by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

We rarely hear terms defined clearly, since so much of Catholic Media today is a conversation about events and a reaction to them.

But there are terms which have a proper meaning, and which are often found in Church documents, that are poorly understood simply because no one has explained them.

One of these terms is “de fide Catholica”.  This is a Latin phrase which means “of” or “concerning” “the Catholic” “faith” or “Faith”.

The first thing you can see, is that the pithy Latin phrase can mean several things in English.

So let’s break it down.

What is Catholic faith?

Faith, in the sense of the supernatural virtue, also gives its name to truths which the supernatural virtue inclines us to believe.  Thus, it is with Catholic faith, that we believe in all the dogmas of the Catholic Faith.

So you see, capitalization is important in the English language, if we want to speak properly. And unfortunately correct use of capitalization in English is rarely found, even in theological books or Vatican Translations.

What do we have to believe by Catholic Faith?

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION, 1989

In 1989, Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in his capacity as President of the International Theological Commission, authorized the publication of a document entitled, “The Interpretation of Dogma” (link HERE), which was prepared by Msgr. Walter Kasper, when he was a professor at the University of Tubingen, Germany.

This document, despite its non binding nature, reiterates the standard definition of what is “de fide Catholica” which is found in older manuals of theology:

According to the doctrine of the Church, “an act of divine and Catholic faith must be made in what is contained in Gods word, either as it is written in Scripture or handed on by tradition and proposed by the Church, whether that be by way of a solemn decision or by the ordinary Magisterium, and the obligation to believe is demanded because it is divine revelation” (DS 3011). This “credendum” includes the truths of faith (in the strict sense) and also those truths, witnessed to by revelation, which have a bearing on the moral life (DS 1501, 3074: “fides et mores“; LG 25: “fidem credendam et moribus applicandam“).

From this we can see that all that pertains to “de fide Catholica” in the sense of the virtue of faith — we can discern this sense by the texts use of “an act of” — namely, all which “is contained in God’s word, either as it is written in Scripture or handed on by tradition and proposed by the Church, whether that be by way of a solemn decision or by the ordinary magisterium, and the obligation to believe is demanded because it is divine revelation”.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CATHOLIC FAITH, VATICAN I

And this recalls the infallible teaching of the First Vatican Council, in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholics Faith (Constitutio de Fide Catholica), which title is referring not to the virtue but the contents of what is believed by the virtue:

Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal church, as declared by the sacred council of Trent, is contained in which were written books and unwritten traditions, received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or came to the apostles by the dictation of the holy Spirit, and were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us [16]. The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical. These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church. Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine, that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one, which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.

So, from this we can see, that all which God has revealed, from which the Church has always drawn Her teaching on faith and morals, pertains to the Catholic Faith and must be believed by divine and Catholic Faith.

THEOLOGICAL MANUALS BEFORE VATICAN II

And we see this said in the same way, but more organized format, in Sixtus Cartechini S. J., 1951 treatise, De Valore Notarum Theologicarum (On the Force of Theological Notes), under his remarks at the end of this quotation:

Theological note: Dogma.
Equivalent terms: Dogma of faith; de fide, de fide Catholica; de fide divina et Catholica.
Explanation: A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God.
Examples: The Immaculate Conception; all the contents of the Athanasian Creed.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy
Effects of denial: Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited.
Remarks: A dogma can be proposed either by a solemn definition of pope or council, or by the Ordinary Magisterium, as in the case of the Athanasian Creed, to which the church has manifested her solemn commitment by its long-standing liturgical and practical use and commendation.

Thus, we must believe by Divine and Catholic Faith all the truths revealed by God in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, which regard theological and/or moral truths. Even though we must believe by divine faith everything in Scripture, not all of it pertains to Catholic Faith, because many things revealed by God do  not regard supernatural truths or regarded the Old Covenant, which has passed away.

For example, we must believe by divine faith that God ordered the Hebrews to circumcise their sons. But we do not believe in circumcision, today, since with Christ’s Resurrection the obligation has passed away, being replaced by Baptism.

‘Fiducia supplicans’ contains, teaches and promotes what is contrary to Catholic Faith on the Priesthood, on Blessings and on the use of the Divine Name

For the above reason, we can now see more clearly why Cardinal Mueller said that Fiducia suppplicans, which says Catholic priests can bless public sinners with a non-sacramental blessing, teaches contrary to Catholic doctrine, since the Church has never taught such a thing, rather She has taught the opposite, namely, that every blessing given by a validly ordained priest has a sacramental power.  We can also now see why it is rightly said, at the same time, that ‘Fiducia supplicans” contains or teaches heresy, because the Church has always taught that priests always bless with the authority of Jesus Christ, even if they do not use the Divine Name, since this authority is the perennial basis of all blessings given by the clergy in the history of Christianity.

For to say that a priest can bless but not in the name of Christ, is to say a priest of Christ can in a morally upright way give a blessing in the name of someone else, not Christ, even though he is the ambassador of Christ, as Saint Paul teaches infallibly, and consecrated to Jesus Christ by his ordination, according to the Tradition of the Church. What ‘Fiducia supplicans’ is trying to do is to teach that a priest can be faithful by not being faithful to Christ. And that is a heresy. Though Cardinal Mueller calls it a contradiction.

It also implicitly presents an entirely novel idea of the source of authority of the priesthood, which in Tradition has always been held to be Christ’s authority. Thus ‘Fiducia supplicans’ teaches that when a priest does NOT pronounce the Name of God in a blessing, though he is a priest of Christ, he is NOT invoking the Divine Name by using his authority as a priest. But this is exactly the opposite of what the Church has always believed and taught, namely, that every exercise of priestly power, calls upon the power and Name of Divine Majesty, since the priest is not merely a ritual functionary, but is ontologically, theologically and juridically made the representative of the Living God by his ordination.

Moreover, as Cardinal Mueller points out, there are two notions of blessing in ‘Fiducia supplicans’ which contradiction one another: the sacramental and the non-sacramental. If we strip away the sacramental, which is the kind Jesus Christ instituted and ordered the Sacred Heart to keep doing until the end of time, since they act in His Person as His representatives on Earth, to watch over His flock, a thing they do by imparting His Blessings: we are left with an entirely novel doctrine where it says a priest an impart a non-sacramental blessing.

The readers who support this document did not end up confused, however, because after the publication of the document the supporters of the document began using the Diving Name to bless public sinners, while at the same time arguing verbally, while forgetting in practice, that the part of the document did not teach this, whenever they attempted to defend the document. Thus the doctrine of ‘Fiducia supplicans’ as a whole contradicts Catholic Faith on the priesthood, on blessings and on the use of the Divine Name. And each contradiction is a heresy, even though in addition to this erroneous doctrine it fosters heresy and the worse possible Sacrileges, the misuse of the Divine Name to affirm and confirm sinners in their moral depravities.

This is why Catholic Bishops in Poland, Ukraine, the Mid-East and Africa and many other parts of the world rejected the teaching contained in this document. This was the first time in history that a pope signed a document which was rejected by a large part of the episcopacy precisely because it contradicted Catholic Faith. And this is why Cardinal Prevost, in affirming that he will continue to follow Pope Francis’s Magisterium, is reconfirming his own pertinacity in heresies against the Catholic Faith.

What all this has to do with Cardinal Prevost’s Election being invalid?

And as soon as a Catholic sees that Prevosts is doing this, he can have recourse to Pope Paul IV’s, “Cum ex apostolatus officio”, which says, in n. 6:

6. Adiicientes quod si ullo umquam tempore apparuerit aliquem Episcopum, etiam pro Archiepiscopo, seu Patriarcha, vel Primate se gerentem, aut praedictae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem, etiam ut praefertur, Legatum, seu etiam Romanum Pontificem ante eius promotionem, vel in Cardinalem, seu Romanum Pontificem assumptionem a fide Catholica deviasse, aut in aliquam haeresim incidisse,

(i) promotio, seu assumptio de eo etiam in concordia, et de unanimi omnium Cardinalium assensu facta, nulla, irrita,

(ii) et inanis existat, nec per susceptionem muneris, consecrationis, aut subsecutam regiminis, et administrationis possessionem, seu quasi, vel ipsius Romani Pontificis inthronizationem, aut adorationem, seu ei praestitam ab omnibus obedientiam, et cuiusvis temporis in praemissis cursum, convaluisse dici, aut convalescere possit,

(iii) nec pro legitima in aliqua sui parte habeatur,

Which in my English translation (which is more accurate than the version at Daily Catholic, quoted here):

6. Adding, that if at any time it will have appeared that any Bishop, even if acting as an Archbishop or Patriarch, and/or Primate, or a Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, even as has been aforesaid, Legate, or even a Roman Pontiff before his promotion, whether upon his assumption as a Cardinal, or as Roman Pontiff, has deviated from Catholic faith (a fide Catholica), or has fallen into any heresy (in aliquam haeresim):

(i) let his promotion or assumption, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the Cardinals, stand forth as null and irritus,

(ii) and void, nor be able to be convalidated or to be said to be convalidated through the susception of his munus, consecration, or subsequent rule, and possession of administration, nor even if through the enthronement as Roman Pontiff himself, or adoration, or proffering of obedience to him by all, nor through the passage of time in the same,

(iii) nor be held legitimate in any part thereof,

As can be seen, thus, that the precise conditions which we see after the Conclave of May 2025 are entirely fulfilled, because whether you already knew he spoke against the Catholic Faith before the Conclave, or recognize after the Conclave that he is speaking in the same way as before, the Bull of Paul IV, not only gives you the right to say his election was invalid, regardless of how many Catholics say otherwise, and no matter how long he claims to be the Pope, but his election and claim to office and powers, is legally rendered NULL, VOID, and IRRITUS, that is, invalid, empty of all just claim, and to be considered to have never existed in the sight of the Church and of God, since, being a Papal Bull, it falls under the precept of Jesus Christ, “Whatsoever you bound upon earth, shall be bound in Heaven; and whatever you lose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven”, this Bull is going to be observed by Jesus Christ every time its conditions are met. (See here and here for my demonstration that this Bull is still in force of law).

In addition, Cardinal Prevost holds the heretical position that the use of Capital Punishment is always inadmissible, which contradicts the truth taught by Saint Paul and the Church, that the authority to impose this punishment was given by God to the State. For if its use was always evil, then God is evil for granting its use.  But it is of divine and Catholic Faith that God is good and all authority He grants is lawful to use, since Christ Himself approved of this when He said to Pilate: “You would have no authority over Me, if it had not been granted to you from above”.

+ + + + + + +

The Book on the Trinity, every faithful Catholic priest would love as his next present

This is Br. Bugnolo's English Translation, of Saint Bonaventure's encylopedic book of theology on the Trinity: With this book, your priest will always have something intelligent and awesomely inspiring to preach to you about God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit!

+ + +

This fund was started by Ordo Militaris Catholicus, an international relief organization founded by Br. Bugnolo and AJ Baalman. Click the image for more information.

+ + +