>], he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. (Vatican I, <em>Pastor aeternus</em>, chap. 4)

Vatican I deliberately used the broader word tenendam instead of the narrower word credendam to avoid excluding truths not directly revealed from the scope of infallibility. The same is true of Vatican II, when it speaks of the authentic magisterium, “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held [definitive tenendam]” (Lumen gentium, no. 25). “According to Catholic doctrine, the infallibility of the Church’s Magisterium extends not only to the deposit of faith but also to those matters without which that deposit cannot be rightly preserved and expounded” (Mysterium Ecclesiae, no. 3).

Theologians typically distinguish dogmas de fide credenda and doctrines de fide tenenda as primary and secondaryobjects of infallibility. The charism of infallibility extends to both, and both can be defined or taught ex cathedra, by an ecumenical council, or by the ordinary and universal magisterium. The distinction between “primary” and “secondary” expresses the level of immediacy that the teachings in question enjoy in relationship to the deposit of faith. The primary object of infallibility encompasses revealed truths themselves, while the secondary object embraces truths necessarily connected with revealed truth.

The first and second Vatican councils did not settle the disputed question of whether truths not directly revealed, when taught infallibly, must be believed with theological faith or accepted with a distinct kind of assent (such as “ecclesiastical faith”) (Gasser, Gift of Infallibility, 79–81). In other words, Vatican I and Vatican II used the term “to hold” (tenere) to indicate firm assent, which may or may not be theological faith itself. Everything that must be believed (credenda) must be held (tenenda), but councils did not settle the question of whether everything that must be held must also be believed. The Commentary on the concluding formula of the Profession of Faith implies that the kind of assent involved in “holding” (tenere) is distinct from “believing” (credere), though grounded in it. It describes the assent owed to doctrines de fide tenenda as “firm and definitive assent … 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” (Commentary on the Professio fidei, no. 8).

Therefore, doctrines de fide tenenda do implicate the theological virtue of faith, at least indirectly. The denial of these truths entails a denial of at least some dogma of faith, since truths in this category are connected with a dogma of faith by logical or historical necessity. Thus, returning to the examples, the Church has not proposed the reservation of priestly ordination to men, the illicitness of euthanasia, and the invalidity of Anglican ordinations at the time of Leo XIII as teachings that have themselves been revealed by God but instead as teachings whose nature is such that denying them would necessarily distort certain dogmas, such as the institution of the sacraments by Christ, the wrongness of murder, and apostolic succession.

Further, “it cannot be excluded that at a certain point in dogmatic development, the understanding of the realities and the words of the deposit of faith can progress in the life of the Church, and the Magisterium may proclaim some of these doctrines [de fide tenenda] as also dogmas of divine and catholic faith” (Commentary on the Professio fidei, no. 7). Such a development occurred, for instance, with the dogma of papal infallibility, which had been recognized as a logical consequence of divine revelation before Vatican I defined it as being itself divinely revealed. However, definitive teachings are never demoted to a lower-level theological note. Thus, a dogma de fide credenda never becomes a doctrine de fide tenenda, and a doctrine de fide tenenda never becomes one that is merely owed religious submission.

Teachings to which religious submission of will and intellect is owed are an expression of the authentic magisterium. “In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. 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” (Lumen gentium, no. 25).

The assent given to such teachings is truly a submission of will and intellect. It is not merely external conformity or respectful silence (e.g., not publicly contradicting the teaching). “When the Magisterium, not intending to act ‘definitively,’ teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith” (Donum veritatis, no. 23).

Teachings in this category are not covered by the charism of infallibility. Strictly speaking, it is possible for some of them to be false. Nevertheless, assent is owed to them out of deference to magisterial authority and a healthy confidence in God’s general guidance of the Church. “The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule” (Donum veritatis, no. 24). This is precisely because the Church’s teaching authority is living. The bishops, as successors of the apostles, are not limited merely to repeating what has already been stated explicitly. They are tasked with preaching and teaching the faith down through the ages, and this is not limited to definitive acts or even to the ordinary and universal magisterium. Indeed, “all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth” (Donum veritatis, no. 17).

For examples of teachings to which religious submission of will and intellect is owed, “one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way” (Commentary on the Professio fidei, no. 11). In other words, all things currently taught by the magisterium in an authoritative way but not as definitive fall into this category.

This does not mean, however, that all opinions endorsed by the pope or a bishop call for religious submission of will and intellect. It is only when they intend to teach authoritatively, though without settling a matter definitively, that such submission is required. Thus, for instance, the theological opinions promoted by Benedict XVI in his personal writings, such as Jesus of Nazareth, do not demand religious submission solely because they were put forward by a man who was pope, since he did not intend such writings to be magisterial.

When determining the firmness of assent owed to authentic but non-definitive teachings, one must attend to “to the mind and the will manifested [by the magisterium]; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression” (Commentary on the Professio fidei, no. 11). In other words, when evaluating the weight of a particular teaching, one must consider “the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed” (Donum veritatis, no. 24) A non-definitive teaching that has been repeated frequently in documents of greater weight calls for firmer assent than one that has been taught only rarely and in lower-level documents. Likewise, a teaching that the pope or the bishops intend to promote strongly enjoys greater weight than one that they approve only as a safe, acceptable, or probable opinion. “One must therefore take into account the proper character of every exercise of the Magisterium, considering the extent to which its authority is engaged” (Donum veritatis, no. 17).