376. Christian theology, which some call supernatural theology, others the theology of faith, is properly “a certain discursive science from revealed principles believed by divine faith.” “It must be said,” says St. Thomas (1 p., question 1, article 2), “that sacred doctrine is a science. But it must be known that there is a twofold kind of sciences. For some are those which proceed from principles known by the natural light of the intellect… But some are those which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: just as Perspective proceeds from principles made known through Geometry… And in this way sacred doctrine is a science, because it proceeds from principles known by the light of a higher science, which namely is the science of God.”
377. Hence the proper office of theology is to inquire and demonstrate whether and how truths are contained in divine revelation; to compare them together, so that their mutual connection may be perceived; to infer one from another, or also from revealed truths to establish other truths by inference; finally, to polish, defend, and vindicate all of them if they are attacked. “It must be said,” says the same Angelic Doctor (article 8), “that just as the other sciences do not argue to prove their own principles, but argue from their principles to show other things in those sciences, so this doctrine does not argue to prove its own principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them proceeds to show something else: as the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 15 argues from the resurrection of Christ to prove the common resurrection.” Yet he observes that, just as the supreme human science in a certain way disputes against one denying its principles, so theology, “since it does not have a superior, disputes with one denying its principles, by arguing indeed if the adversary grants something of those things which are had through divine revelation; just as by the authorities of sacred doctrine we dispute against heretics, and by one article against those denying another. But if the adversary believes nothing of those things which are divinely revealed, there remains no further way to prove the articles of faith by reasons, but only to solve the reasons, if he brings any against the faith.” Here apologetic theology is supposed, which from the motives of credibility shows the existence of Christian revelation, and which we have carried out thus far. Yet this, as Cardinal Franzelin notes (On the One God, page 15, ed. 1876), “does not deserve the name of Christian theology, except insofar as it rests, as upon its foundation, on the primitive supernatural persuasion from the light of faith. For if this connection with supernatural persuasion is lacking, it will be able to be philosophy propedeutic to Christian theology; it will not be Christian theology in the proper sense.”
378. From these things it follows: 1) theology, like the other sciences, has sources from which it draws its arguments. Those sources are called theological places. For as Aristotle says (Rhetoric, book 1, chapter 2, n. 7): “Those are called places which commonly contain arguments concerning things which pertain to morals, to nature, to civil science, and to many other things differing from one another in species.” Therefore for Aristotle a Place is that from which the philosopher or rhetorician draws the materials of reasons. Nor does Tullius teach otherwise, who says: “And so it is permitted to define a place as the seat of an argument.” 2) It follows that the proper places of theology are contained in revealed principles, or divine revelation, although it does not reject the help of human sciences at times. “It must be said,” says St. Thomas (1 p., question 1, article 5, ad 2), “that this science [theology] can receive something from philosophical disciplines, not because it needs them from necessity, but for the greater manifestation of those things which are handed down in this science. For it does not receive its principles from other sciences, but immediately from God through revelation. And therefore it does not receive from other sciences as from superiors, but uses them as inferiors and handmaids… And this very fact that it uses them in this way is not on account of its defect or insufficiency, but on account of the defect of our intellect, which from those things which are known through natural reason (from which the others proceed) is more easily led by the hand into those things which are above reason, which are handed down in this science.” And (article 8, ad 2): “To argue from authority is especially proper to this doctrine, because the principles of this doctrine are had through revelation… Yet sacred doctrine also uses human reason, not indeed to prove the faith… but to manifest certain other things which are handed down in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not take away nature, but perfects it, it is necessary that natural reason serve faith, just as also the natural inclination of the will obeys charity… But sacred doctrine uses authorities of this sort as, so to speak, extraneous arguments.”
379. Now the use of reason or of human sciences in a theological matter is sufficiently gathered from the things which we discussed concerning the office of reason in the matter of faith (On the Infused Virtues, disputation 4, article 7 ff.). We vindicated the authority of the divine Scriptures (ibid., article 4). We showed a little above the existence of divine traditions, and at the same time indicated the principal monuments by which they are conserved. Therefore from these things the theological Places have now been established. It remains only that we prescribe rules for their right use in theology; and after the things which have been disputed, it is permitted to dispatch this briefly.
380. I. The rules which are assigned for the right use of the Scriptures, some regard Scripture itself, others its sense. With regard to the former, it is certain: 1) an argument duly taken even from one place of Scripture is altogether irrefutable, for it is the word of God. 2) But the place must be taken from the canonical Scriptures, concerning whose authority alone it is established. We established the canon of the Scriptures (On the Infused Virtues, disputation 4, article 2). 3) Indeed, in order that the argument be efficacious, the text of Sacred Scripture must be drawn from its authentic edition; and therefore first of all from the Latin Vulgate edition, concerning whose authenticity there is an explicit and solemn judgment of the Church. 4) Yet since, as to the substance of the matter, there remained in the Hebrew text for the Old Testament and in the Greek text for the New Testament that authenticity which they already enjoyed before the decree of the Council of Trent, it is permitted to have recourse to those original texts. 5) Indeed, it is expedient to have recourse to them in the cases which we noted in the treatise On the Infused Virtues (n. 621). 6) But if some text is read both in the Latin Vulgate edition and in the original text, yet the sense is ambiguous in one or the other, the clear sense must prevail, if such a sense is found in one or the other. 7) It is understood, however, that the sense which either the Church or the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers has declared must always be retained. Compare On the Infused Virtues (disputation 4, articles 6 and 5).
381. But with regard to the rules concerning the sense of Sacred Scripture, it is necessary first to note that several senses are distinguished in it. For: 1) There is the literal or historical sense, which the words immediately present, and the spiritual or mystical sense, which is referred to something other than that which the words immediately signify. St. Thomas gives the reason for this twofold sense thus (1 p., question 1, article 10): “For the author of Sacred Scripture is God, in whose power it is not only to adapt words for signifying, which even man can do, but also the things themselves. And therefore, since in all sciences words signify, this science has this as proper to itself, that the very things signified by words also signify something. Therefore that first signification by which words signify things pertains to the first sense, which is the historical or literal sense. But that signification by which things signified by words again signify other things is called the spiritual sense, because it is founded upon the literal and supposes it.” 2) The literal sense is divided in two ways. One is proper, namely that which arises immediately from the words according to their proper acceptation, as, for example, in that text: “You shall love the Lord your God.” The other is figurative, namely that which arises immediately from words transferred from their proper signification into an alien one, as in that text: “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold.” Compare St. Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, book 3). Here it must be noted with St. Thomas (same place) that “the figure itself is not the literal sense, but that which is figured. For when Scripture names the arm of God, the literal sense is not that in God there is a bodily member of this sort, but that which is signified through this member, namely operative power.” 3) Likewise the mystical sense is distinguished by more recent writers as threefold. It is allegorical, namely, if the words of Sacred Scripture, besides the literal sense, signify something in the New Testament pertaining to Christ or the Church. Thus it is literally true that Abraham had two wives, one free and the other a bondwoman, and two sons, Isaac and Ishmael; but these things, with the Apostle as witness (Galatians 4), signify God as author of the two Testaments and Father of two peoples. Furthermore there is the tropological spiritual sense, when words or deeds are referred to signify something pertaining to morals. Thus that text (Deuteronomy 25.4), “You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox treading out the grain,” with the Apostle as witness (1 Corinthians 9), mystically signifies that preachers are not to be forbidden to receive sustenance from the people. Finally there is the anagogical sense, which is had when words or deeds are referred to signifying eternal life. Thus that text (Psalm 94.11), “To whom I swore in My wrath, if they shall enter into My rest,” is understood literally of the land of promise, but, with the Apostle as witness (Hebrews 4), spiritually signifies also eternal life. St. Thomas also gives the reason for this threefold sense, saying: “The old law is a figure of the new law; and the new law itself, as Dionysius says (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, part 1, chapter 5), is a figure of future glory. In the new law also, the things done in the Head are signs of the things which we ought to do.” Compare Bellarmine (On the Word of God, book 3, chapter 3). 4) Another sense can be added, which they call accommodative, or by accommodation, when the words of Sacred Scripture signifying some matter are used to signify another, from the fittingness which the one using them judges to exist between each matter. You have examples everywhere in the texts which Sacred Orators apply to the saints whose praises they celebrate.
382. These things having been set forth: 1) from the literal sense a certain argument can always be taken; from the mystical sense sometimes, namely when it is certainly established from Scripture or from the interpretation of the Church or the unanimous interpretation of the Holy Fathers; but from the accommodative sense never. The reason is evident: for the literal sense, and the mystical sense when it is established, is intended by the Holy Spirit and has infallible truth; but the accommodative sense is otherwise. 2) The words of Sacred Scripture must be taken in their proper sense, unless necessity compels them to be taken in an improper sense, according to the rule of St. Augustine (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, book 8, chapter 7). Necessity would compel this if from words accepted in their proper sense some absurdity, something against faith, against morals, etc., would follow. Thus, for example, an absurdity would follow if the testimonies which seem to attribute human members to God were taken in the proper sense; something against moral uprightness would follow if those words (Matthew 18.8) were taken in the proper sense: “If your hand or your foot scandalizes you, cut it off and cast it from you”; and (verse 9): “If your eye scandalizes you, pluck it out and cast it from you,” etc. 3) For attaining the true and genuine sense, the rules which hermeneutics supplies are useful, and we suppose them here. Hence it is often necessary to weigh the force of the words, the context, the aim, etc., so that that sense may be drawn out from these. 4) Yet the chief norm will always be the judgment of the Church and the unanimous sense of the Fathers, if it exists.
383. It must be noted here that in places of Sacred Scripture one must discern what the sacred Writers themselves say from what they report as said by others. The former always has infallible truth, since it is a divinely inspired judgment. Of the latter, by the same reason, it is always true that it was said by another just as it is reported. But whether the judgment uttered by another and reported by the sacred Writer contains truth, if it has not been approved by him, must be taken from the person and authority of the one whose judgment it is. Thus if something is reported as said by God Himself, by the Prophets, or by another inspired Writer, it has infallible truth. But if something is reported as said by a man left to himself, it has human and fallible authority, as, for example, those words of the Jews (John 2.20): “This temple was built in forty-six years.” Sometimes also a judgment truthfully reported can be false; as, for example, the words of the man born blind (John 9.31): “We know that God does not hear sinners”; or the words of the foolish man (Psalm 52.2): “There is no God”; or the words of Satan (Job 2.5): “Then you will see that he blesses You to Your face,” etc.
384. These indeed concern the rules pertaining to the use of the Scriptures in theology. Now it is necessary to set forth the rules concerning the use of tradition. And first it should be noted that tradition, like Scripture, has a twofold authority (n. 252): historical or human, and divine. History can and must be employed according to the nature of the adversaries and according to the stage of the question, just as we employed the historical authority of the Gospels to prove the divine origin of Christian revelation, and the historical authority of tradition (n. 330) to prove its divine authority. Once historical authority is supposed, which is common to the other human testimonies, clothed, as they say, with the same conditions, we, as is clear to one weighing the arguments, have established divine authority, which is the criterion and effect of the charism of truth residing in the Church from the perennial assistance of the Holy Spirit. And this divine authority is of use in theology when theology establishes matters of faith and morals from its own proper sources. But in order that it may have full force of proving, the existence of the tradition and its true character must be certainly established. Wherefore the rules which we handed down (n. 322) for discerning traditions truly divine, whether they are Dominical or apostolic-divine, belong here. Nevertheless, just as questions could arise concerning the canon of the Scriptures, and others can arise concerning their genuine sense, so they can also arise concerning the existence, nature, and sense of tradition. In these doubts, just as for Scripture, so also for tradition, the chief norm which can authentically define the matter, in a way accommodated also to all, is the judgment of the living and authentic magisterium, existing always in the Church from the institution of Christ. Compare Valentia (On Faith, disputation 1, question 1, part 7, section 12).
385. But among the monuments which conserve and exhibit traditions, the principal ones, as we said (n. 344), are those which contain the judgments and definitions of the teaching Church. Even one of these judgments, in matters of faith and morals, entirely completes the matter, since, as we suppose here, it was issued from the infallible assistance of the Holy Spirit. Yet the following things must be noted. 1) If the matter concerns things to be believed by faith, it must be certainly established that those monuments contain a definition of faith. Certainly they are not of this sort if “the judges use words of opining, or if the responses are referred not to the whole universal Church, but to private Churches and Bishops. For they are to be understood to pronounce concerning faith only in that case where the judgment looks to all Christ’s faithful and binds all. For the certitude of faith has been promised and conceded to judges constituted by God, not on account of private Churches, which individually can err, but on account of the universal Church, which cannot err. Therefore the doctrine of Supreme Pontiffs and Councils, if it is proposed to the whole Church, if it is proposed also with the obligation of believing, then truly it is a judgment concerning a cause of faith.” 2) Even when it is established that some monument exhibits a definition of faith, it must be noted: “those things which in the decrees of Councils or Pontiffs are introduced either for the sake of explaining, or so that an objection may be answered, or even incidentally and in passing outside the principal subject concerning which chiefly there was controversy, do not pertain to faith; that is, they are not judgments of Catholic faith.” 3) Yet beware lest you immediately judge these things and the preceding things, which we denied to pertain to a judgment of faith, to be destitute of all authority. Concerning this matter we discussed several things in the treatise On the Infused Virtues (n. 440 ff.), and we shall touch upon something below. 4) But in order that judgments of faith may be recognized, the following notes are assigned: the first, if those asserting the contrary are judged as heretics; the second, if this formula is applied: “If anyone shall think this or that, let him be anathema”; the third, if upon those who contradict, a sentence of excommunication is passed by the law itself; the fourth, if anything is expressly said to be firmly believed by the faithful, or to be accepted as a dogma of Catholic faith, or if by other similar words something is said to be contrary to the Gospel or to the doctrine of the Apostles, certainly not by opining, but by a certain and firm judgment. Compare Canus (On Places, book 5, chapter 5). If, after these notes have been applied, doubt still remains, “in judging this matter,” says Tanner (On Faith, question 4, doubt 6, n. 262), “both the judgment of wise men, and much more the sense and consensus of the Church, have great force.”
386. But the monuments of tradition which next follow the definitions of the Church in dignity are the writings of the Holy Fathers. “In antiquity itself,” says Vincent of Lerins (Commonitorium, chapter 38), “the sons of the Church will first of all place before the temerity of one or of very few the general decrees, if there are any, of a universal Council; then next, what is nearest, let them follow the mutually consenting judgments of many and great teachers.” Now we said that the authority of the Fathers is irrefutable when by morally unanimous consensus they teach something (n. 352), and that it pertains to sacred doctrine (n. 348). But when it must be judged that unanimous consensus is present is plainly known from the things disputed (n. 353 ff.). Therefore it remains that rules be assigned for discerning whether what the Fathers teach pertains to sacred doctrine. And: 1) generally, if they hand down something by a truly unanimous consensus, it can generally be judged to pertain to sacred doctrine; for in other matters they are accustomed to disagree. 2) A certain note that a matter has been handed down by the Fathers as pertaining to sacred doctrine is present if they use words expressing a profession of faith: if, for example, they say, “We believe, we confess, we have been taught, Christ said or commanded, the Church believes or holds,” etc. 3) If, as soon as a new opinion had arisen, the Fathers rose up against it as against something alien from the faith of the Catholic Church, opposed to the faith of the Church, or attacked its author as an innovator, heretic, etc. 4) If in catecheses or sermons to catechumens or to neophytes they proposed it as something to be believed, or commanded it to be done. 5) With regard to the interpretation of the Scriptures, “this also,” says Fessler (Institutions of Patrology, chapter 1, section 20), “must not be passed over in silence: not so much the exegetical works of the Fathers, in which, indulging the genius of their age, they were sometimes too intent on catching allegories, but the dogmatic, moral, and polemical works, in which they treat lucidly and expound solidly the places of Scripture from which dogmas of faith and morals are proved, are to be used… Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria, if judgment is to be made from his Commentaries, will be judged an interpreter of a lower bench; but if we estimate him from his dogmatic and polemical works, he is most practiced in finding and expounding the true and literal sense of Scripture, and must be held in the first place.”
387. These same things, with proportion observed, must be kept in the use of the authority of Theologians. But with regard to the sense of the faithful, besides the things said (n. 368), we shall note these things: 1) That sense and consensus is not the only criterion, but one of the criteria for judging concerning the existence of tradition; and therefore it can indeed be employed, but it is not always necessarily to be employed, for other criteria are available. 2) If that common sense is discovered either before the question has arisen or at the present time, it has equal force for certainly proving the existence of divine tradition, for at no time can the whole Church err in matters of faith and morals. Hence we must follow either antiquity or universality (compare On the Infused Virtues, n. 542). 3) It can indeed happen that at some time that common sense does not appear with regard to a matter concerning which it is had at a later time (compare ibid., n. 516); but if that common sense has once prevailed in the Church, dissent at a later time can never be universal; for otherwise the Church would err in either time. SERIES OF ROMAN PONTIFFS | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 1 | St. Peter | 42 | | | 2 | St. Linus | 67 | | | 3 | St. Cletus | 78 | | | 4 | St. Clement I | 91 | 130 | Century II. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 5 | St. Anacletus | 101 | 130 | | 6 | St. Evaristus | 110 | 130 | | 7 | St. Alexander I | 119 | 130 | | 8 | St. Sixtus I | 130 | 130 | | 9 | St. Telesphorus | 140 | 130 | | 10 | St. Hyginus | 152 | 130 | | 11 | St. Pius I | 156 | 130 | | 12 | St. Anicetus | 165 | 130 | | 13 | St. Soter | 173 | 130 | | 14 | St. Eleutherius | 177 | 130 | | 15 | St. Victor | 192 | 130 | Century III. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 16 | St. Zephyrinus | 201 | 130 | | 17 | St. Callixtus I | 219 | 130 | | 18 | St. Urban I | 224 | 130 | | 19 | St. Pontian | 231 | 130 | | 20 | St. Anterus | 235 | 130 | | 21 | St. Fabian | 236 | 130 | | 22 | St. Cornelius | 251 | 3 | | 23 | St. Lucius I | 253 | 3 | | 24 | St. Stephen I | 255 | 3 | | 25 | St. Sixtus II | 257 | 5 | | 26 | St. Dionysius | 258 | 5 | | 27 | St. Felix I | 270 | 5 | | 28 | St. Eutychianus | 275 | 5 | | 29 | St. Caius | 283 | 5 | | 30 | St. Marcellinus | 296 | 6 | Century IV. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 31 | St. Marcellus | 304 | 6 | | 32 | St. Eusebius | 309 | 6 | | 33 | St. Melchiades | 311 | 6 | | 34 | St. Sylvester I | 314 | 8 | SERIES OF ROMAN PONTIFFS | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 35 | St. Mark | 326 | 8 | | 36 | St. Julius I | 337 | 8 | | 37 | Liberius | 352 | 8 | | | Felix II (Pseudo) | 355 | 13 | | 38 | St. Damasus I | 367 | 13, 23 | | 39 | St. Siricius | 385 | 13 | | 40 | St. Anastasius I | 398 | 20 | Century V. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 41 | St. Innocent I | 402 | 20, 33 | | 42 | St. Zosimus | 417 | 20 | | 43 | St. Boniface I | 418 | 20 | | 44 | St. Celestine I | 423 | 50 | | 45 | St. Sixtus III | 432 | 50 | | 46 | St. Leo I the Great | 440 | 54, 56 | | 47 | St. Hilary | 461 | 58 | | 48 | St. Simplicius | 467 | 58 | | 49 | St. Felix III | 483 | 58 | | 50 | St. Gelasius I | 492 | 59, 74 | | 51 | St. Anastasius II | 496 | | | 52 | St. Symmachus | 498 | 62 | Century VI. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 53 | St. Hormisdas | 514 | 63 | | 54 | St. John I | 523 | | | 55 | St. Felix IV | 526 | 65 | | 56 | Boniface II | 530 | 65 | | 57 | St. John II | 532 | 66 | | 58 | St. Agapetus I | 535 | 66 | | 59 | St. Silverius | 536 | 66 | | 60 | Vigilius | 538 | 69 | | 61 | Pelagius I | 555 | 69 | | 62 | John III | 561 | 72 | | 63 | Benedict I | 575 | 72 | | 64 | Pelagius II | 579 | 72 | | 65 | St. Gregory I the Great | 590 | 75, 79 | Century VII. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 66 | Sabinian | 604 | | | 67 | Boniface III | 607 | | | 68 | St. Boniface IV | 608 | 80 | | 69 | St. Deusdedit | 616 | 80 | | 70 | Boniface V | 620 | 80 | | 71 | Honorius I | 626 | 80 | | 72 | Severinus | 640 | | SERIES OF ROMAN PONTIFFS | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 73 | John IV | 640 | 80 | | 74 | Theodore I | 642 | 87 | | 75 | St. Martin I | 649 | 87 | | 76 | St. Eugene I | 654 | | | 77 | St. Vitalian | 657 | 87 | | 78 | Adeodatus | 672 | 87 | | 79 | Donus | 677 | 87 | | 80 | St. Agatho | 678 | 87 | | 81 | St. Leo II | 682 | 96 | | 82 | St. Benedict II | 685 | 96 | | 83 | John V | 686 | 96 | | 84 | Conon | 687 | | | 85 | St. Sergius I | 688 | 89 | Century VIII. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 86 | John VI | 702 | 89 | | 87 | John VII | 705 | 89 | | 88 | Sisinnius | 707 | | | 89 | Constantine | 708 | 89 | | 90 | St. Gregory II | 715 | 89 | | 91 | St. Gregory III | 731 | 89, 98 | | 92 | St. Zachary | 741 | 89, 98 | | 93 | Stephen II | 752 | 89, 98 | | 94 | St. Paul I | 757 | 89, 98 | | 95 | Stephen III | 768 | 89, 98 | | 96 | Adrian I | 772 | 96, 98 | | 97 | Leo III | 795 | 98, 102 | Century IX. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 98 | Stephen IV | 816 | 102, 129 | | 99 | St. Paschal I | 817 | 102, 6, 29 | | 100 | Eugene II | 824 | 105, 129 | | 101 | Valentine | 827 | 105 | | 102 | Gregory IV | 828 | 106, 129 | | 103 | Sergius II | 844 | 106, 129 | | 104 | St. Leo IV | 847 | 115 | | 105 | Benedict III | 855 | 115, 129 | | 106 | St. Nicholas I | 858 | 119 | | 107 | Adrian II | 867 | 122, 119 | | 108 | John VIII | 872 | 126 | | 109 | Martin I, or Martin II | 882 | 126 | | 110 | Adrian III | 884 | 126 | | 111 | Stephen V | 885 | 129 | SERIES OF ROMAN PONTIFFS | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 112 | Formosus | 891 | 129 | | 113 | Boniface VI | 896 | | | 114 | Stephen VI | 896 | 129 | | 115 | Romanus | 897 | 129 | | 116 | Theodore II | 898 | 87, 129 | | 117 | John IX | 899 | 131 | | 118 | Benedict IV | 900 | 131 | Century X. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 119 | Leo V | 904 | | | | Christopher (Pseudo) | 904 | 131 | | 120 | Sergius III | 905 | 131 | | 121 | Anastasius III | 912 | 131 | | 122 | Lando | 914 | | | 123 | John X | 915 | 132 | | 124 | Leo VI | 928 | 132 | | 125 | Stephen VII | 929 | 132 | | 126 | John XI | 931 | 132 | | 127 | Leo VII | 936 | 132 | | 128 | Stephen VIII | 939 | 132 | | 129 | Martin II, or Martin III | 943 | 133 | | 130 | Agapetus II | 946 | 133 | | 131 | John XII | 955 | 133 | | | Leo VII (Pseudo) | 963 | 134 | | 132 | Benedict V | 964 | | | 133 | John XIII | 965 | 133 | | 134 | Benedict VI | 972 | 135 | | 135 | Benedict VII | 975 | 137 | | 136 | John XIV | 984 | 137 | | | Boniface IV (Pseudo) | 985 | | | 137 | John XV | 986 | 137 | | 138 | Gregory V | 997 | 137 | | | John XVI (Pseudo) | | | | 139 | Sylvester II | 999 | 139 | Century XI. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 140 | John XVII | 1003 | | | 141 | John XVIII | 1004 | 139 | | 142 | Sergius IV | 1009 | 139 | | 143 | Benedict VIII | 1012 | 139 | | 144 | John XIX | 1024 | 141 | | 145 | Benedict IX | 1033 | 141 | SERIES OF ROMAN PONTIFFS | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 146 | Gregory VI | 1045 | 142 | | 147 | Clement II | 1046 | 142 | | 148 | Damasus II | 1048 | | | 149 | St. Leo IX | 1049 | 143 | | 150 | Victor II | 1055 | 143 | | 151 | St. Stephen IX | 1057 | 143 | | | Benedict X (Pseudo) | | | | 152 | Nicholas II | 1059 | 143 | | 153 | Alexander II | 1061 | 146 | | 154 | St. Gregory VII | 1073 | 148 | | 155 | Victor III | 1087 | 149 | | 156 | Urban II | 1088 | 151 | | 157 | Paschal II | 1099 | 163 | Century XII. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 158 | Gelasius II | 1118 | 163 | | 159 | Callixtus II | 1123 | 163 | | 160 | Honorius II | 1128 | 166 | | 161 | Innocent II | 1130 | 179 | | 162 | Celestine II | 1143 | 179 | | 163 | Lucius II | 1144 | 179 | | 164 | Eugene III | 1145 | 180 | | 165 | Anastasius IV | 1153 | 188 | | 166 | Adrian IV | 1154 | 188 | | 167 | Alexander III | 1159 | 188 | | 168 | Lucius III | 1181 | 201 | | 169 | Urban III | 1185 | 202 | | 170 | Gregory VIII | 1187 | 202 | | 171 | Clement III | 1187 | 204 | | 172 | Celestine III | 1191 | 206 | | 173 | Innocent III | 1198 | 214-217 | Century XIII. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 174 | Honorius III | 1216 | 148 | | 175 | Blessed Gregory IX | 1227 | 142 | | 176 | Celestine IV | 1241 | | | 177 | Innocent IV | 1243 | | | 178 | Alexander IV | 1254 | | | 179 | Urban IV | 1261 | | | 180 | Clement IV | 1265 | | | 181 | Blessed Gregory X | 1271 | | | 182 | Innocent V | 1276 | | | 183 | Adrian V | 1276 | | | 184 | John XX, or XXI | 1276 | | | 185 | Nicholas III | 1277 | | SERIES OF ROMAN PONTIFFS | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 186 | Martin IV | 1281 | | | 187 | Honorius IV | 1285 | | | 188 | Nicholas IV | 1288 | | | 189 | St. Celestine V | 1294 | | | 190 | Boniface VIII | 1294 | | Century XIV. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 191 | Blessed Benedict XI | 1303 | | | 192 | * Clement V | 1305 | | | 193 | * John XXII | 1316 | | | 194 | * Benedict XII | 1334 | | | 195 | * Clement VI | 1342 | | | 196 | * Innocent VI | 1352 | | | 197 | * Urban V | 1362 | 99 | | 198 | * Gregory XI (Returned to Rome) | 1370 | | | 199 | + Urban VI | 1378 | | | | * Clement VII (Pseudo) | 1378 | | | 200 | + Boniface IX | 1389 | | | | Benedict XIII (Pseudo) | 1394 | | Century XV. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 201 | + Innocent VII | 1404 | | | 202 | + Gregory XII | 1406 | | | 203 | + Alexander V (Pseudo) | 1409 | | | 204 | + John XXIII (Pseudo) | 1410 | | | 205 | Martin V | 1417 | | | 206 | Eugene IV | 1431 | | | 207 | Nicholas V | 1447 | | | 208 | Callixtus III | 1455 | | | 209 | Pius II | 1457 | | | 210 | Paul II | 1464 | | | 211 | Sixtus IV | 1471 | | | 212 | Innocent VIII | 1484 | | | 213 | Alexander VI | 1492 | | Century XVI. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 214 | Pius III | 1503 | | | 215 | Julius II | 1503 | | | 216 | Leo X | 1513 | | NOTES * Pontiffs who lived at Avignon. + Pontiffs who during the Western Schism lived at Rome. SERIES OF ROMAN PONTIFFS | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 217 | Adrian VI | 1522 | | | 218 | Clement VII | 1523 | | | 219 | Paul III | 1534 | | | 220 | Julius III | 1550 | | | 221 | Marcellus II | 1555 | | | 222 | Paul IV | 1555 | | | 223 | Pius IV | 1560 | | | 224 | St. Pius V | 1566 | | | 225 | Gregory XIII | 1572 | | | 226 | Sixtus V | 1585 | | | 227 | Urban VII | 1590 | | | 228 | Gregory XIV | 1590 | | | 229 | Innocent IX | 1591 | | | 230 | Clement VIII | 1592 | | Century XVII. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 231 | Leo XI | 1605 | | | 232 | Paul V | 1605 | | | 233 | Gregory XV | 1621 | | | 234 | Urban VIII | 1623 | | | 235 | Innocent X | 1644 | | | 236 | Alexander VII | 1655 | | | 237 | Clement IX | 1667 | | | 238 | Clement X | 1670 | | | 239 | Innocent XI | 1675 | | | 240 | Alexander VIII | 1689 | | | 241 | Innocent XII | 1691 | | Century XVIII. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 242 | Clement XI | 1700 | | | 243 | Innocent XIII | 1721 | | | 244 | Benedict XIII | 1724 | | | 245 | Clement XII | 1732 | | | 246 | Benedict XIV | 1740 | | | 247 | Clement XIII | 1758 | | | 248 | Clement XIV | 1769 | | | 249 | Pius VI | 1775 | | Century XIX. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 250 | Pius VII | 1800 | | | 251 | Leo XII | 1823 | | | 252 | Pius VIII | 1829 | | | 253 | Gregory XVI | 1831 | | | 254 | Pius IX | 1846 | | | 255 | Leo XIII | 1878 | | Century XX. | Number | Names | Year | Migne, Patrologia Latina | |---:|---|---:|---:| | 256 | Pius X | 1903 | | ECUMENICAL COUNCILS | Year | Council | Fathers | Labbe | |---:|---|---|---:| | 325 | Nicaea I | 318 bishops | 2 | | 381 | Constantinople I | 150 | 2 | | 431 | Ephesus | 200 | 3 | | 451 | Chalcedon | 636 | 4 | | 553 | Constantinople II | 165 | 5 | | 680-681 | Constantinople III | 160 | 6 | | 787 | Nicaea II | 350 | 7 | | 869-870 | Constantinople IV | 102 | 8 | Western Councils. | Year | Council | Fathers | Labbe | |---:|---|---|---:| | 1123 | Lateran I | 300 bishops | 10 | | 1139 | Lateran II | 997 in all; 1000 | 10 | | 1179 | Lateran III | 302 | 10 | | 1215 | Lateran IV | 439 bishops; 800 inferiors | 11 | | 1245 | Lyons I | 140 | 11 | | 1274 | Lyons II | 587 bishops; 1070 inferiors | 11 | | 1311 | Vienne | 300 | 11 | | 1417-1418 | Constance (from session 41) | | | | 1431 | Basel (from session 1 to 25) | | | | 1439-1445 | Florence | 150 | 13 | | 1512-1517 | Lateran V | 100 | 14 | | 1545-1563 | Trent | 276 bishops; 174 inferiors | 14 | | 1869 | Vatican | | | LIST OF ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS | Names | Death | Migne, Patrologia | |---|---:|---| Century I. | Names | Death | Migne, Patrologia | |---|---:|---| | St. Barnabas | | G. 2 | | Presbyters of Achaia | | G. 2 | | Hermas | 95 | G. 2 | | St. Dionysius the Areopagite | 95 | G. 3, 4 | | St. Clement of Rome | 101 | G. 1 | Century II. | Names | Death | Migne, Patrologia | |---|---:|---| | St. Ignatius | 107 | G. 5 | | St. Polycarp | 166 | G. 5 | | St. Justin, Tatian | 167 | 6 | | Athenagoras | 177 | 6 | | St. Theophilus of Antioch | 181 | G. 6 | | Hegesippus | 181 | 6 | | Hermias | | G. 6 | | St. Irenaeus | 202 | 7 | Century III. | Names | Death | Migne, Patrologia | |---|---:|---| | Minucius Felix | 209 | L. 3 | | Clement of Alexandria | 217 | G. 9 | | Julius Africanus | 221 | G. 10 | | St. Hippolytus | 222 | G. 10 | | Tertullian | 245 | L. 1, 3 | | Origen | 254 | G. 11, 17 | | St. Cyprian | 258 | L. 4 | | St. Dionysius of Alexandria | 265 | G. 10 | | St. Gregory Thaumaturgus | 270 | G. 10 | | St. Pamphilus | 294 | G. 10 | Century IV. | Names | Death | Migne, Patrologia | |---|---:|---| | St. Methodius | 312 | G. 18 | | Arnobius | 320 | L. 5 | | Lactantius | 325 | L. 6, 7 | | Juvencus | 330 | L. 19 | | Constantine the Great | 336 | L. 8 | Footnote 1. According to another opinion, Hermas was the brother of Pius I, and therefore belongs to the second century. Footnote 2. But the works under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite are referred by others to the fifth or sixth century. LIST OF ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS | Names | Death | Migne, Patrologia | |---|---:|---| | Firmicus Maternus | 337 | L. 12 | | St. Eusebius of Vercelli | 338 | L. 12 | | Eusebius of Caesarea | 340 | G. 19, 24 | | Marcellus of Ancyra | 341 | G. 18 | | St. Eustathius of Antioch | 345 | G. 18 | | St. Pachomius | 348 | G. 40 | | St. James of Nisibis | 352 | | | St. Anthony the Abbot | 356 | G. 40 | | St. Diadochus | 360 | G. 65 | | St. Hilary of Poitiers * | 368 | L. 9, 10 | | Victorinus Marius | 370 | L. 8 | | Lucifer of Cagliari | 371 | L. 13 | | St. Athanasius | 373 | G. 25, 28 | | St. Ephrem | 378 | | | St. Basil * | 379 | G. 29, 32 | | St. Zeno of Verona | 380 | | | St. Optatus of Milevis | 384 | L. 11 | | St. Cyril of Jerusalem | 386 | G. 33 | | St. Gregory Nazianzen * | 392 | G. 35, 38 | | St. Phoebadius | 392 | L. 20 | | St. Pacian | 397 | L. 13 | | St. Ambrose * | 397 | L. 14, 57 | | Didymus of Alexandria | 397 | G. 39 | | Evagrius Ponticus | 399 | G. 40 | | St. Epiphanius | 402 | G. 40, 43 | | St. Gregory of Nyssa | 403 | G. 44, 46 | | St. Amphilochius of Cappadocia | 404 | L. 73 | | St. Gaudentius of Brescia | 405 | L. 20 | | St. Chromatius | 407 | L. 20 | | St. John Chrysostom * | 407 | G. 47, 64 | | SS. Macarii, Egyptian and Alexandrian | | G. 34 | Century V. | Names | Death | Migne, Patrologia | |---|---:|---| | Synesius | 410 | G. 66 | | Prudentius of Aurillac | 410 | L. 59, 60 | | St. Jerome * | 420 | L. 22, 30 | | Palladius of Helenopolis | 420 | G. 34, 65 | | Theophilus of Constantinople | 420 | L. 22 | | Orosius | 420 | L. 31 | | Rufinus | 420 | L. 21 | | Sulpicius Severus | 420 | L. 20 | | St. Augustine * | 430 | L. 32, 47 | | St. Paulinus of Nola | 430 | L. 61 | | Theodore of Mopsuestia | 430 | G. 66 | | Socrates | 430 | G. 67 | | Sozomen | 430 | G. 67 | | St. Isidore of Pelusium | 440 | G. 78 | | St. Cyril of Alexandria | 440 | G. 68, 77 | | St. Proclus | 446 | G. 65 | | Cassian | 448 | L. 49, 50 | | St. Hilary of Arles | 449 | L. 50 | LIST OF ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS | Names | Death | Migne, Patrologia | |---|---:|---| | Marius Mercator | 450 | L. 19 | | St. Vincent of Lerins | 450 | L. 50 | | St. Peter Chrysologus * | 451 | L. 52 | | St. Nilus | 452 | G. 79 | | St. Eucherius of Lyons | 454 | L. 50 | | Theodoret | 458 | G. 80, 84 | | Dracontius | 460 | L. 60 | | St. Basil of Seleucia | 460 | G. 85 | | Arnobius Junior | 460 | L. 53 | | Victorius of Le Mans | 460 | L. 54 | | St. Leo the Great * | 461 | L. 54, 56 | | St. Prosper of Aquitaine | 463 | L. 51 | | St. Maximus of Turin | 466 | L. 57 | | Claudianus Mamertus | 470 | L. 53 | | Victor of Vita | 480 | L. 58 | | St. Sidonius Apollinaris | 482 | L. 58 | | St. Faustus of Riez | 485 | L. 58 | | Salvian | 490 | L. 53 | | Gennadius of Marseilles | 495 | L. 58 | | Julianus Pomerius | 498 | L. 58 | Century VI. | Names | Death | Migne, Patrologia | |---|---:|---| | Ennodius | 521 | L. 63 | | Boethius | 523 | L. 63, 64 | | Procopius of Gaza | 524 | G. 87 | | St. Avitus of Vienne | 525 | L. 59 | | St. Fulgentius | 533 | L. 65 | | St. Caesarius of Arles | 542 | L. 67 | | St. Benedict the Abbot | 543 | L. 66 | | Arator | 550 | L. 68 | | Eugyppius the Abbot | 555 | L. 62 | | Dionysius Exiguus | 555 | L. 67 | | Liberatus | 555 | L. 68 | | Cassiodorus | 562 | L. 69, 70 | | St. John Climacus | 570 | G. 88 | | St. Germanus of Paris | 576 | L. 72 | | St. Martin of Braga | 580 | L. 72 | | St. Gregory the Great * | 584 | L. 75, 79 | | Evagrius Scholasticus | 594 | G. 86 | | St. Gregory of Tours | 595 | L. 71 | | St. Leander of Seville | 595 | L. 72 | | St. Anastasius Sinaita | 599 | G. 89 | | Venantius Fortunatus | 609 | L. 88 | | Hesychius of Jerusalem | 609 | G. 93 | Century VII. | Names | Death | Migne, Patrologia | |---|---:|---| | St. Columbanus | 615 | L. 80 | | St. Sophronius of Jerusalem | 629 | G. 87 | | John Moschus | 630 | G. 87 | LIST OF ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS | Names | Death | Migne, Patrologia | |---|---:|---| | St. Braulio | 633 | L. 80 | | St. Isidore of Seville * | 636 | L. 81, 84 | | St. Gallus the Abbot | 640 | L. 87 | | John of Dara | 650 | G. | | St. Taio | 656 | L. 81 | | St. Eligius of Noyon | 659 | L. 87 | | St. Maximus the Martyr | 662 | G. 90 | | St. Ildephonsus of Toledo * | 667 | L. 93 | | St. Andrew of Crete | 680 | G. 97 | | John of Thessalonica | 680 | G. | | St. Julian of Toledo | 690 | L. 96 | | St. Theodore of Canterbury | 690 | L. 99 | | Abbo of Metz | 700 | L. 87 | Century VIII. | Names | Death | Migne, Patrologia | |---|---:|---| | St. Aldhelm | 710 | L. 89 | | Venerable Bede | 735 | L. 90, 95 | | St. Germanus of Constantinople | 740 | G. 98 | | St. Boniface of Mainz | 755 | L. 89 | | St. John Damascene | 760 | G. 94, 96 | | St. Chrodegang | 766 | L. 89 | | St. Cosmas of Jerusalem | 743 | G. 98 | | Blessed Alcuin | 804 | L. 100 | | St. Paulinus of Aquileia | 804 | D. 99 | Century IX. | Names | Death | Migne, Patrologia | |---|---:|---| | Charles the Great | 814 | L. 97, 98 | | Isidore Mercator | 814 | L. 130 | | Amalarius of Trier | 815 | L. 99 | | Theodulph of Orleans | 821 | L. 105 | | St. Benedict of Aniane | 821 | L. 103 | | Smaragdus | 824 | L. 102; G. 99 | | St. Theodore the Studite | 826 | L. 129 | | Amalarius of Metz | 830 | L. 105 | | Ansegisus the Abbot | 833 | L. 105 | | St. Agobard of Lyons | 840 | L. 105 | | Jonas of Orleans | 843 | L. 104 | | Walafrid Strabo | 849 | L. 116 | | St. Paschasius Radbertus | 851 | L. 133 | | Rabanus Maurus | 856 | L. 107, 112 | | St. Eulogius of Toledo | 859 | L. 115 | | Lupus of Ferrieres | 861 | L. 119 | | Ratramnus | 870 | L. 121 | | St. Remigius of Lyons | 873 | L. 131 | | St. Ado of Vienne | 875 | L. 133 | | Usuard | 877 | L. 133, 134 | | Hincmar of Rheims | 882 | L. 135, 136 | LIST OF ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS | Names | Death | Migne, Patrologia | |---|---:|---| | Anastasius Bibliothecarius | 887 | L. 127, 129 | | Photius | 881 | G. 101, 104 | | Remigius of Auxerre | 908 | L. 131 | Century X. | Names | Death | Migne, Patrologia | |---|---:|---| | Notker Balbulus | 911 | L. 131 | | Regino | 915 | L. 132 | | Symeon Metaphrastes | 942 | G. 114, 116 | | St. Odo of Cluny | 942 | L. 133 | | Flodoard | 966 | L. 135 | | Ratherius | 973 | L. 136 | | Gerbert | 1003 | L. 138 | | Abbo of Fleury | 1004 | L. 139 | Century XI. | Names | Death | Migne, Patrologia | |---|---:|---| | Burchard | 1025 | L. 141 | | St. Fulbert | 1028 | L. 141 | | Symeon of Thessalonica | 1030 | G. | | St. Bruno of Wurzburg | 1045 | L. 142 | | Bruno of Reichenau | 1048 | L. 143 | | St. Peter Damian * | 1072 | L. 144, 145 | | Theophylact | 1077 | G. 126, 126 | | St. Lanfranc | 1089 | L. 150, 158 | | St. Bruno the Carthusian | 1101 | L. 152, 153 | | St. Anselm * | 1109 | L. 158, 159 | Century XII. | Names | Death | Migne, Patrologia | |---|---:|---| | St. Ivo of Chartres | 1115 | L. 158, 159 | | St. Bruno of Asti | 1125 | L. 164, 165 | | Honorius of Autun | 1131 | L. 172 | | St. Alger of Liege | 1132 | L. 180 | | Rupert of Deutz | 1135 | L. 167, 170 | | Hugh of St. Victor | 1140 | L. 175, 176 | | Gratian | 1151 | L. 187 | | Suger the Abbot | 1152 | L. 186 | | St. Bernard * | 1153 | L. 182, 185 | | Peter Lombard | 1164 | L. 190, 192 | | Richard of St. Victor | 1173 | L. 196 | | St. Thomas of Canterbury | 1174 | L. 190 | | Peter Comestor | 1199 | L. 198 | | Peter of Blois | 1200 | L. 107 |
388. In the preceding disputation we considered the Christian religion as it were in the abstract, and we saw that it alone is true; just as we established that its doctrines and institutions are contained not only in the Scriptures, but also in oral tradition. But it is time, by setting up the question concretely, to inquire what the Christian religion is, and where that authentic and living magisterium is to which, as we demonstrated elsewhere, both the Scriptures and traditions have been committed. This is all the more necessary because there are several groups of men, disagreeing among themselves, who claim the Christian name for themselves.
389. Hence no one fails to see of how great moment the present treatment is. For just as Christ is the end of every controversy with Jews and unbelievers, so the Church is the end of every controversy with non-Catholics. For Christ instituted her so that through her men might learn the true religion and profess the same within her. Therefore, just as the treatment concerning Religion aims at this, that men become Christians, so the treatment which we undertake concerning the Church pertains to this, that Christians become or be Catholics.
390. Yet in this disputation, that we may consult order and clarity, we treat of the institution of the Church of Christ and her intimate constitution; but in the following disputation we shall establish the properties, gifts, and notes of the Church herself, from which finally it will not be difficult to define which is the true Church of Christ.
391. But in the whole course of the demonstration we often draw arguments from Sacred Scripture. By what reasoning this is done must be sought from the things said in the treatise On the Infused Virtues (n. 912 ff.). Nor do we introduce here the authority of the Fathers by a dissimilar reasoning; for the divine authority of tradition is rightly employed only when it has already been established that the charism of infallibility is present in the Church; but its human authority must always be held efficacious, and against all.
392. Indeed this method is different from that which the older Theologians followed; but Perrone rightly observes (Proem) that we are compelled to follow it “first of all by the manner of acting of Protestants, biblicists, rationalists, and mythicists in attacking Catholic doctrines, on account of which it is no longer granted to us to tread the worn path… The norm of attacking the enemies of Religion had to be varied after they began to use new contrivances for attacking Catholics… Who has ever not seen that no one can suitably discuss the sacred Scriptures, insofar as they are regarded as divine, concerning their inspiration and canon, as they say, to pass over the rest, unless that authority is first constituted from which alone those notes can be safely established for us? Say the same concerning divine traditions and their authority, and concerning the rest which depend upon the authority and testimony of the Church.”