780. By the name infallibility is signified immunity from error. But immunity from error can be understood either insofar as someone, although liable to error, nevertheless does not in fact err; and then there is what is better called inerrancy: or the very possibility of erring is excluded; and then there is what is properly called infallibility. Yet these two names are often used promiscuously.
781. We are speaking of immunity from error which excludes the very possibility of erring. This is twofold: one is essential, and is proper to God; the other is participated, which is communicated by God to rational creatures in that measure and under that law which God himself wills. This will be supernatural, however, if it surpasses the powers and exigency of nature, so that it is not owed to it.
782. The infallibility which we assert for the Church is participated and supernatural; hence it can generally be described as “a privilege granted by Christ to the Church, by which, in matters of faith and morals, she can neither be deceived nor deceive.” Therefore it is already clear how little they understand the Catholic doctrine concerning the infallibility of the Church who attack it either because, they say, God alone is infallible, or because every man is liable to error. God alone is infallible by essential infallibility, and man naturally is liable to error; but the infallibility which we attribute to the Church is participated and supernatural.
783. This participated and supernatural infallibility is further divided in two ways: one is called passive, which they also call infallibility in believing; the other is active, which is also usually called infallibility in teaching. The subject of the former is the universal Church, which for that reason is called (1 Tim. 3.15) “the pillar and ground of truth,” and of which it is said (Matt. 16.18) that it is “built upon the rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” But the subject of the other infallibility is the Pastors and Doctors, whom (Eph. 4) Christ gave for the building up of his mystical body. This latter is the extrinsic efficient principle of the truth which is always in the Church as in a most firm seat; the former has the character of a final cause.
784. Now, concerning infallibility in believing, two things chiefly must be noted. The first is this: although the faith and sense of the faithful can be considered and investigated separately, nevertheless it can never in reality be separated from the faith of the teaching Church, or be diverse from it and opposed to it. For the obedience of faith which is found in the faithful corresponds, as an effect, to the authority of teaching which resides in the Pastors. Therefore, just as there will always be a multitude of the faithful professing the true faith, so there will always be with it Pastors and Doctors teaching the true faith; and thus there will always remain the bond of unity which, from Christ’s institution, ought to exist between the Pastors and the people.
785. The other thing which must be noted concerning infallibility in believing is that it is not necessary here expressly and directly to demonstrate its existence. For 1) it is sufficiently gathered from what has been said: since we have shown that the Church is one also by unity of faith; apostolic also by apostolicity of doctrine; indefectible in her constitutive properties and endowments. But if the universal Church could err in faith, either by believing as divinely revealed what has not been revealed, or by denying that what has been revealed is revealed, the Church would fail in unity, apostolicity, and so forth. Therefore. Hence of her it is said (Hos. 2): “I will espouse thee to myself in faith: I will espouse thee to myself forever.” 2) Indeed, not rarely the adversaries themselves seem to concede the passive infallibility of the Church, although they mix several errors into this concession. Thus Calvin (Institutes, book 4, chapter 8, sections 11-15) says that this proposition, “The Church cannot err,” is true if it is understood of the universal Church alone, but not if it is extended to the Bishops, who are the Church representatively. Compare Bellarmine, On the Church Militant, book 3, chapter 14. And Hodge (Systematic Theology, vol. 1, p. 183) establishes Scripture as the only rule of faith; but at the same time he adds that in the interpretation of the Scriptures “they should also pay the greatest deference to the faith of the Church.” But all stubbornly deny infallibility in teaching, or the authentic and living magisterium. Compare On the Infused Virtues, no. 956 ff. Therefore it is chiefly in establishing this that labor must be spent. 3) Besides, the infallibility of the Church in believing is, as we have said, the effect of infallibility in teaching, which consequently, as we have also indicated (no. 633), is the principle of the former. Hence the active infallibility of the Pastors necessarily vindicates to itself the passive infallibility of the faithful. Therefore, if once the existence of active infallibility in the Church is proved, with Christ’s institution and his promises supposed, passive infallibility is necessarily inferred from it.
786. Therefore we must deal here with the infallibility of the Church in teaching. With respect to this three things can be considered: 1) its nature and existence; 2) its object; 3) its subject. But we shall investigate the object of infallibility in the following article; a few things must be declared here for the understanding of the matter concerning its subject. The present question, therefore, is properly concerning the existence of active infallibility.
787. Concerning the subject these things must be noted. 1) It is twofold: namely, the successor of Peter, the visible Head of the Church considered in himself; and the body of the Pastors, or of the successors of the Apostles, together with the Head. The Vatican Synod seems to indicate this distinction (Constitution Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4), where, defining the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, behold one subject, it teaches that he “possesses that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church,” behold the other subject, “to be furnished in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.” 2) The infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff considered in himself will be treated directly in the following disputation. But the other Pastors, or Bishops, can be considered singly or joined together. Among Catholics it is agreed that individual Bishops, the Roman Pontiff excepted, can err; nor do the Innovators, who deny every active infallibility of the Church, attribute it in any way to individual Bishops. It remains, therefore, that it be attributed to them joined together, insofar as they constitute the Body of Pastors. Indeed, as will appear a little below, the promises concerning infallibility were made to the body of Apostolic succession in common, insofar as they are the teaching Church. 3) That Body of Pastors can be considered as separated from the visible Head of the Church, or as joined with him and subordinated to him. If it is considered as separated, it is not infallible; for the office of teaching infallibly in the Apostles, ordinary, that is, to be transmitted to successors and to persevere in them, was declared by Christ the Lord in words which were never directed to individuals, but always to the whole college in union with Peter. Hence Bellarmine (On Councils and the Church, book 2, chapter 19) says: “Although a Council without the Pope cannot define new dogmas of faith, nevertheless in a time of schism it can judge who is the true pope, and provide the Church with a true pastor, when she has none or has a doubtful one; and this is what the Council of Constance rightly did.” Therefore the proper infallibility of the body of Pastors belongs to it insofar as it is joined with the successor of Peter. Hence it is clear that that twofold subject of active infallibility is not adequately distinct; for one is the Roman Pontiff alone; the other is the body of Pastors, in which the Roman Pontiff is necessarily included. 4) The Body of Pastors agreeing with the Roman Pontiff can be either assembled in a Council or, outside a Council, dispersed throughout the world. In either way infallibility in teaching is attributed to it; for Christ, in promising infallibility to it, made no distinction between Pastors gathered together or dispersed throughout the world. 5) It is not necessary here directly to show that the subject of active infallibility is the body of the Pastors adhering to the visible Head. For by the very testimonies by which the existence of active infallibility in the Church is shown, if you except those which demonstrate the infallibility of Peter’s successor, it is openly concluded that it resides in the body of Pastors as in its subject. Footnote 1 begins. Hence, Schrader writes excellently (On Roman Unity, book 2, p. 338), there is drawn, as it were, the very rationale of the economy, the order, and almost the path by which the charism and protection of infallibility explains itself in the Church. Namely, it is not otherwise than with someone who, according to the Savior’s parable, proposes to have for himself a firm house: he brings firmness first and chiefly to the foundation, so that the same thing, established in itself, may stand absolutely, and that, if it totters, all things may not collapse. Then indeed he takes counsel for the columns in such a way that he does not attribute to them a firmness by which they stand in themselves absolutely, but by placing those same columns in that firm foundation; as long as they stand upon it, although they sustain a great force of the house, they will not draw ruin upon themselves. But as soon as they turn aside from it, having collapsed, they will at once bring ruin, even though they have a very slight weight to bear. Here also this appears: in a large house, and one solid from its foundation, in which very many columns sustain a vast mass, it can happen that some of them fall away from the foundation, without the house itself collapsing entirely or even seeming to suffer notable damage. Yet the care of the wise provider must be directed to this, that they not all at the same time deviate from their foundation, and thus the house, reduced to the mere ruins of its base, be found to be no longer anything at all, or scarcely anything. But while most of those columns stand firmly in a firm foundation, the individual parts will be held together by internal bonds with these and by interwoven connections, and the whole joined house will stand firmly. But this is the accurate and true image of the Church, because it was used by the founder of the Church himself, then more than once repeated by the Apostles, and explained by the Fathers. Therefore Christ, in the Holy Spirit, who takes counsel and provides for the firmness of the Church, used no other economy in dispensing the charism of infallibility toward its foundation, I mean the Roman Pontiff, and the columns of the Church, the Bishops. Footnote 1 ends.
788. It is enough to have touched upon these things concerning the subject of infallibility for now. Let us now proceed to declare the nature of infallibility itself. It can be described thus: “the supernatural assistance of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, by which the teaching Church, in defining matters of faith and morals, is preserved immune from every error.”
789. It is said, I: assistance. By this, first of all, it is expressed that the gift of infallibility in teaching is not to be confused with inspiration. We have declared the nature of inspiration elsewhere, On the Infused Virtues, no. 939; but for our matter it is enough to note that the gift of infallibility does not import a new revelation, but a special divine providence by which the Church is kept immune from error in guarding, explaining, and defending the revelation already made and completed in the Apostles. The Church herself has expressly declared this more than once in her definitions. Compare On the Infused Virtues, no. 479 ff.
790. Therefore it is clear: 1) how little they understand the concept of infallibility who attack it as though the Church, in defining some dogma, received a new revelation by which she added something to the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles, and thus changed the Apostolic faith. Compare On the Virtues, no. 579 ff. 2) How undeservedly it is objected by some: if the Church is infallible, why in her dogmatic decrees does she bring forward the testimonies of others? She brings them forward in order to show that the doctrine which she proposes is not new, but is contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down; in order that the glory of faith may shine forth more clearly; in order that she may beat back the calumnies of adversaries.
791. It is said, II: assistance. This is so that it may also be understood that the infallibility of the Church does not exclude, but requires, human industry; for, as the very word indicates, God assists the teaching Church lest she err, and therefore he wills that she apply her work to avoiding error. The Church herself has confessed this by her constant practice. Compare On the Virtues, no. 581. Hence there falls of itself another difficulty common among Protestants: if the Church, they say, were infallible in teaching, why would she put before her definitions such great and diligent investigations and deliberations? Certainly the Church existing at any time does not have a more perfect assistance than that which was granted to the Apostles; but of the Apostolic Council held in Jerusalem it is read (Acts 15.6-7): “The Apostles and elders came together to consider this word. And when there had been much inquiry, Peter rising,” etc.
792. Here, however, one must carefully distinguish the efficient cause of infallibility, which is the promised assistance of the Spirit of truth, from the obligation of the Pastors to investigate diligently and to pray. For Valentia rightly observes, expressing the common doctrine (tom. 3, disp. 1, q. 1, point 7, section 41): 1) “Whether the Pontiff, the same must be said of the body of Pastors defining with the Supreme Pontiff, employs study in defining or does not employ it, provided, however, that he defines the controversy, he will certainly define infallibly, and therefore in reality he will use the authority conceded to him by Christ. This we most certainly gather from the divine promises made concerning truth through the magisterium of the one pastor of the Church, as we have often argued. Therefore study and diligence are necessary to the Pontiff, not so that he may define at all, and use his infallible authority, but so that he may use it fittingly and rightly, that is, without sin.” 2) “But if the diligence of the Pontiff were necessary so that he might define at all, nevertheless we would have to believe with the same faith that when he defines a controversial matter, he has employed sufficient diligence; by which it has been demonstrated above that we ought to believe that then he defines infallibly and truly. The reason is that by the very fact that Christ promised the Church that it would never happen that she be deceived, and therefore neither that the Pontiff should define a controversy falsely, he would have to be judged also to have promised that it would never happen that he define while the due diligence had been omitted, if indeed diligence of this kind were altogether necessary to the Pontiff for defining. Just as, if God should promise us that there would be a great abundance of crops in the following year, he would by this very fact also be judged to promise the temperature of the air which would be necessary for that effect, as Melchior Cano says aptly for this matter (book 5, On Theological Places, chapter 5).” 3) And a little before, treating of the case in which the Pontiff, imbued with some private error, should proceed to define it, he says: “It belongs to the fidelity of God toward the Church that he would impede, in that case, lest through that Pontiff the controversy be falsely defined. God could do this either by removing the Pontiff from the midst, so that not he himself, but rather his successor, would decide the matter; or by an internal illumination of the mind, or in some other way by recalling the Pontiff from error. Nor indeed would a providence of God of this kind in similar cases have to be judged miraculous; rather it would be a certain effect of that ordinary law by which God, through the promises made concerning truth, has bound himself to the Church.” And then he confirms this by an example. From these things there plainly vanishes the difficulty of those who say: no definition can be held as certain, since it cannot be known with certainty whether the teaching Church employed due diligence or not before she issued the definition.
793. It is said, III: in defining doctrine of faith and morals. Leaving aside the object of infallibility, about which below, which is expressed by these words, two things must be noted for the understanding of those words. The first touches the very mode by which some doctrine is infallibly proposed by the Church; for this proposal can be implicit or explicit. “Moreover,” says the Vatican Council (Constitution Dei Filius, chapter 3), “all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church, whether by solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium, to be believed as divinely revealed.” For the Church, as a diligent teacher of truth, instructs the faithful also by her daily ministry, both by living voice and by practice. Hence in the liturgy, in the public administration of the sacraments, in worship, by erecting churches and altars, by exposing the relics and images of the saints to the public veneration of the faithful, and so forth, she implicitly teaches those truths without which practices of this kind could not stand. Compare On the Infused Virtues, no. 432.
794. The other thing which is indicated by those words in defining doctrine, and so forth, is that the Church is not infallible except in the definition itself. Hence the infallibility of the Church not only is not extended to the investigations which precede the definition, but not even to all those things which are read in the very documents containing the definition. In these, for example, if anything is found said incidentally and by the way, it is a sign that the intention of the teaching Church is not directed to defining that thing. For this reason Theologians deny, compare On God the Creator, no. 279, that it is of faith that the nature of Angels is purely spiritual. But concerning these matters compare what we discussed above, no. 385.
795. Therefore, these things having been noted beforehand: Section II The Proposed Question Is Solved. Proposition XXXIV. Christ constituted in the Church a visible, authentic, and perpetual Magisterium, to which he promised and conferred the special charism of infallibility, by which, through the assistance of the Holy Spirit, in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals, it can never deflect from the truth; just as, therefore, it has the very right of teaching the doctrine of Christ with authority, so on the part of all the faithful there is owed to it the assent and obedience of faith.
796. Proof I. From the words which are read in Matthew (28.16-20): “And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them… And Jesus coming spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Going therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the age.” With these should be compared what Mark has (16.15): “And he said to them: Going into the whole world, preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe shall be condemned.” Hence: 1) in these words Christ the Lord promises his assistance to the Apostles as exercising the office of teaching all things whatsoever he himself had commanded; 2) he promises the same assistance to the successors of the Apostles, to last until the end of the world; 3) this assistance imports infallibility in teaching. Therefore in the successors of the Apostles active infallibility is always present and perseveres in the Church.
797. And first indeed: Christ promised that he would be present to the Apostles as teaching. This is drawn 1) from the sequence of the discourse; for either those words “behold I am with you” have a connection with the words immediately preceding, “going, teach… teaching them to observe,” etc., or they have no connection; 2) from that conjunction and, “and behold, I am with you,” which altogether manifests a connection with those things which immediately precede. In the same way, if a King sending his ambassador to fulfill some office were at the same time to say, “and I will be with you,” everyone would understand that the King had said: I will be with you, your helper, your sponsor, in fulfilling this office; 3) from the scope of the discourse, as Grotius himself observes on this place. For Christ forestalls the secret and obvious difficulty of the disciples. Namely, the office which was imposed on them was most grave, and at the same time Christ was about to withdraw from them his visible presence. Therefore the disciples could fear that, deprived of this aid, they would be unequal to the office of teaching all nations. Hence Christ, to raise their spirit, said: “behold I am with you”; just as if he said: be of strong mind; I will be an aid to you in this office, no otherwise than if I were to remain visibly with you. Hence St. John Chrysostom, on this place, writes: “‘Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the age.’ Do you see again the authority? Do you see how he said those things for the sake of accommodating himself? Do not tell me, he says, the difficulty of the things; for I am with you, who make all things easy. For this he was wont to say to the prophets in the Old Testament: to Jeremiah objecting his youth, and to Moses and Ezekiel evading, ‘I am with you,’ he says.” Compare also the very beautiful words of Eusebius of Caesarea, which we gave at no. 312.
798. Secondly: Christ promised that he would be with the successors of the Apostles. For 1) Christ promised that he would be with the Apostles until the consummation of the age; but this could not be fulfilled in the very persons of the Apostles, who, dying by the common lot, were not going to teach all days until the consummation of the age. Therefore, unless we wish to say that Christ did not fulfill his promise, it is necessary to say that in this promise Christ regarded the Apostles not as individual men, but as a moral person which always perseveres and lives in its successors. 2) The assistance which Christ promises, whatever it may be, is ordered to aiding effectively the Apostolic mission of baptizing and teaching, so that the mission and the assistance are, as it were, one institution: “going, teach… and behold I am with you.” But the mission of the Apostles did not cease with them, but is to last until the end of the world, no. 482 ff. 3) The same assistance is promised for fulfilling the office of teaching all nations; but the Apostles could not accomplish this by themselves. 4) Hence, besides Grotius, very many Protestant interpreters, whom Murray cites in a long array at no. 62, concede what we contend here.
799. Thirdly: Christ promised infallibility to the Apostles and their successors. In order that this may become clearly known, let it be noted: 1) That a certain singular and extraordinary assistance is certainly promised here is clear from the very great gravity of the mission which is conferred; from the sublime manner in which Christ begins, invoking the supreme and divine power given to him; and finally from the very form of the promise, so grave and remarkable: “and behold, I am with you,” etc. Surely these things cannot be understood merely of the common assistance which is conferred on all who are rightly disposed. 2) It is also certain that such an assistance is promised as imports the happy outcome of the work for which it is given. This is most openly established from the usage of the Scriptures, according to which that phrase, “behold I am with you,” constantly has this sense. Hence if God promises that he will be with someone in carrying out some work or office, the happy outcome of it is signified; if prayer is offered to God that he may be with us in some work, the happy outcome of the same is sought; if, on the contrary, it is affirmed that God is not with someone in carrying out some work or office, this signifies the unhappy outcome of the same. Thus, for example, it is said (Exod. 3.11 ff.): “And Moses said to God: Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and bring the children of Israel out of Egypt? And he said to him: I will be with thee.” And (Judg. 6.12 ff.): “The Angel of the Lord appeared to him [Gideon], and said: The Lord is with thee… And Gideon said to him… if the Lord is with us, why have all these things seized us?… I beseech, my Lord, by what shall I deliver Israel?… And the Lord said to him: I will be with thee, and thou shalt strike Midian as one man.” And (Isa. 43.2): “When thou shalt pass through the waters, I will be with thee, and the rivers shall not cover thee.” And (Jer. 15.20): “They shall fight against thee, and they shall not prevail, because I am with thee, to save thee and to deliver thee.” And (Judith 6.18): “May God be with thee in our midst.” But you will find almost innumerable testimonies of this kind. Hence: Christ promised that he would be with the Apostles and their successors while teaching, all days even to the consummation of the age; therefore the office of teaching of the Apostles and their successors will have a happy outcome all days even to the consummation of the age. But the outcome would be unhappy if they taught error for truth; and it would be the more unhappy, the greater the number of those who were imbued with error. Indeed, the first thing required so that the office of teaching may be exercised and have a happy outcome is that nothing but truth be taught and that this be persuaded; if error were persuaded to another, the outcome of the magisterium would be unhappy. This can be confirmed from parallel places, in which it is more explicitly stated what that promise of Christ comprehends: “going, teach… and behold, I am with you.” For at the Last Supper, pouring forth his immense charity, Christ promised the sorrowful Apostles the Spirit, the Consoler, and said (John 14.16): “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, that he may remain with you forever, the Spirit of truth,” who “will remain with you and will be in you.” And (ibid. 26): “He will teach you all things, and will suggest to you all things whatsoever I shall have said to you.” Compare John 15.26 and 16.13. Therefore Christ, promising that he would be with his Apostles, promised the permanent Spirit of truth in teaching, namely, so that in the preaching of the Gospel they could in no way err.
800. II. The Apostle writes (Eph. 4): “And he [God] gave some indeed as Apostles, and some as Prophets, and others as Evangelists, and others as pastors and doctors, for the consummation of the saints, unto the work of ministry, unto the building up of the body of Christ, until we all meet in the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man… that now we may not be children tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, in the wickedness of men, in craftiness unto the circumvention of error.” Hence: 1) The Magisterium was instituted by Christ in the Church so that men might acquire perfect doctrine, by which they would be made worthy members of the mystical body of Christ; and so that they would adhere so firmly to the doctrine proposed through the Apostolic magisterium that they would be removed from it by no craftiness or circumvention of men. But the office of a magisterium of this kind ought to endure until we all meet in the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God. But this same magisterium would be unequal to attaining the end for which it was instituted, unless it were infallible. For a fallible magisterium does not suffice so that an assent firm and irreformable above all things, such as the assent of faith is, could be commanded; nor by its aid could we sufficiently guard against the wickedness and craftiness of men. Therefore. 2) Hence all the testimonies can be recalled here by which we showed, no. 650 ff., that Christ willed that all should hold the doctrine preached by the Apostles and their successors. Therefore either he furnished them with infallibility in teaching, and we have what we intend; or he did not furnish them with infallibility, and then the whole Church could defect from the faith, which is repugnant to the indefectibility of the Church.
801. III. But in a matter of such great moment, let it not be irksome to recall the argument often proposed, cited at no. 650, and more fully declared in the treatise On the Infused Virtues, disputation 4, articles 2, 3, and 5, which is sought from the economy of faith which Christ instituted. It can be proposed thus. It is absurd to say that God himself and Christ directly will error, and directly and positively lead us into it. But if the Apostolic magisterium had not been increased by the prerogative of infallibility, that absurdity would follow. Therefore. For proving the minor, let us first note these things. 1) Just as God the Father sent his Son, and commanded him to be heard, saying (Matt. 17.5): “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear him”; so Christ sent the Apostles, saying (John 20.21): “As the living Father has sent me, so I send you”; and he willed that they teach all nations, preach the Gospel to every creature, be witnesses to him even to the end of the earth, carry his name before nations and kings, and so forth. And so that they might discharge this office well, he promised them the Spirit of truth, who would teach and suggest all things; he promised that he would be present to them all days even to the consummation of the age. 2) Just as, by Christ as author, the office of teaching lies upon the Apostles, so from the faithful there is required the obedience of faith to the preaching of the Apostles, and indeed under the penalty of eternal damnation. Thus (Matt. 10.14), Christ sending the Apostles to announce the kingdom of God, says to them: “Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, going forth out of the house or city, shake off the dust from your feet; amen I say to you: it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.” And (Mark 16): “He who does not believe shall be condemned.” And (John 3.18): “He who does not believe has already been judged.” And (Luke 10.16): “He who hears you, hears me; he who despises you, despises me; and he who despises me, despises him who sent me.” 3) But the Apostles, having received the mission, as is said (Mark 16.20), “going forth preached everywhere.” They also proposed their preaching as the sole norm of believing, Galatians 1.6 and 1 John 2.24; and they protested against teachers to whom they themselves had not given a mandate, Acts 15.24. But when a controversy had arisen whether the Mosaic legal observances still obliged or not, the Apostles, although individually infallible, nevertheless, as a norm for future ages, held a Council at Jerusalem to end the controversy, Acts 15.28, requiring subjection from all. A little afterward Paul “went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches, commanding them to keep the precepts of the Apostles and Elders,” ibid. 41. 4) Moreover, in order that he might conciliate authority for the preaching of the Apostles, God confirmed it by signs and wonders. When the days of Pentecost were fulfilled (Acts 2), the Apostles “were all filled with the Holy Spirit,” who came upon them in a visible manner, “and they began to speak in various tongues, as the Holy Spirit gave them to speak.” From this time (Mark 16.20): “They, going forth, preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word with signs that followed.” And (Acts 14.3), of the Apostles generally it is said: “They abode a long time, acting confidently in the Lord, who bore testimony to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.” 5) Furthermore, a little before we showed that the office of teaching conferred upon the Apostles was to endure in their successors even to the consummation of the age; and this very thing is immediately and clearly inferred from what has been said, nos. 482 ff., 524 ff., 650 ff., and 730 ff. But although we were to grant what we showed to be false, no. 688, that after the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel those extraordinary gifts ceased in the Church, nevertheless, since by the aid of those gifts the first faithful betook themselves into the Church, and therefore by them, as by motives of credibility, the Church conciliated authority for herself even to later posterity, it is all the same for our purpose. For it would always be true that God sealed by prodigies the mission of that Church which could at any time lead men into false doctrine, and indeed in the name and by the authority of God himself. Wherefore he would be led into error by God himself who erred by applying faith to the magisterium which God instituted; which he commanded all to hear, lest they incur eternal destruction; which he approved by miracles. But if the magisterium of the Apostles were not infallible, men would err by applying faith to the magisterium instituted by God, to which he willed that all should obey, and which he approved by miracles. Therefore if that magisterium were not infallible, God himself would lead men into error. Footnote 1. We could here heap up many arguments from the nature of revelation, which divine providence cannot permit to the judgment of men without any infallible rule; from the unity and universality of faith which Christ willed in the Church; from other rules which the Innovators, after rejecting the visible infallible magisterium, introduced, for those rules are proved insufficient both a priori and a posteriori; from the most ancient and constant practice of the Church; indeed from the testimony of heretics themselves with respect to their preceding heresies condemned by the Church. But we abstain from setting these out; for they can be sought from the cited places in the treatise On the Infused Virtues, where we were treating of the rule of faith. Footnote 1 ends.
802. Scholion. Several objections of the Innovators were forestalled in the exposition of this question; others were answered in the preceding articles. Thus I., for example, they oppose that passage of Isaiah: “I will set… sons… taught by the Lord”; that passage of Jeremiah: “a man shall no longer teach his neighbor”; that passage of John: “they shall all be teachable of God.” Moreover, if these testimonies were taken in the sense of the adversaries, they would exclude not only an infallible magisterium, but also any visible magisterium whatever. For this reason compare what we said above, no. 468. Besides, since the magisterium of the Church is the continuation of the magisterium of Christ himself, and the Church teaches in his name and authority, those who are taught by the Church are deservedly said to be teachable of God and taught by God.
803. II. But if the matter stands thus, why, they urge, did Christ the Lord say (Matt. 23): “But do not be called Rabbi, for one is your teacher”? The answer is: Christ the Lord said this to exclude ambition and vanity from the exercise of the magisterium, but not to exclude the magisterium itself. Compare what was said at no. 529. In reality Christ said this by opposition to the Pharisees, who “love the first places at feasts… the first chairs… salutations in the marketplace, and to be called Rabbi by men” (ibid., verse 6 ff.). Hence he also adds (ibid., verse 9): “call no one your father upon earth”; and yet the office and name of father is not eliminated from this. But so that these offices may be exercised with humility, it is especially helpful to remember and acknowledge that there is one supreme teacher and father, “one is your teacher… one is your father, who is in heaven,” from whom, just as all gifts, so also the office of teaching and the helps for rightly exercising it, proceed. Did not Christ say, “going, teach all nations”? Did not the Apostle (2 Tim. 1) call himself a doctor and teacher?
804. III. They object against the first argument given: 1) The promise of infallibility, insofar as it is referred to the very persons of the Apostles, regards individuals, and not only all collectively; therefore if the words of Christ are referred also to the successors of the Apostles, individual Bishops would be infallible. 2) In reality, they say, that phrase “even to the consummation of the ages” does not signify the end of the world, but the destruction of the synagogue, the overthrow of Jerusalem, or the consummation of the Jewish state. 3) Besides, the promises of Christ would always be under a condition, namely, so long as the successors of the Apostles adhere to true doctrine; from which it certainly does not follow that it will be the case that they always adhere to it. I answer to the first. From the demonstration given it is altogether established that the promise of infallibility regards both the Apostles and their successors. But how it regards them, whether distributively or taken collectively, so far as concerns the very words themselves (Matt. 28), can seem ambiguous. Indeed, since Christ directed the words to all the Apostles together, it could be denied from the tenor of these words that the individual Apostles were infallible. But if the very words of Sacred Scripture bear a certain ambiguity, the true understanding of the matter must be sought from ancient and constant Tradition. But always, everywhere, and by all it has been believed that the individual Apostles were infallible, but that their successors possess the privilege of infallibility only collectively and joined with the head. To the second. That the promises of Christ were to persevere in the successors of the Apostles is not proved only from the words “even to the consummation of the age,” as appears from the exposition of the argument. But besides this, the interpretation of the adversaries is false. For the destruction of Jerusalem is indeed called a consummation (Matt. 24.14), but not the consummation of the age. This last expression (Matt. 28.20) certainly signifies the end of the world. This is established from verbal parallelism, since (ibid. 13.39 ff.) it is said: “the harvest is the consummation of the age… So shall it be in the consummation of the age”; where this expression openly signifies the end of the world. It is also established from real parallelism; for the kingdom of Christ is said to be perpetual, according to that saying (Luke 1.55): “and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Finally, it is clear that Christ with emphasis embraced all times even to the consummation of the age. To the third. There is no condition expressed either in the same text or elsewhere which affects the promise about which we are treating; therefore it is asserted gratuitously. Indeed, in the text a condition is excluded whose defect could frustrate the effect of the assistance promised by Christ; since those words “and behold, I am with you,” as we have seen, announce beforehand the happy outcome of the office imposed. But especially any condition whatever is excluded by the end for which infallibility was promised to the Apostles and their successors: the end is the stability of the universal Church in faith, and this is absolutely indefectible, no. 749.