1039. To the question concerning the nature of the Primacy there is immediately joined the question concerning its endowments, which, after the things disputed thus far, does not need a lengthy treatment. For since it is evident that the Roman Pontiff, by reason of the primacy which he divinely obtains, is head of the universal Church, it follows that all the endowments and prerogatives which we vindicated for the Church ought to exist in the Roman Pontiff in a certain more eminent way, just as also in a human individual the head contains in itself in a more eminent way whatever of excellence is found in the members, no. 419. Now we saw three endowments especially to be eminent in the Church, namely indefectibility in being, authority in ruling, and infallibility in teaching. Therefore these same endowments must be attributed to the Primacy in a certain more eminent way.
1040. But concerning indefectibility nothing is to be added here, since it is clearer than midday light that a society cannot stand safe without authority, nor can the Church divinely constituted be ruled by any other authority except that which Christ instituted. Therefore the very arguments which prove the indefectibility of the Church also establish the indefectibility of the Primacy. Besides, we expressly showed the perpetuity of the Primacy. The same must be said concerning authority; for the things which we discussed in their place concerning the authority of the Church are to be understood chiefly of the Roman Pontiff, in whom we demonstrated that full and supreme power resides as in its subject. Nor is a new demonstration needed for us to understand that laws passed by the Roman Pontiff do not have force dependently on the acceptance of the Church; for this would have no other foundation than that authority had been conferred by Christ immediately on the Church, and not on Peter himself; which we have directly refuted by many arguments in this very disputation. Finally, if anyone were to assert that the authority of the Roman Pontiff is in any way dependent on civil power, he would be refuted by those arguments by which we showed that Christ instituted sacred principality not in laymen, but in clerics, and that the Church is a perfect society independent of any other society whatsoever. Therefore the whole question concerns the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.
1041. The Vatican Council, chapter 4 of the constitution Pastor Aeternus, teaches: 1) that the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is comprehended in his Primacy. “Moreover,” it says, “that in the apostolic primacy itself, which the Roman Pontiff obtains over the universal Church as successor of Peter, prince of the Apostles, the supreme power also of the magisterium is comprehended, this Holy See has always held, the perpetual usage of the Church proves, and the ecumenical Councils themselves, those especially in which East came together with West in the union of faith and charity, have declared.” 2) It then confirms this by the authority of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, of the Second Council of Lyons, and of Florence; from which it indicates that the very testimonies of Matthew 16 and John 21, by which the Primacy is established, also prove its infallibility. 3) It further shows this truth to have been confirmed by the constant and universal sense and practice of the Church; where also a) it declares what we noted concerning the infallibility of the Church: “For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter so that, with him revealing, they might disclose new doctrine, but so that, with him assisting, they might holily guard and faithfully expound the revelation handed down through the Apostles, or the deposit of faith.” b) It indicates another testimony of Scripture on which this endowment of Peter rests, saying: “This See of holy Peter always remains unstained by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and thou, once converted, confirm thy brethren.” 4) After declaring the necessity of solemnly asserting this prerogative of Peter, it adds the formal definition itself: “Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and for the salvation of Christian peoples, with the sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks from the Chair, that is, when, exercising the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by his supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possesses that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be furnished in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and therefore definitions of this kind of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consensus of the Church. But if anyone, which may God avert, shall presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema.”
1042. To attain the force of this definition, let us first note that here we indeed attack all those adversaries who either assail the rights of the Primacy or pervert its true character, but especially the Gallicans, who in that celebrated declaration, see no. 958, asserted in the fourth place: “In questions of faith too the principal parts belong to the Supreme Pontiff, and his decrees pertain to all and individual churches; nevertheless the judgment is not irreformable unless the consensus of the Church has acceded.” This opinion, already before the Vatican Council, had often been condemned by the Holy See. Let it be enough here to bring forward the words by which Pius VI, in the constitution Auctorem fidei, censured the Synod of Pistoia, which had adopted that declaration: “Wherefore, since the acts of the Gallican assembly, as soon as they came forth, our venerable predecessor Innocent XI, through letters in the form of a brief on the second day of April in the year 1682, and afterward more expressly Alexander VIII, in the constitution Inter Multiplices, on the fourth day of August in the year 1690, by reason of his apostolic office, disapproved, rescinded, and declared null and void, much more does pastoral solicitude require of us that we reprove and condemn the recent adoption of these things made in the synod, affected by so many faults, as rash, scandalous, and especially, after the decrees of our predecessors, highly injurious to this Apostolic See, as by this our present constitution we reprove and condemn it, and will it to be held as reproved and condemned.” But the authors themselves of that declaration, in a letter given in the year 1693 to Innocent XII, write: “We profess and declare that we grieve vehemently indeed, and beyond what can be said, from our soul, over the things done in the aforesaid assemblies which greatly displeased your Holiness and your predecessors; and therefore whatever in those assemblies could be thought decreed concerning ecclesiastical power and pontifical authority, we hold as not decreed and declare that it ought to be so held.” Likewise Louis XIV retracted the edict by which he had ordered that the declaration be handed down in public schools and academies.
1043. Nevertheless there were not lacking those who, after these things, still dared to deny or call into doubt the infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff. Indeed, at the time when the Vatican Council was being held, the arrogance of certain men increased to such a degree that the Council judged it altogether necessary to define this question.
1044. Therefore, so that the sense of this definition may be established, we must note these things in order. I. The Vatican Council teaches that “the Roman Pontiff… possesses that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be furnished in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.” By these words active infallibility is asserted of the Roman Pontiff, concerning whose nature nothing remains to be added after the things we disputed above, nos. 780 ff. Nevertheless it will be useful to advert to two things here. First, scarcely explicable is the confusion which some have made between impeccability and infallibility; for it is evidently an altogether different thing that the Pope cannot err in teaching the Church, and that, whether in private life or even in carrying out public office, he cannot sin. This is clearly known from the obvious concept itself of impeccability and infallibility; but it can be further confirmed from the common distinction between grace making one pleasing and grace freely given. For the gift of impeccability belongs to that first genus of grace, which makes us pleasing to God, while the gift of infallibility belongs to the other, namely to grace which is granted for the utility of the Church. Hence, like other freely given gifts, it can be joined with sin in the same man. Certainly inspiration is a higher grace than the assistance of the Holy Spirit which renders the Church teaching infallible. For the former is either joined with revelation, or certainly is such a divine impulse that the things which a man utters while it moves him are truly and properly the word of God. But the assistance promised to the Church is seen in this, that the Holy Spirit so directs a man in investigating revelation, or expounding the word of God, that he cannot be deceived. Therefore, if inspiration can be separated from holiness, much more can assistance. Now Balaam, not only when he was a sinner, but at the very time when he was sinning most gravely, poured forth a sublime prophecy concerning the people of God. Caiaphas, in the council which he had gathered for killing the Son of God, prophesied, since he was Pontiff of that year. Therefore it will not be repugnant to admit the assistance of the Holy Spirit in the Roman Pontiff when he teaches the universal Church, even if perhaps he is not holy. Therefore those who, to assail the doctrine of infallibility, recall the sins and vices by which some Pontiffs stained themselves, accomplish nothing.
1045. Secondly it must be noted that it is one thing that the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra cannot teach heresy, which the Vatican Council defined; it is another thing that he cannot fall into heresy, or become a heretic as a private person. The Council said nothing concerning this question; and theologians and canonists do not agree among themselves. For some, such as Albert Pighius, On Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, book 4, chapter 8, deny that the Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, can fall into heresy properly so called, namely knowingly and obstinately adhere to an error against faith already condemned. Bellarmine inclines more to this opinion, book 4, chapter 6; Suarez judges it more pious and more probable, On Faith, disputation 10, section 6; and experience, besides other reasons, seems to strengthen the same. For there has scarcely been any episcopal see, he says, in which within a few centuries several heretics have not sat, as at Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and so on; but in the Roman See, through an immense tract of centuries, not even one is to be found who, even privately, was a heretic. Others nevertheless have taught the contrary.
1046. But in this latter opinion the question is asked whether the Roman Pontiff, having fallen into heresy, falls from the Pontificate by the law itself, or is to be removed from it by a judicial sentence; for no one among those who admit the possibility of the case denies or calls into doubt that he is either cast down by the fact itself or at least is to be cast down. Now there are two opinions, says Azor, Moral Institutions, part 2, book 4, chapter 7. One of these affirms that a Pope made a heretic is indeed, by divine law and by the fact itself, deprived of the Pontificate; but that afterward it must be declared by the sentence of the Church that because of the crime of heresy he has fallen from the pontifical dignity. This opinion is defended by Paludanus, Torquemada, Augustine of Ancona, Jacobatius, Alfonso de Castro, Sylvester, Armilla, etc. The aforesaid authors strive to prove it from those words of Christ: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock,” that is, upon thee having such faith, or upon this faith which thou hast confessed. Then they say: the Church is the congregation of the faithful; therefore a heretic is outside the Church and consequently is not held as a member of the Church. How, therefore, can he be head of the Church who is not a member of the Church? Compare, nevertheless, the things we said above, nos. 605 ff.; for those can be called faithful who, having received the sacrament of faith, still profess the faith. In this sense catechumens, although they believe, are not called faithful; that is, account is taken of a solemn and external profession of faith. The other opinion denies that a Pope made a heretic is by the fact itself stripped of his power of jurisdiction; but says that he must be removed by a judicial sentence. This is the opinion of Cajetan, Soto, Corduba, and Cano. For, they say, the other Bishops, as soon as they are heretics, are by no means judged by the law itself to be cast down from the pontifical office and from that jurisdiction until a legitimate sentence declares their crime and they are condemned. What they do in the meantime by reason of the public office which they hold has force, as is commonly held. Therefore the same would have to be said of the Roman Pontiff.
1047. But in this latter opinion a new difficulty arises: by whose authority and sentence, in the given case, will the Pontiff be removed from his grade? For he has no superior by whom he may be authoritatively removed. The cited Azor answers: “But to the objections that the Pope has no superior on earth, I answer that in the case of heresy the Church is superior to him. But, you will say, whence is this deduced? I answer that from the very institution of Christ, by manifest and necessary reason, it can be deduced that in this cause the Church passes sentence concerning the crime of the Pontiff. For by the very fact that he is a pertinacious heretic who does not wish to be corrected when admonished, unless he were subjected to the power of the Church, great and many inconveniences would arise in the Church. But Christ did not leave his Church destitute. Therefore he granted to it the right and power that, if the Pope is a heretic, it can take away the pontificate from him, lest the one whom it ought to have as pastor, teacher, and leader, it have and feel as wolf, enemy, and corrupter.” That author brings these things forward, and indeed consistently with his doctrine concerning the possibility of the case, or of the crime of heresy in a Pope. But the reason which he adds can seem wonderful. For no one fails to see that from that process also which he establishes, great and many inconveniences would arise in the Church; but Christ did not leave his Church destitute, as the praised author was just now arguing. Therefore he granted this to it: that the Pope, not even as a private person, becomes a heretic, lest he then have to be removed with great danger to the Church. And to this conclusion I adhere.
1048. II. The Vatican Council teaches that “the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks from the Chair, that is, when exercising the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by his supreme Apostolic Authority he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church,” etc. To understand these words, let us first note those words “by his supreme Apostolic authority.” For the Supreme Pontiff can bear a twofold person of teacher: one which he has in common with all other private teachers, as when he brings forth books or theological commentaries into the light, just as other Theologians do; the other which he assumes when, as supreme authentic teacher, he teaches the universal Church. As a private Doctor he enjoys no pontifical authority, much less infallibility. Compare Benedict XIV, On the Synod, Preface at the end. The same must likewise be said concerning doctrinal letters which he might write as a private doctor, as is that of Benedict XIV, given on December 5, 1744, to the Archbishop of Santo Domingo. But as supreme and authentic Doctor he has infallibility. Hence the Vatican Council defined that the Pope is infallible when, “exercising the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by his supreme Apostolic authority… he defines.”
1049. Secondly let us note that the Roman Pontiff is infallible: 1) when he defines; the explanation of this word is to be sought from what was said in no. 794; 2) in doctrine concerning faith or morals. In this matter those things which we said above, nos. 805 ff., concerning the object of the infallibility of the Church must be recalled; for, as the Vatican Council declared, the object of the infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff is the same. For this reason neither subjective personal facts, nor precepts, nor rescripts, nor opinions which the Roman Pontiffs put forth from time to time, nor particular disciplinary decrees, nor omissions of definition, and many other things of this kind, pertain to the definitions with which we are dealing. Nevertheless, all these things, because of the supreme authority from which they flow, are always to be held in great esteem and received with humble submission of mind and veneration. Compare Ballerini, On the Force and Nature of the Primacy, chapter 15, section 10.
1050. Thirdly, let us note that the Supreme Pontiff is said to be infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. In this matter two questions must be distinguished: 1) “What is it to speak from the Chair?” 2) “Whether in this or that particular case the Supreme Pontiff has spoken from the Chair?” The Gallicans seemed to confuse these two questions when they asserted that it is not evident what conditions are required for the Supreme Pontiff to speak from the Chair. Now 1) we do not deny that doubt can sometimes arise whether this or that pontifical document contains a locution from the Chair, in the same way that it can be doubtful whether in some decree of an ecumenical Council this or that matter has been properly defined. It has been doubted, for example, whether the things which are said concerning the matter and form of the sacraments in the Instruction issued by the Council of Florence for the Armenians are dogmatic definitions or not. But just as from this it does not follow that all decrees of Councils are, as it were, of doubtful authority, and that we generally do not know what it is for a Council to issue definitions of faith, so from the doubt which exists concerning some pontifical document it does not follow that all documents of this kind are of doubtful authority, because we do not know what it is to speak from the Chair. The conditions required for a locution from the Chair, as we shall say at once, are certain and known. It is only sometimes doubted whether all of them are verified in this or that case. In these cases the rules which we handed down in no. 385 are to be applied. 2) In truth, it is manifest what it is to speak from the Chair; for according to the declaration of the Vatican Council itself, the Pontiff is said to speak from the Chair “when, exercising the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church.” For the apostolic chair is nothing other than the supreme authentic magisterium, whose definitive doctrinal sentence obliges the universal Church to consent. There is indeed required an intention of defining doctrine, or of teaching by a definitive sentence and authority obliging the universal Church to consent; and that intention must be manifested and knowable by clear indications. Nevertheless there is no determinate essential form which the Pontiff must employ in order to manifest this will of his. For although there are some solemn modes which are known from practice to express locution from the Chair, and which therefore the Pontiff never uses except when speaking from the Chair, such as dogmatic Bulls or Constitutions, nevertheless this form is not essential and exclusive, so that without it the Pontiff cannot, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, define doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, condemn errors opposed to it, and render this will of his manifest.
1051. Therefore, according to the Vatican Council, these conditions are required for definitions from the Chair: 1) on the part of the Pontiff, that he speak as supreme Doctor and Pastor; 2) on the part of the matter, that he teach in matters which are the object of the infallibility of the Church; 3) on the part of the form, that he pass a definitive sentence with an intention therefore manifest of obliging; 4) on the part of the terminus, that he oblige the universal Church to consent. No other condition besides these is required for a locution from the Chair; and especially concerning the preceding investigation of truth, the things we said in no. 792 must be recalled. Therefore those who seek another definition, in order to know what it is to speak from the Chair, are to be received with laughter.
1052. As to the last of the aforesaid conditions, it is customarily asked whether the Pope, directly and immediately addressing some single Bishop or particular Church, speaks from the Chair and is infallible. We suppose that the first three conditions are present; and surely the matter can be some doctrine to be held, which therefore the Supreme Pontiff teaches with the intention of obliging men to hold it. Nor, in order that he exercise the office of supreme Doctor, is it necessary that he directly and immediately address all Christians, just as a King can exercise his supreme power by granting pardon to a guilty man condemned to death. Therefore the difficulty would arise only from this, that he would not write directly and immediately to the universal Church. In this matter one ought to look not so much to whom the Pope directs his speech as for whom he actually speaks; and if indeed from the matter which he hands down, from the form which he employs, or from other circumstances, it is evident that he speaks for all, nothing seems to be lacking by which he may be said to speak from the Chair. Certainly Innocent, in the Pelagian cause, sent his decree only to the Africans, and nevertheless St. Augustine cried out that the cause was finished. St. Leo gave his letter to Flavian, and nevertheless he held it, even before it was known by others, as the norm by which the controversy of faith at Constantinople would be ended. Hormisdas directed the profession of faith to the Easterners alone, etc. But this appears more evidently when the Pope himself causes errors condemned in documents which were not directed to the universal Church to be made known to the universal Church, as happened concerning several propositions which are contained in the Syllabus of December 8, 1864; for then by that very fact he teaches the universal Church that those propositions are to be rejected. [Footnote 1.] It is indeed remarkable that some men, though few, and of no mediocre talent, have called into doubt whether the Syllabus ought to be held as a definition ex cathedra. The simple application of the conditions which, according to the Vatican Council, are required for an act of this kind evidently shows that the character of infallibility can in no way be denied to it. We know that the Syllabus does not exhibit the forms or formalities customarily employed in issuing dogmatic Constitutions; but a defect of this kind cannot diminish its force and value. Certainly they neither prove nor can prove that those formalities are necessary by divine right. But by ecclesiastical right or practice they were introduced for this reason, that the intention of defining or of obliging the universal Church to consent might be evident. Therefore, if that is evident from elsewhere, notwithstanding the defect of those formalities, the Syllabus will retain its entire value. Now 1) whatever the Syllabus embraces, all pertains to the good of the universal Church, with regard to matters of faith and morals; and the title itself manifests that it treats of a law directly prescribing submission of the intellect, since it is called “Syllabus embracing the principal errors of our age,” etc. 2) The Syllabus is joined to the Encyclical Quanta Cura not only in time, but also in authority. In it one reads: “In accordance with the duty of our Apostolic ministry, following the illustrious footsteps of our Predecessors, we have raised our voice, and in several Encyclical Letters published to the people, and Allocutions held in Consistory, and other Apostolic Letters, we have condemned the principal errors of our most sorrowful age [behold the very title of the Syllabus], have stirred up your distinguished episcopal vigilance, and again and again have warned and exhorted all the sons of the Catholic Church most dear to us, that they should utterly abhor and avoid the contagions of so dreadful a plague.” And a little after: “Although we have not omitted often to proscribe and reprove the chief errors of this kind, nevertheless the cause of the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls divinely committed to us, and the good of human society itself altogether demand that we again stir up your pastoral solicitude to put to flight other depraved opinions which burst forth from those same errors, as from their sources.” That is to say, Schrader observes, if the streams are condemned, surely in them and with them their signified sources are held by stronger right to be condemned, condemned together with them, and the condemnations made of the chief errors of this kind ratified. Now it is evident that the Encyclical Quanta Cura has full and infallible authority from the words by which it concludes: “In so great a perversity, therefore, of depraved opinions, we, well mindful of our Apostolic office, and being especially solicitous concerning our most holy religion, sound doctrine, and the salvation of souls divinely committed to us, and concerning the good of human society itself, have judged that we must again raise our Apostolic voice. Therefore all and each of the depraved opinions and doctrines individually commemorated in these Letters, by our Apostolic authority, we reprove, proscribe, and condemn; and we will and command that by all sons of the Catholic Church they be held altogether as reproved, proscribed, and condemned.” 3) More than once the Supreme Pontiff himself declared that the Syllabus proceeded by his authority; but especially when, responding to the Bishops gathered at Rome from all parts of the world on June 17, 1867, he said that it was to be held as a rule of teaching: “In your presence I now confirm the Encyclical Quanta Cura, and also the Syllabus; and again place them before you as a rule of teaching,” as the words of the Pontiff were rendered in English in the Dublin Review. 4) Eminent Cardinal Antonelli, in the letter by which he sent the Syllabus to all Bishops, says: “The same Supreme Pontiff willed that a Syllabus of the same errors, to be sent to all the sacred Prelates of the whole Catholic world, be composed.” And: “But he gave me commands that I should see to it that this printed Syllabus be carried to you, most illustrious and most reverend Lord… Therefore, carrying out the commands of the same Pontiff with all alacrity, and, as is fitting, obedience, I hasten to send to you, most illustrious and most reverend Lord, the same Syllabus joined to these letters.” He also declares that the Syllabus was composed “so that the same Prelates may have all the errors before their eyes,” etc. 5) But the universal consensus of the Bishops itself, and the promulgation of the Syllabus made by them, makes clear its doctrinal value. Indeed, I would like to know whether those who diminish the value of the Syllabus truly hope that any one of the propositions condemned in it will at last be approved or at least tolerated in the Church. But in vain do they thrust forward the authority of Bishop Fessler, The True and False Infallibility, etc., who expressed the contrary opinion, and also the Brief of approval, as they say, of the Supreme Pontiff given to him. For 1) the authority of that Bishop in no way weakens either the intrinsic reasons given or the extrinsic authority of several grave Theologians. 2) Not without equivocation do they call that Brief one of approval, since it is neither exhibited entire, nor was it given expressly for approving the book, but is part of a Brief in which other business was being treated. 3) The very words which are exhibited indeed praise the purpose of the writer, Fessler, of beating back the audacity of Prof. Schulte, etc.; but they present no approval of the work itself, especially of all and each of the things contained in it. 4) Otherwise approval of this kind would not cohere with the praises given by the Supreme Pontiff himself to Father Schrader on account of the work in which he had handed down the same doctrine which we defend. 5) Hence, after investigations had been made at Rome, that approval was found to vanish. But enough here concerning this argument. Whoever desires more, compare Schrader, On Theology in General, page 136 ff.; Etudes Religieuses, etc., May, August, September 1875, and March, May 1876; La Civilta Cattolica, first Saturday of October 1875; Dublin Review, April and July 1875, or Ward, D. Ph., Essays on the Church’s Doctrinal Authority, page 480 ff.
1053. III. Finally, the Vatican Council teaches that the definitions of the Roman Pontiff ex cathedra are “irreformable of themselves, and not from the consensus of the Church.” To understand these words also, we must recall that the gates of hell will never prevail, neither against the Church nor against the rock upon which the Church was built by Christ. Hence it can never happen that the consensus of Bishops is not joined to the words of Peter teaching. Nevertheless it is one thing for this consensus truly to be present, another for it to be required as a condition from which the judgment of Peter is confirmed and receives full force. This latter is both opposed to the words of Christ, by which Peter must confirm others, not himself be confirmed by others, and opens the door to the sophisms of those who, condemned by the Roman Pontiff, nevertheless try to defend their errors, as history testifies. Therefore, although the consensus of Bishops will always be present, nevertheless the infallibility of the judgments of the Supreme Pontiff does not depend on it, but precedes it. It is pleasing to transcribe the illustrious words of Cardinal Franzelin, On Tradition and Scripture: “The antecedent consensus of the Church can indeed be an objective means by which the Pontiff arrives at knowledge of a doctrine as definable; but it is not of itself and from the nature of the thing the only and necessary means of knowledge. For doctrines concerning faith or morals can be known as definable also from other sources and means, and questions even within the bounds of the Church, until now doubtful and controverted, can be defined, no. 387. But in no way is consensus of this kind of the Church or of the Bishops, whether antecedent, concomitant, or subsequent, necessary by way of an authentic judgment concurring with the judgment or definition of the Pontiff. The Gallican opinion demanding this consensus of the Church as necessary for the infallibility of the definitions of the Pontiff in such a way that the one subject of infallibility would be the body of the teaching Church, namely the Pontiff with the Bishops, is now a heresy directly and explicitly condemned by the Vatican Council. Nevertheless the subsequent consensus of the whole Church is always the effect of the definition of the Pontiff.”
1054. And this is the place to explain certain forms of speaking which seemed to be a scandal to the little ones, the contradictors of the definition to be issued, although they were neither new nor false. Thus 1) the infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff is called a personal privilege; not indeed insofar as it adheres to him as a private person, but insofar as the Primacy itself, by reason of which the Roman Pontiff is infallible, is personal; insofar as it cannot be communicated to another; insofar as what is ascribed to the Roman See or Chair belongs to the very person of the Pontiff; insofar as it belongs to the Supreme Pontiff alone, etc. “I concede,” says Toletus, in Summary Exposition, volume 2, page 62, “that it is a personal privilege; for this reason it cannot be communicated.” And Ballerini, On the Force and Nature of the Primacy, chapter 3, proposition 3: “This primacy especially of jurisdiction and not of mere order, of St. Peter and of the Roman Pontiffs his successors, is personal, or tied to their persons. And therefore a certain principal personal right of theirs, that is, common to no other, ought to be contained in that primacy… Hence also it follows that whatever of right belongs by reason of the primacy to the Roman See, Chair, or Church, is to be attributed to the person of the Roman Pontiffs in such a way that he needs the assistance or association of no one for exercising that same right.” 2) The infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is also called independent, not indeed from Christ and the Holy Spirit, but from any other authority, from the body of Pastors, from the acceptance of the Church. Similarly it is called absolute, not insofar as the Supreme Pontiff can define whatever he wishes; for he must “holily guard and faithfully expound the revelation handed down through the Apostles, or the deposit of faith”; but insofar as it cannot be circumscribed by any condition introduced by any human authority whatsoever. “Nor in that jurisdiction,” says Ballerini, in the cited work, chapter 3, section 4, “which is essential to the primacy, ought or can the Roman Pontiff depend on anyone else, especially since the same Christ who instituted that jurisdiction received from Christ as circumscribed by no condition, personal to Peter alone and his successors, instituted the primacy of jurisdiction as personal, which cannot be understood without personal jurisdiction.” And in the appendix on infallibility, proposition 7: “Unity with Roman faith is absolutely necessary, and therefore the absolute prerogative of infallibility is to be attributed to it, and likewise the coercive force for unity of faith is absolute; just as the infallibility and coercive force of the Catholic Church itself, which must adhere to the Roman faith, is also absolute.” 3) The Roman Pontiff is said to be infallible apart from the Church, not insofar as the adherence of the Pastors and of the Church to the definition issued by him can be lacking, as we were just saying, but insofar as that definition does not have force from the consensus of the Pastors or the acceptance of the Church; and therefore the Roman Pontiff, as distinct from them, is infallible. For indefectibility is promised to Peter apart from the Church and from the Apostles; therefore Peter, even considered apart from the Church, is infallible.
1055. These things, therefore, having been declared, we say: Proposition 41. The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks from the Chair, that is, when, exercising the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians by his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possesses that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be furnished in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and therefore the definitions of the same Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consensus of the Church. Section II The Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff Is Demonstrated from Scripture.
1056. As we saw a little before, the Vatican Council indicated three testimonies of Scripture on which the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff rests. Since the two earlier ones were fully explained where we treated of the institution of the Primacy, supposing the things which we disputed there at greater length, we touch here only those things which directly make for the present question from the same testimonies. But the third must first be explained more accurately here, so that from it we may safely derive the demonstration of the truth with which we are dealing. Therefore: Proof I, from the testimony of Matthew 16. For 1) in it one reads: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” Hence: by these words Peter and his successors are designated as the foundation of the Church, from which, namely, the universal Church obtains firmness. But the Church is especially a building which is constructed by faith; for just as in each of the faithful faith is the root of all justice, so the Church, which is proximately ordered to promoting justice, chiefly rests on faith, by which its members are united into one society of believers. Hence St. Ambrose, On Duties, book 3, chapter 3, says: “The Church is a congregation which rises into one connected and compact body by the unity of faith and charity.” Therefore the Church must especially obtain firmness in faith through Peter and his successors. But it could not attain this firmness in faith through Peter and his successors if Peter and his successors, teaching the Church, could be deceived. For the Church stands firm in faith with the help of Peter and his successors insofar as it hears them teaching and obeys them. Therefore, if it retained the true faith by not obeying Peter and his successors, it would not obtain faith itself, and consequently firmness of faith, through Peter. But if it obeyed Peter teaching, and he could be deceived in teaching, the Church would receive from Peter not firmness, but defectibility in faith. This will appear still more clearly if we recall that under the metaphor of the foundation supreme and full jurisdiction over the Church itself was promised to Peter. Hence if the Church is constituted especially by true faith, full and supreme power of teaching the true faith was promised to Peter. But to the power of teaching corresponds the office of obeying. Therefore the universal Church is bound to hear Peter teaching. If therefore Peter, teaching the universal Church, could err, the faith of the whole Church could fail. In truth, why did the Gallicans deny to Peter the prerogative with which we are dealing? Because they said that the infallible magisterium is part of the supreme power of ruling the Church. Since, according to them, this supreme power belonged not to the Pope but to the Council, they attributed infallibility to the latter and not to the former. Since therefore it has been demonstrated that full and supreme power belongs to Peter, and that he is superior to the Council itself, it follows fully, even from the principle of the Gallicans, that infallibility in teaching must be attributed to Peter. 2) The same thing follows if we again recall what we demonstrated above, namely that Peter is designated as the principle of unity in the Church by the very fact that he is designated its foundation. For the unity of the Church is first of all the unity of faith. If therefore Peter is the principle of the unity of the Church, he is first of all the principle of the unity of faith. But how can Peter exist as a principle of this kind? We have already seen, when treating of the unity of faith in the Church, that the principle of this unity is the living and authentic magisterium, and that the Church is one in faith to the extent that all the faithful dispersed throughout the world profess that they believe all the articles which that magisterium proposes as to be believed. Therefore Peter through his magisterium is the principle of the unity of faith; and the Church obtains this unity through Peter to the extent that it believes all the truths which Peter proposes as to be believed. But suppose that Peter exercising his magisterium can be deceived: either the Church would always adhere to him, and thus could fail in faith; or it would withdraw from him, and thus would not remain one in faith through Peter. That is to say, Peter would no longer be the foundation, or the principle from which the unity of faith proceeds in the Church. 3) The same is confirmed from the words immediately following: “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Since Peter is the foundation from which the Church receives firmness and unity, through Peter it becomes invincible, so that enemies will never prevail against it. But certainly, if heresies could exist in the Church, the gates of hell, as all with whom the matter is here treated admit, would prevail against the Church. Therefore through Peter the Church ought to attain that heresies never be, or be able to be, in the Church. But if Peter, teaching the Church, could be deceived, he certainly would not be able to repel heresies from the Church; rather he himself could be a cause of heresies. Therefore it is necessary that Peter’s magisterium be infallible. 4) And from these very things it is gathered that sentences passed by the Roman Pontiff, successor of blessed Peter, are “irreformable of themselves, and not from the consensus of the Church.” For the foundation sustains the house, not the house the foundation. Therefore, if the house rises from faith, Peter sustains the faith of the Church, not the Church the faith of Peter. The contrary would plainly follow if the sentence of Peter became irreformable from the consensus of the Church. Surely Peter, as foundation of the Church, has the authentic magisterium to which all the faithful ought to be subject. But if the sentence of Peter became irreformable from the consensus of the Church, Peter would rather be subject to the Church. Likewise the Church remains firm in faith, so that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, because it is founded upon a firm rock. But if the sentence of Peter were not irreformable except from the consensus of the Church, Peter would rather receive firmness from the Church.
1057. II. All these things are confirmed by the authority of the Fathers. We shall choose a few testimonies. 1) From the Latins. St. Hilary, On the Trinity, book 6, nos. 37 ff., commends the confession of Peter thus: “This faith is the foundation of the Church: through this faith the gates of hell are weak against it… Let there indeed be another faith, if there are other keys of the kingdom of heaven. Let there be another faith, if there will be another Church against which the gates of hell will not prevail. Let there be another faith, if there will be another apostolate, binding and loosing through itself on earth, binding and loosing also in heaven,” etc. St. Ambrose, On the Sacrament of the Lord’s Incarnation, chapters 4-5, after he has introduced Peter as affirming that it belongs to his office “to speak faith, to assert piety, to preach grace”; after he has defined his person as that by which he “exercised the primacy: indeed the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of faith, not of order”; adds: “Therefore this is Peter, who answered for the other Apostles, indeed before the others; and therefore he is called the foundation, because he knew how to preserve not only what was proper to himself, but also what was common.” Explaining these things further, he says: “The faith [of Peter], therefore, is the foundation of the Church. For it was not said of the flesh of Peter, but of the faith, that the gates of death will not prevail against it, namely against the faith of Peter; but confession overcame hell. And this confession excluded not one heresy; for since the Church, like a good ship, is often beaten by many waves, the foundation of the Church ought to prevail against all heresies.” St. Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, first laments that “the enemy snatches men from the Church itself… who, walking in darkness, think that they have light… asserting night as day… perfidy under the pretext of faith.” Then he proceeds: “This happens for this reason, most beloved brothers, while one does not approach the origin of truth, nor seek the head, nor preserve the doctrine of the heavenly master. If anyone considers and examines these things, there is no need of a long treatment and arguments. The proof for faith is easy by the compendium of truth. The Lord speaks to Peter: ‘I say to thee,’” etc. St. Jerome, in letter 15, otherwise 57, to Damasus, On the Name Hypostasis, after he had said: “I know that the Church is built upon that rock,” adds: “I beseech that by thy letters there be given to me the authority either of keeping silent or of speaking of three hypostases. I will not fear to say three hypostases if you command it.” St. Augustine, in the Psalm against the party of Donatus, writes concerning the See of Peter: “It itself is the rock which the proud gates of hell do not conquer. If anyone comes to thee full of Catholic faith,” etc. Compare Schrader, On Roman Unity, part 2, from no. 178. 2) From the Greeks. Origen, on Matthew 16, says: “It is manifest, even if it is not expressed, that the gates of hell will be able to prevail neither against Peter nor against the Church. For if they prevailed against the rock on which the Church was founded, they would also prevail against the Church.” St. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Holy Trinity, dialogue 4, in Migne, volume 75, page 866: “Calling the rock, I think, as if denominatively, nothing other than the unshaken and most firm faith of the disciple, upon which the Church of Christ also has been strengthened and founded without danger of falling, and remains perpetually inexpugnable even to the gates of hell.” That is to say, Cyril teaches that the nature of rock belongs to Simon from his faith, which is moreover unshaken and most firm. Hence the Church rests on that same faith without danger of falling, and therefore is inexpugnable even to the gates of hell. This, moreover, is not only for a time, nor only while Peter is living, but perpetually and always. St. Epiphanius, Ancoratus, no. 14, in Migne, volume 43, page 33: “He himself [Peter, who deserved happily to preach] again made the Holy Spirit manifest; for thus it was fitting for him who was first among the Apostles, I say, for that solid rock, upon which the Church of God is founded, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. By the name of these gates are understood heresies and the founders of heresies. For in all ways faith has been stabilized in him who received the key of heaven, and on earth looses and binds in heaven. In him indeed are found any more subtle questions of faith.” St. John Chrysostom, in the fourth homily on “I saw the Lord,” no. 3, calls Peter “the base of the Church”; Against the Jews and the Theaters, “the base of faith”; on “Know this,” “the chief of that Apostolic choir, set over the whole world, the foundation of the Church”; and in homily 88 on John affirms that “to James indeed the see of Jerusalem was given, but Peter was constituted by Christ the Teacher of the whole world.” 3) The liturgies hand down the same interpretation. According to the commonly known sacramentary of Leo the Great, the Western Church prayed thus: “Almighty everlasting God, who dost rescue thy Church, founded in apostolic solidity, from the terror of the gates of hell, so that, standing in thy truth, it may receive no fellowships of the faithless.” In the liturgy of the Greeks, Flosculum veritatis, etc., Rome, 1862, one reads: “Upon the rock of thy theology the Lord Jesus strengthened the immovable Church, in which, Apostle Peter, we glorify thee. Thou hast been placed as the foundational rock of the souls of the faithful, Peter of great price, rock of faith.” To the same point likewise return the things which are read in the liturgy of the Mozarabs, Mixed Missal, in Migne, Latin Fathers, volume 85, page 706: “Let not the storm of tempest overthrow it [the Church], founded upon the most solid rock. Let the gates of hell prevail in nothing against it through the Tartarean aversions of heretics.” 4) Hence in the profession of Hormisdas, to be subscribed by the Easterners, it is asserted: “The first safety is to guard the rule of right faith and not to deviate from the tradition of the Fathers. Because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed over, saying: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ These things which were said are proved by the effects of things, because in the apostolic see the Catholic religion is always preserved inviolate.” The Russian Church honors Peter among other titles with these, in the work Catholic Homage, page 435 ff.: rock of faith, foundation of faith, immovable base of dogmas, seat of faith, principle of orthodoxy. Bossuet himself, Defense, book 10, otherwise 15, chapter 7, says that the cited formula of Hormisdas “was approved in the whole Church, and that all the churches, after signing the formula, professed… that the faith of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church stands with complete and perfect solidity, and that, lest it ever fail, it is strengthened by the certain promise of the Lord.” Hence Bossuet himself adds: “Who, then, being Christian, would reject that proposition, ‘in the apostolic see the Catholic religion is always preserved inviolate,’ inserted in a formula of faith spread everywhere, propagated through all centuries, consecrated by an ecumenical Council?” But if he then explains it of the Roman See and not of the Roman Pontiff, a remarkable distinction, concerning which discussion will recur below, to pass over the rest, this is contrary to the profession itself, in which the words “Thou art Peter,” etc., are recited. For both above we proved that these regard Peter himself and his successors, and Bossuet himself concedes it, when from them he defends the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff.
1058. III. The thesis can be proved from the already explained testimony of John 21. For through it it is evident that Peter and his successors were constituted Pastors of lambs and sheep, namely of the faithful and of Pastors, whether they are taken separately or together. Therefore the office of Peter is to feed or rule, just as the office of all others in the Church is to obey him. But Peter must feed especially with the food of sound doctrine, with which the Church especially needs to be fed. Therefore, just as the authority of Peter comprehends magisterium, so all are bound to subject themselves to his magisterium. But this cannot be understood unless Peter and his successors are infallible in their magisterium; for then neither could Peter demand a full and firm assent, nor could the lambs and sheep furnish it; then again the faith of the whole Church could fail, or the Church would not receive the food of sound doctrine from Peter. Therefore it is necessary that Peter and his successors be infallible in their magisterium. In like manner they must be infallible “of themselves and not from the consensus of the Church.” For all, even Pastors taken together, must be fed by Peter, since Peter is the Pastor of them all. But if Peter’s magisterium were not infallible, or if his sentence were not irreformable except from the consensus of the Bishops or of the Church, Peter would be fed by his own lambs or sheep, which is both absurd and openly contrary to the institution of Christ. Section III The Testimony of Luke 22.32 Is Considered Singly.
1059. When that hour was near in which he was about to acquire the Church for himself by his blood, Christ the Lord said to Peter, Luke 22.32: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and thou, once converted, confirm thy brethren.” Hence we argue thus: This efficacious prayer of Christ regards Peter, and indeed not as a private person, but as the designated Head of the whole Church and Prince of the Apostles, and therefore in Peter it regards his successors also. But Christ asked that Peter’s faith not fail, so that he could confirm the brethren in faith, which imports infallibility. Therefore Peter and his successors enjoy the charism of infallibility. But Peter, and his successors, must confirm the brethren in faith, and not be confirmed by them; therefore the decrees of faith which are issued by Peter and his successors are irreformable of themselves and not from the consensus of the Church.
1060. So that this argument may obtain its whole force, and at the same time be vindicated from false interpretations, certain things are to be noted generally before it is confirmed part by part. And first indeed, that the prayer of Christ was efficacious, lest the faith of Peter fail, is evident: 1) because its form is plainly absolute, nor is any condition insinuated in the text or elsewhere; 2) indeed all the prayers of Christ which have as their end the faith or essential good of the Church are absolute and efficacious, nos. 749 and 804. But Christ prayed that the faith of Peter not fail, so that he might confirm the brethren, desired by Satan, and thus the faith of the Church might remain invincible. 3) Hence Christ, knowing well that his prayer had been heard, absolutely imposed on Peter the office of confirming the brethren.
1061. Hence it is that, to weaken the force of the argument, they have entered upon other ways instead. For some 1) denied that the object of the prayer of Christ was Peter’s indefectibility in faith, so that he might then confirm the brethren in faith; but they say that it was either Peter’s perseverance in grace after his fall, or the confidence by which he would raise up and confirm the cast-down spirits of the Apostles after the passion of Christ. Others 2) indeed concede that the object of the prayer of Christ was indefectibility in faith; but they say that this regarded not Peter himself, but the Church, whose person Peter bore. Hence, they say, Christ obtained this: that the faith of the Catholic Church should never fail. Others 3) finally acknowledge that he prayed for Peter’s infallibility in faith; but, they say, this was personal to Peter himself, so that it ought not to have been common to his successors.
1062. To confirm this last error, they interpret that phrase “being converted, confirm,” etc., of Peter’s conversion after the threefold denial; and then they reason thus: the faith of that one is not going to fail, and to him it is said “confirm thy brethren,” who was going to fall and be converted. But Peter as a private person, and not as Head of the Church, was going to fall and be converted. Therefore the faith of Peter as a private person was going to be indefectible, and therefore there was no privilege to be transmitted to successors.
1063. But an escape of this kind is refuted in two ways. For 1) even with that interpretation of “being converted” granted, I deny the consequence, because the fall of Peter could indeed be the occasion of the prayer of Christ, but not the adequate reason or adequate object of the prayer itself, as will be evident from the arguments by which we shall soon show that the prayer of Christ regards Peter as the designated Head of the Church. Hence Bellarmine rightly says, chapter 3: “To be converted from the sin of denial does not necessarily belong to the successors of Peter, although to confirm the brethren necessarily belongs to them. For to be converted from sin does not belong to men except insofar as they are private persons, and therefore it is a personal gift; but to confirm the brethren belongs to a man as he is head and prince of others, and therefore it passes to successors.” 2) But the handed-down interpretation of that word “converted” can be denied with Maldonatus, Grotius, Jansenius, Calmet, etc. For in this place the word “converted” does not contain the notion which would be rendered by the phrase “after thou art converted from the fall,” but the notion which is the same as this: “returning the turns, in turn or reciprocally.” Thus this sentence of Christ the Lord comes forth: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith not fail; but thou in turn confirm thy brethren. Indeed I prayed that thou not succumb to the temptations of the devil; and thou repay turns to thy brethren, so that in similar dangers and temptations, strengthened through thee, they may stand immovable.” This is confirmed a) by the almost perfect parallelism of the phrases; for member seems accurately to answer member in turn: I have done for thee; thou do someday in return for the rest: that thou not fail in faith; that firmness not be lacking to thy brethren. b) It is also confirmed from the condition of the persons. For it is not credible that Christ the Lord would say and command that which neither Peter nor the other Apostles present there could understand. But no mention had occurred concerning the fall of Peter and his consequent conversion. How therefore could the hearers have understood the words of Christ in the sense which is objected? Certainly when a little afterward Christ warned Peter of the imminent fall, this warning came upon Peter so much as something new, that with all his strength he resisted the master affirming it, which is a manifest indication that Peter and the Apostles had by no means thought before of the fall. Compare Schrader, On Roman Unity, part 2, from page 179.
1064. These things having been laid down beforehand, anyone sees that, to defend the force of the argument with which we are dealing, we must prove three things: 1) that the object of the prayer of Christ is indefectibility in faith; 2) that this directly regards not the Church or the remaining Apostles; 3) that it regards Peter, indeed as the designated Head of the Church, whose prerogative therefore must be transmitted to successors.
1065. Therefore I. Christ prayed for indefectibility in faith. For 1) the words of Christ are: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.” But he would speak wholly without point if he had willed to obtain for Peter something other than indefectibility in faith. 2) Christ opposed his prayer to the hatred of the enemy. But what did the enemy, Satan, attempt? “He desired you, that he might sift you as wheat”; that is, he wished to shake and separate you. “For in sifting,” says Cameron, Myrothecium Evangelicum, on this place, “there are two things: one, that shaking and agitation by which all things are turned upside down; the other, segregation and separation.” Therefore Satan wished to snatch away that by which the Apostles were united with Christ. But this is chiefly faith, through which we approach Christ, and which is the principle of union and society with Christ. By the worst of all temptations he wished to snatch away that by which, once it is lost, not only the fruit, but the very root of the fruitful tree is lost. Therefore Christ, opposing his prayer to the temptation of Satan, prayed that the faith of Peter not fail, that he, turned toward the brethren, might confirm them. 3) Against the interpretation concerning Christ’s prayer for Peter’s perseverance, and not for faith, there stand a) the words themselves; for Christ said: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.” b) If only the words “thy faith” are considered, it is certain that Christ prayed for the indefectibility of faith in Peter, even if it were granted that he prayed for perseverance; for this necessarily includes faith. But if the following words, “confirm thy brethren,” are considered at the same time, it is certain that an office was imposed by Christ on Peter before the other Apostles. Hence he asked something for Peter which was not common to the rest; and certainly the question is of a common temptation, “Satan has desired you,” and nevertheless Christ prays specially for Peter, “I have prayed for thee.” But the gift of perseverance, indeed of confirmation in grace, was common to all the Apostles. Therefore. 4) Against the interpretation concerning confidence there stand a) its very novelty and foundation. For this interpretation was unknown to the haters themselves of pontifical infallibility, and was first proposed while the question concerning the definition of this prerogative of Peter was being agitated in the Vatican Council. But as foundation it has the assertion of Protestants, namely that faith in Scripture signifies confidence; we have more than once refuted this error, compare On the Grace of Christ, no. 1091, and On the Infused Virtues, no. 656 ff. b) The constant and universal interpretation of the Fathers stands against it, as will be clear from the testimonies to be handed down a little below. c) Confidence or hope, if it is true, rests on faith, so that without this it cannot stand. Therefore if, from the prayer of Christ, Peter’s confidence was going to be indefectible, his faith was also indefectible. Compare On the Infused Virtues, no. 241. d) If the same interpretation is restricted to the confidence of the Apostles alone, to be raised up at the time of the passion of Christ, it is excluded also by all those things by which we shall soon show that the prayer of Christ regards Peter as Head of the Church.
1066. II. We say that the prayer of Christ is referred directly to the person of Peter, and not equally to all the Apostles or to the Church, although Peter’s firmness in faith will yield to the good of the Church. For 1) Christ could not have designated the person of Peter more accurately; for he both says twice, “Simon, Simon,” and adds the pronoun “for thee”; likewise, “thy faith,” and “thou… confirm thy brethren.” 2) If Christ had wished to address the Church, or equally all the Apostles, he would not have said, with the form of speech suddenly changed, “for thee,” but “for you,” just as immediately before he had said, “he has desired you.” 3) Christ says that he prayed for the one who ought to confirm the brethren or Apostles. But the Church ought not to confirm the Apostles, but to be confirmed by them; nor does the Church have brethren, but sons. 4) Indeed Christ distinguishes Peter from the remaining Apostles as one confirming from those to be confirmed. Nor is it an obstacle that the Apostles, by force of an extraordinary prerogative, did not need to be confirmed in faith, since each of them was infallible. For according to ordinary power they were fallible individually, and according to this power to be transmitted to successors, they represented Bishops who need to be confirmed by Peter and his successors. 5) Therefore whatever things teach that the words of Christ are referred to Peter as Primate, the same prove that the discourse is not about the Church or about all the Apostles equally, but directly about Peter.
1067. But here it should be noted that the infallibility of Peter in faith imports not only that Peter’s faith is inamissible, but that Peter altogether does not err. For someone could without pertinacity, through ignorance or error, deny something pertaining to faith, without losing faith. But indefectibility in faith is promised, I say promised, for here it is not yet conferred, to Peter so that he may confirm his brethren, and so that the Church may remain indefectible in faith. Therefore indefectibility of faith in Peter properly regards the magisterium which he exercises in the Church, and in it he is infallible. But the Church cannot err in faith even through ignorance; and therefore it is promised to Peter that he altogether cannot err in faith.
1068. III. We say that the words of Christ are referred to Peter as Head of the Church, and therefore that the question concerns a prerogative to be transmitted to Peter’s successors. For 1) Satan desired to attack all the Apostles by the same temptation; nevertheless Christ willed by his prayers to provide immediately for Simon alone by name. By this manner of acting he wished to ratify and confirm the word and counsel by which he had made Simon the rock of all and had called him Peter; that is to say, since Peter had been designated as the rock of faith, the foundation of the Church, the principle of unity and firmness, to Peter as such, as future Primate of the universal Church, is enjoined the office of confirming the brethren in faith. St. Leo the Great, sermon 4, otherwise 3, 3, splendidly explains this in this way: “The danger from the temptation of fear was common to all the Apostles, and they equally needed the help of divine protection, since the devil wished to agitate all, to crush all. And nevertheless the special care of Peter is undertaken by the Lord, and prayer is made properly for the faith of Peter, as if the state of the others would be more certain if the mind of the prince had not been conquered.” And Theophylact, Commentary on this place: “Because I have thee,” he says, “as prince of the disciples, after thou hast denied me and wept, confirm the rest; for thus it befits thee, who after me art the rock and foundation of the Church.” Hence Bossuet himself, Meditation, day 72: “Peter,” he says, “had always to be present in the Church, to confirm his brethren in faith. That was the suitable remedy, so that unity of judgments might be preserved, which the Savior desired most of all; and this authority was the more necessary under the successors of the Apostles, the less firm their faith was than that of the Apostles themselves.” Wherefore, in the first pastoral letter on the promises of Christ made to the Church, he concludes concerning the chair of Peter: “In it alone, to use the formulas of the holy Fathers, unity has been preserved by all; if we adhere firmly to it, we shall be safe concerning the promises of Christ… For to him this care was given, that he confirm the brethren, and therefore become the rock upon which an immortal building was to be raised.” 2) This is confirmed from the things which precede in the context. For it is said that a contention arose among the disciples “which of them seemed to be greater.” Christ, excluding pride and ambition, said: “The kings of the nations lord it over them… but you not so; but he who is greater among you, let him become as the lesser.” But from this profession of humility the Apostles could fall in spirit. To raise them up, Christ added: “But you are they who have remained with me in my temptations. And I dispose to you, as my Father disposed to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit upon thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” But in truth, from this future equality of lot the Apostles could forget that the Head of all had been designated, as long as they were dwelling on earth. Hence Christ says: “Satan has desired you,” and “I have prayed for thee”; “Thou… confirm thy brethren.” Bossuet himself acknowledged this evident interpretation, writing in Meditation, day 70: “Since [Christ], in restraining the ambition of his Apostles, had spoken in such a way, and it could have been believed by those who did not sufficiently weigh his words that no primacy had been left, indeed that the primacy which he had handed over to Peter had been diminished, in this place he speaks in such a way as plainly to demonstrate the opposite. ‘Satan,’ he says, ‘has desired you, that he might sift all: but I, Peter, have prayed for thee,’ for thee in particular, for thee distinct; not because he neglected the others, but because, as the Fathers explain, by strengthening the head he wished to prevent the members from wavering. Therefore he says: ‘I have prayed for thee,’ not, however, I have prayed for you.” 3) Christ turns away from Peter a lapse in faith insofar as he ought to confirm the brethren. But Peter ought to confirm the brethren not only at the time of the passion, which the adversaries contend, but always thereafter, and much more in the future. For a) then he was only the designated Head of the Church; afterward he was going to be Head in act. The Apostles themselves, because of extraordinary prerogatives, needed less to be confirmed by Peter than their successors did. Shall we say that Christ gave to the Church this means of preserving faith for that time in which it needed that means less, but took it away when the necessity of that means pressed? Surely the words of Christ are indeterminate and of themselves can be extended to all times. Moreover, since the faith of Peter is opposed to the temptation of Satan, it ought to last as long as Satan’s attack against the Church lasts; but the Church is always attacked by Satan. Therefore just as that phrase “the gates of hell” most aptly corresponds to those words “Satan has desired you,” so that phrase “that thy faith fail not… confirm thy brethren” most aptly corresponds to those words “upon this rock I will build my Church.” b) Surely it is impossible for the prayer of Christ to be referred to the imminent temptation; for he prayed by name for Peter before the other Apostles, and nevertheless Peter fell more than the other Apostles. He prayed that Peter’s faith not fail, and nevertheless Peter denied that he knew his master. He prayed that Peter could confirm the brethren, but during the temptation, namely at the time of the dispersion of the Apostles, Peter most needed to be confirmed. But in the time following the resurrection of Christ, Christ himself exercised the office of confirmer. 4) Hence Dollinger himself, when he still remained faithful to Christ and the Church, used the same interpretation in The Religion and Church of Christ, page 32, first edition. For commenting on this very place, he wrote: “The Chair of Peter [according to the mind of Jesus Christ] ought to remain the seat of truth and the citadel of stable faith, by which all would be confirmed. For the words and prayer of the Lord regarded not only the singular person and the proximate time, but laid and built a foundation; they pertained before all things to the Church and to its future necessities foreseen by the spirit.”
1069. This exegetical interpretation of the text is confirmed by the ancient and constant tradition of the Fathers. But since a certain writer, in the time of the Vatican Council, in the little work whose title is Considerations, no. 10, following Launoy, letter 1, book 5, letter 6, did not hesitate to assert that Pope Agatho was the first to draw the words of Christ to the Roman chair and the Roman Pontiffs, we shall be content to exhibit a few testimonies preceding him. Before Agatho, St. Ambrose wrote, On Faith, book 5, chapter 1: “Jesus said to Peter: ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.’ But to the same one, saying above, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ he responded: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ Therefore, to him to whom by his proper authority he was giving the kingdom, could he not strengthen this one’s faith? When he calls him rock, he indicated the foundation of the Church.” St. Cyril, sermon 4, otherwise 3, no. 4, says: “‘And thou, once converted, confirm thy brethren,’ that is, be the firmament and teacher of those who through faith approach me.” St. Leo the Great exhorts that we give thanks to the eternal King, the Lord Jesus Christ, “because he gave so great power to him whom he made prince of the whole Church, that if anything even in our times is rightly done through the Roman Pontiffs and rightly arranged, it is to be credited to his works and to his governances, to whom it was said: ‘And thou, converted, confirm thy brethren,’ and to whom after the resurrection… he said: ‘Feed my sheep.’” St. Gregory the Great, letter 1, book 4, letter 4, says: “It is clear to all who know the Gospel that by the Lord’s voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and prince of all the Apostles. For to him it is said: ‘Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep.’ To him it is said:… ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou, once converted, confirm thy brethren.’ To him it is said: ‘Thou art Peter,’” etc. Pope Gelasius, letter 5 to Honorius, had written: “the care of the whole Lord’s fold is carried on by him, which was delegated to blessed Peter by the voice of our Savior himself: ‘And thou, converted, confirm thy brethren’; and likewise: ‘Feed my sheep.’” Pelagius II, warning the Bishops of Istria to subject themselves to the sentence of the Holy See, says: “You know the Lord proclaiming in the Gospel: ‘Simon, Simon,’” etc. “Consider, dearest ones, that truth could not lie, nor will the faith of Peter be able to be shaken or changed forever.” Stephen of Dora, in the oration held in the Lateran Council, after he had said that through him the Bishops of the East flee to the Holy See because this See is placed over all, first brings forward for confirmation the words of Christ concerning the power of the keys and concerning the mandate of feeding lambs and sheep, and then concludes thus: “And again he [Peter] especially and particularly, having before all others a firm and immutable faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, deserved at some time to turn and confirm his shaken companions and spiritual brethren, as one receiving dispensatively over all from him who for our sake is God incarnate, power and sacerdotal authority.” You will find a more abundant harvest of testimonies in Schrader, On Roman Unity, part 2, from page 187. It will be enough for us to note that even if these testimonies did not exist, nevertheless from Agatho’s own letter there would exist an indubitable argument that our interpretation was at that time commonly received. For it is that same celebrated letter which was received by the Fathers of Constantinople with the same acclamation as Leo the Great’s was by the Fathers of Chalcedon: “Peter has spoken through Agatho.”
1070. SCHOLION. Almost all the objections usually made against the arguments given we have anticipated in the exposition itself of the arguments. It will be useful only to add two here briefly. The first is: If the handed-down exposition of the text of Luke 22 were true, from it it would follow that the Roman Pontiff not only cannot err while he teaches the faith ex cathedra, that is, while he confirms the brethren, but also cannot become a heretic, since Christ prayed for Peter that “thy faith fail not, and thou, once converted, confirm,” etc. But not a few Catholic Doctors deny this inference, no. 1045. Therefore. I answer: 1) From the gifts conceded to Peter, only those ought to be transmitted to successors which were promised and conferred on him by reason of the office of supreme Pastor, and which are necessary for duly performing that office. But for the office of supreme Doctor in faith it is certainly necessary that Peter and his successors, while they authentically teach the faith, cannot err, whereby it happens that they so confirm the brethren that these are bound to be subject to them and therefore are contained in unity. But it is not necessary that Peter’s successors, as private persons, always retain the true faith, especially internal faith, no. 792. Therefore. 2) If to anyone from the same text it should seem rightly inferred that there is indefectibility in faith, even internal faith, of the Roman Pontiffs, even as they are private persons, through us he may adhere to this inference; certainly not a few Catholic Doctors adhere to it, as we saw in no. 1045.
1071. The other objection is: From the arguments given, only this follows: that Peter and his successors are infallible insofar as they ought to preserve firmness and unity of faith by confirming the brethren. But for this it is required and sufficient that they be infallible in matters decided, as they say, not in doubtful matters or in matters to be decided. Therefore. I answer: 1) Indirectly: by equal reason it could be shown that an ecumenical Council, we are assailing the Gallicans, is not infallible in matters to be decided, but in matters decided; and thus there would now be no supreme tribunal in the Church by which questions arisen concerning faith and morals could be defined infallibly. 2) The supreme power in the Church is the same now and always will be, and the same as that which Christ instituted and which existed from the beginning. Now, in the beginning did the Church, Pope or Council, have power of defining questions not yet defined? If it had, therefore even now the same power is in the Church. But if it did not have, there was never any active infallibility in the Church: not in matters to be decided, according to the hypothesis of the adversaries; not in matters decided, because before the first exercise of infallibility there were no matters decided. 3) Active infallibility, or the infallible magisterium, was instituted by Christ for guarding, defending, and explaining the word of God, or the integral deposit of Christian revelation, “holily to guard and faithfully to expound,” says the Vatican Council. But this necessarily requires infallibility in deciding questions which arise concerning the deposit of revelation, and infallibility in proposing decided matters does not suffice. In truth, faith does not waver only when decided matters are immediately and directly deserted, but also when doubts arise concerning decided matters which indirectly harm their firmness. For the things which are had in the Scriptures or Tradition can be twisted to establish false dogmas; errors can be mixed in any way with truths of faith, etc. Therefore unless all these things can be removed, the precept of confirming the brethren cannot be fulfilled. Therefore he who has that office must be able to establish concerning matters not yet decided. Suppose, as often happens, that some doubt arises concerning decided matters, insofar as by some subtle interpretation they are evaded and twisted into an alien sense: what will the Roman Pontiff be able to provide for the guarding of the same? To propose again and again what was decided? But no one is ignorant of this, and that is not what the question concerns. To pronounce sentence concerning the doubt that has arisen? But this exceeds his powers, since by hypothesis he has force in matters decided, not in matters to be decided. Therefore, once that hypothesis is made, the Pontiff will not even be able to be the guardian of matters decided, and much less will he be able faithfully to expound the same. 4) When it is doubtful whether some truth is comprehended in the deposit of Christian revelation, or whether this is or is not the sense of that revelation, only one of the mutually contradictory opinions can be objectively true. But it is lawful to adhere to either opinion only to the extent that it is not yet evident which of them is true. But if, notwithstanding this doubt, unity in faith can be preserved, this certainly does not arise from the fact that, if afterward what is now doubtful becomes evident, it can still be denied; rather it arises from the fact that all are prepared to acknowledge that which is manifested as true. But authentic manifestation is had through the infallible magisterium. Therefore they are prepared to obey this; and consequently they admit that it has authority even in matters to be decided. Section IV The Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff Is Demonstrated from Tradition.
1072. The monuments of ancient Tradition in favor of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff are almost innumerable, and have already been diligently collected into one by several authors. For our present purpose it will be enough to touch upon the principal heads and to indicate the sources from which each one, if there is need, will be able to draw them.
1073. I. From Councils. The opponents of Pontifical infallibility have not hesitated to assert that formerly all things in the Church were conducted through Councils; in each century, they say, if you except the two most recently elapsed, at least one was held. But historically it is certain that, even before the Council of Trent, about six centuries elapsed, namely three before the First Nicene Council and almost as many after the Fourth Constantinopolitan, during which no general council was assembled. From this at once there arises a new argument for our matter. For if the Roman Pontiff were not infallible, Christ, on the one hand, would have required from the Church a perpetual integrity and unity of faith for every time; but, on the other hand, he would not have provided a suitable means which would always be at hand. For a general council cannot always be had at will, nor is it an easy thing to assemble it. It is enough, in order to remove every prejudice concerning this matter, to recall the history of the Council of Trent, which could scarcely be completed in twenty years, and not without great obstacles. Moreover all know that in the first three centuries general councils could not be held because of the persecutions of the pagans. Therefore all these things openly show that Christ had to place the organic means for obtaining and preserving stability of faith in the Church and unity in some other assistance than in a general council.
1074. But it is better at least to taste the positive arguments which can be derived from Councils. And 1) to this point belong whatever things we have shown from the Councils, no. 979 ff. 2) Express testimonies of Councils exist. For the Fourth Council of Constantinople, act 1, presents the libellus subscribed by all the Fathers, speaking thus: “Because the sentence of Christ saying, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc., cannot be passed over: these things which have been said are proved by the events of things: because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been reserved immaculate and holy doctrine celebrated… following the Apostolic See in all things, we hope that we may deserve to be in one communion with that See, in which there is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion.” In the Second Council of Lyons, the profession of faith of the Greeks, accepted by all, has this: “As the Roman Church before the rest is bound to defend the truth of faith, so also, if any questions concerning faith should have arisen, they ought to be defined by its judgment.” Similar things concerning the Roman Church are reported by the Council of Vienne, in the Clementines, On the Supreme Trinity, and by the Council of Florence in the decree of union with the Greeks. Likewise in the Council of Ephesus, act 2, [Footnote 1 begins:] The Council of Florence, in the decree confirmed by the Vatican Council, proposes “that all the faithful must believe… that the Roman Pontiff holds primacy over the whole world… and exists as Head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians; and that to him in blessed Peter was delivered by our Lord Jesus Christ full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church; just as is contained also in the acts of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.” The vain attempts of Dollinger to overthrow the force of this decree are known. That is to say, he contended that the true reading was “just as and in the acts of the ecumenical Councils,” etc.; from which, with De Marca, The Concord of Priesthood and Empire, 3.8, he inferred that these words, “accepted in their sincere sense, impose upon the exercise of pontifical power a mode similar to that which the Gallican Church defends”; namely, that decrees of the Supreme Pontiff are irreformable dependently upon the tacit or express consensus of the Bishops. Whereas, if “also” is read, by Dollinger’s own admission, the sense will be that the acts and canons of the Councils recognized in the Roman Pontiff the prerogatives previously asserted. Philip, legate of the Supreme Pontiff, says: “It is doubtful to no one, indeed it has been known in all centuries, that St. Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, column of faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received from Jesus Christ the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and moreover through his successors has always lived up to this time, decided causes, and will always live.” In the Third Council of Constantinople, in the epistle to Agatho, the Fathers say: “And so to thee, as prelate of the first See, head of the universal Church, standing upon the firm rock, we leave what is to be done, acquiescing in the letters of true confession, through which, as divinely written by the highest summit of the Apostles, we have driven away the heretical sect of manifold error lately arisen.” 3) Toward the first eight general Councils, while no one contradicted, the Roman Pontiffs conducted themselves in such a way that they openly asserted and exercised their superior and infallible authority. For they themselves always prescribed what things were to be defined. Certainly, according to Athanasius, Letter to Those Living the Solitary Life, Hosius, legate of the Roman Pontiff, from the authority of Pope St. Sylvester, condemned Arius before the First Nicene Synod; the Fathers themselves acquiesced, and according to the symbol afterward called Nicene, recited by him, they formed canons and decrees. Before the First Constantinopolitan Synod, the second ecumenical, was celebrated, Pope Damasus, anticipating the judgment of the council, condemned the heresies of Sabellius, Macedonius, and Eunomius; and, having given a libellus to Bishop Paulinus, he commanded that his sentence and censures be published through the churches of the East. Concerning the Synod of Ephesus, the third ecumenical, Gennadius rightly asserts, On Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 54: “Pope Celestine dictated the decrees of the synod against Nestorius, and gave the written volume to the churches of the East and West.” The Pelagian heresy also was condemned, session 9, [Footnote 1 continued from page 861:] But this objection errs in two ways. 1) If that reading “and” were conceded, the inference which they draw from it would be false: the words of the Florentine decree according to this reading could have the same sense as in the other reading, “also,” as is evident to the reader. But that they must be taken in the same sense is easily shown. For it is an evident canon of hermeneutics, and admitted by all, that a later sentence which is in some way ambiguous ought not to be so understood as to contradict a prior one that is clear and express. But in the first part of that decree it is clearly and expressly asserted that the power conferred on the Supreme Pontiff by Christ is supreme and full, and therefore that the form of government in the Church is properly monarchical. According to the Gallican interpretation of the second part, that same power would be dependent and circumscribed, and therefore the form of government in the Church would truly be aristocratic. Therefore. 2) But that reading “and” must be denied; for the other, “also,” is had in three manuscripts of the fifteenth century preserved in the Vatican Library; the same is found most clearly in the original which exists in the Archive of the Vatican Basilica; in another which exists in the Laurentian Library at Florence, etc. But see La Civilta Cattolica, second Saturday of February, 1870. according to the prescription of the commentaries which Celestine had composed at Rome, as is clear from the acts of the council and from its synodal letter, the twelfth among those at Cyril. Insisting on the footsteps of Celestine, St. Leo I prescribed to the Synod of Chalcedon the boundaries within which the Fathers ought to remain; namely, he prescribed the norm of the things to be defined, declared that it was not lawful for those assembled to depart from it, and only on that condition, once accepted, did he consent that the Council of Chalcedon should be celebrated. In the fifth ecumenical synod, or Second Constantinopolitan, the judgment of Vigilius, as decretory, was sought and awaited in all things; nor did the disturbances there and elsewhere, in Africa, Illyricum, Hibernia, etc., concerning the controversy of the Three Chapters come to rest except after the decree of the Roman Pontiff became plainly known. Pope Agatho had forbidden the Fathers of the sixth ecumenical synod, or Third Constantinopolitan, to depart even a nail’s breadth from his definitions transmitted to the council. For, transmitting the sentence issued by himself concerning the error of Sergius, he commanded that “nothing be diminished, nothing changed or added, from those things which were regularly defined in that sentence, but that the same things be preserved inviolate in words and meanings.” He commanded his legates that “they should presume to add or change nothing, but simply narrate the traditions of this Apostolic See, as they had been established by the predecessor Apostolic Pontiffs.” He demanded this because “all the faithful of the Catholic Church and the universal synods, faithfully embracing the authority of the Roman Church, as of the prince of all the Apostles, have followed it in all things.” But the Fathers, act 18, acclaimed Agatho’s letter thus: “The highest prince of the Apostles was contending with us: for we had as helper his imitator and successor of the See. Paper and ink were seen, and Peter was speaking through Agatho.” Similarly Hadrian I forbade the Fathers of the seventh synod, in the letter to Patriarch Tarasius, to move the limits fixed by the Roman Pontiffs concerning the cult of holy images; and the Fathers responded: “The whole holy synod so believes and so teaches”; and again: “We follow, receive, and approve.” Finally, without awaiting the sentence of the eighth synod, Hadrian II condemned Photius and commanded that he be condemned by the council.
1075. II. From the Fathers. The Fathers proclaimed the doctrine of which we are treating in a manifold way. For 1) as we have seen, they understood Matthew 16, John 21, and Luke 22 in the same way as we do, and from them they plainly inferred the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. 2) They extol the Roman Church as the genuine seat of Apostolic tradition, or of apostolic faith, no. 736. 3) They exhibit the doctrine of the Roman See as the form of truth. 4) The Roman See is shown by express words and by practice to be the one that preforms judgments of faith. 5) Roman sentences are held in the same manner as the judgments of Councils. 6) They extol the necessity of Roman doctrine. 7) They represent the Roman See as guardian of orthodoxy. 8) They have always held the Roman Pontiff as confirmer of Councils. 9) In express words they proclaim the Roman Pontiff or the Roman See as the supreme tribunal of faith. 10) They propose the doctrine of the Roman See as the token of truth. 11) They say and practically acknowledge the Roman See as the overthrower of heresies. 12) They admit the judgment of the Roman See as the end of controversies. 13) They hold that the sentence of the Roman See is subject to no one’s judgment. 14) Finally, in express words they teach that the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is infallible. Concerning all these heads we have already given several testimonies; others also, with a great apparatus and study of erudition, Father Schrader has collected into one and aptly arranged, On Roman Unity, part 2, especially from page 223. Let it be permitted us to recite the words of St. Bernard, who is the chief glory and ornament of the Gallican Church. Writing, letter 190, to Innocent II, he says: “It is fitting that every danger and scandal arising in the kingdom of God be referred to your apostolate, especially those things which happen concerning faith. For I judge it worthy that damages of faith be repaired there most of all where faith cannot experience defect. This indeed is the prerogative of this See. For to what other one was it ever said: I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not? Therefore what follows is required from the successors of Peter: And thou, once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
1076. III. From ancient and perpetual usage. For 1) in the first three centuries many heresies were condemned by Roman Pontiffs: and especially the heresy of Cerdo and Valentinus in the year 155 by Hyginus, according to Eusebius, History, book 1, chapter 10; that of Theodotus in the year 196 by Victor, according to the same, book 5, chapter 27; that of Montanus in the year 215 by Zephyrinus, according to Tertullian, On Fasting, book 1, chapter 1; that of Novatian in the year 254 by Cornelius, according to Eusebius, book 6, chapter 43; that of Paul of Samosata in the year 273 by Felix, according to Cyril in the Apology for the Twelve Anathemas. Now those heresies were condemned a) without Councils; for to these especially pertains Augustine’s statement, book 4 to Boniface, last chapter: “Heresies, far more and incomparably more numerous, were condemned outside Councils than in them.” b) They were condemned irreformably, since none of those condemnations was ever retracted. c) They were condemned irreformably before the consensus of the Church; for in that time of persecutions the consensus could hardly become known, nor nevertheless did the lack of it suspend the faith of the Catholics who were aware of the Pontifical condemnation. 2) The Roman Pontiffs vindicated as a right proper to themselves that all causes of faith from whatever provinces should be referred to them. This is evident, for example, from Innocent’s letter to the Milevitans and Carthaginians; from Zosimus’s letter to the former; from Gregory, book 4, letter 52; and from the African Councils themselves. But Bishops everywhere judged that acquiescence must be given to the Pontifical sentence pronounced in these judgments. Witnesses of this, besides the African Fathers, are Basil, letter 52; Ambrose, synodal letter of the Council of Milan to Siricius; Sophronius, in the allocution of his legate at the Lateran Council under Martin; Ignatius of Constantinople, letter to Nicholas, etc. Therefore both parties declared, by fact and practice, that the judgment of the Pontiff is infallible and irreformable. 3) To this point belongs the celebrated saying of St. Augustine, which we reported above. For, sermon 2 On the Words of the Apostle, chapter 10, concerning the Pelagian cause he pronounced: “For already concerning this cause two Councils [they were particular Councils] have been sent to the Apostolic See; from there also rescripts have come. The cause is finished; would that the error sometime be finished!” From these words it is clear: a) by the sentence of Innocent alone, issued against the Pelagian errors, the whole matter was so completed that this cause of faith could no longer even be called into doubt. b) Irreformability belonged to the Pontifical sentence before the consensus of the Church; since from January 27 in the year 417, on which the Pope had replied, until September 23 of the same year, on which Augustine gave the sermon, the Roman responses could in no way have been carried to all the Churches of the world and thence the consensus of the Churches, whether tacit or express, reported back to Africa. Indeed this was the less possible because only in the following year did Zosimus, and not Innocent, send the Tractoriae letters concerning this cause to the universal Church.
1077. IV. Finally it is pleasing to touch upon a few things concerning the sense of the ancient Gallican Church. Avitus, Archbishop of Vienne, writing to Hormisdas, says: “Already secure, I promise, I will not say concerning the devotion of Vienne, but concerning that of all Gaul, that all await your sentence concerning the state of faith. Pray that the deceitful confession of the aforesaid persons may not so deceive us, nor the truth once learned separate us from the unity which you govern.” The Gallic prelates, in the cause of Arnulph, Bishop of Paris, write thus to John XV: “Be present, Father, to the recent Church, and bring forth the sentence into the midst: let us perceive in you another Peter. Let the Roman Church give sentence, so that we may understand why we ought to prefer your Apostolate among the rest.” The nobles of the Kingdom, in the libellus given to Clement V, say: “for neither could he as Pope be a heretic… nor has any Pope ever, insofar as Pope, been a heretic.” The Council of Arles, in the year 455, synodal letter, writes thus to Leo: “Whoever does not neglect the sacraments of redemption inscribes the writings of your Apostolate upon the tablets of his heart as the symbol of faith, and has committed them to memory to be held, so that he may be more ready to confound the errors of heretics.” The Second Council of Orange, in the year 529, has this: “What seemed good to us according to the admonition and authority of the Apostolic See, namely that we ought to bring forth, to be observed by all, a few chapters transmitted to us by the Apostolic See for teaching those who think otherwise than they ought, and to subscribe them with our hands.” The Council of Tours, in the year 567, established: “Who of the priests should presume to act against such decrees as have proceeded from the Apostolic See? Whose preaching can be valid, except those whom the Apostolic See has approved? Our fathers have always kept this, because their authority commands it.” The Gallican Clergy, in its general Assemblies in the year 1579, pronounced thus: “Clerics and laymen, by open profession, pronounce that faith which the Holy Roman Church, teacher, column and firmament of truth, professes and cultivates; for to this Church, on account of its principality, every Church must come together”; and, at the end: “All these things we subject to the judgment and authority of the Holy Roman Church, by whose precepts the faithful people ought to be instructed, and the certain rule of faith and correction of morals constituted.” The same Clergy, in the year 1626, in admonitions to Archbishops and Bishops, writes: “They will also venerate our holy Father the Pope, visible head of the universal Church, Vicar of God on earth, Bishop of Bishops and Patriarchs, finally the successor of Peter, from whom the Episcopate and Apostolate took their beginning, and upon whom Christ founded the Church, to whom, handing over the keys of heaven, he gave the infallibility of faith, which, not without a miracle, we discern to have persevered immovable in his successors even to the present day.” Three Bishops, namely Ceretius, Salonius, and Veranus, writing to Leo in the year 455, speak thus concerning his letter to Flavian: “That page of your special doctrine is so celebrated through all the assemblies of the Churches, that by the truly concordant sentence of all it is declared that the principate of the Apostolic See was deservedly constituted there, whence even now the oracles of the Apostolic Spirit are reported.” Hincmar of Rheims, On Predestination, chapter 14: “This ought to suffice for Catholics, what the mother of all Churches teaches: one must follow what that Roman Church believes.” Ivo of Chartres, letter 8 to Richer: “To stand against the judgments and constitutions of this See is plainly to incur the mark of heretical depravity.” Compare, if you please, the Wurzburg authors, nos. 191 and 197 ff. Section V The Same Truth Is Confirmed by the Consensus of Theologians.
1078. I. It is certain that before the Council of Constance there was by no means heard in the schools the opinion, now heresy, concerning the fallibility of the Supreme Pontiff speaking ex cathedra. This is clear: 1) from the testimony of Ruard Tapper, dean of the faculty of Louvain and theologian in the Council of Trent, who, Theological Oration 3, writes: “For from the time of the Councils of Constance and Basel certain doctors teach that the privilege of infallible sentence is in the ecumenical Council alone. But the older writers concordantly hand down from the Scriptures that this privilege of infallible sentence is proper to Peter, placed over the whole family of Christ, and to the Roman Pontiff, supreme vicar on earth after Peter, as to him who alone received the keys of the house, of binding and loosing anything whatever, and to his chair.” 2) Andrew Duval, dean of the Paris faculty, who died in the year 1638, has these words: “Whether the adversaries wish it or not, it is clearly certain that the ancient leaders of the Gallican Church always acknowledged this infallibility in the Supreme Pontiffs, successors of Peter; that the prayer of Christ the Lord did not stop in Peter; and that those who attempted to fight against this truth began two hundred or about two hundred years ago, when dreadful schisms burst into the Church,” according to Zaccaria, Antifebronius, part 1, dissertation 1, chapter 10, no. 8. 3) Cardinal de Aguirre, Defense of the Chair of Peter, disputation 7, section 2, no. 12, concerning the doctrine which we here defend, does not hesitate to assert that “all the Theologians without exception, as many as wrote before the Council of Constance, begun in the year of Christ 1415, embraced it. For no one is found up to that point, unless perhaps a heterodox or schismatic person, who denied infallible authority to the Roman Pontiff, whenever from the chair of the Apostolic See he defines something as to be believed by all the faithful concerning faith or morals.” 4) Gerson himself is compelled to confess these things: “Flattery further concedes that he [the Pope] is above the law,… and that it is in no way possible either to appeal from him, or to summon him judicially, or to withdraw obedience from him, especially outside the case of heresy. He alone can compose a symbol of faith; he alone can treat the causes of that same faith and the other greater causes. He alone, as has already been done, establishes definitions, rules, laws, and canons; otherwise whatever is defined, decreed, established, or ordained by others is void and empty. Nor can anything of those things which he has established be annulled or broken in any way except through him; but no constitution of anyone else, of whatever sort, binds him. I am mistaken if, before the celebration of this most sacred Synod of Constance, this tradition had not so occupied the minds of very many of the lettered rather than of the learned, that one who dogmatized the opposite would have been either marked or condemned for heretical depravity. Receive the sign of this matter: because after a declaration clearer than light from the principles of theology, and what is more urgent, after the determination and practice of the same holy synod, there are found those who do not fear to assert such things openly: so rooted, and like a creeping cancer so inwardly drunk in, was this lethal poison of ancient flattery!” On Ecclesiastical Power, consideration 12, of the works arranged by Ellies Dupin, volume 2, page 247, Antwerp edition, 1706. 5) But here we could recite the words of the Theologians themselves who wrote before the Council of Constance. We shall be content to indicate one or another. And first St. Thomas, II-II, question 1, article 10, writes: “It must be said that a new edition of the symbol is necessary for avoiding errors that arise. Therefore the publication of a symbol belongs to that authority to whose authority it belongs finally to determine those things which are of faith, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. But this belongs to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, etc. And the reason for this is that there ought to be one faith of the whole Church, according to that word of 1 Corinthians 1.10, etc.; and this could not be preserved unless a question of faith that has arisen were determined by him who presides over the whole Church, so that thus his sentence would be firmly held by the whole Church.” He has the same things in the same place, reply to the second objection; question 11, article 2, reply to the ninth; and On Power, question 10, article 4, reply to the thirteenth. 6) The Paris Academy, in the theological treatise offered to Clement VII, then held in Gaul as legitimate Pope, discusses thus: “The first conclusion is that it belongs to the holy Apostolic See, by supreme judicial authority, to define judicially concerning those things which are of faith. And this is proved, because it belongs to the authority of that one, as supreme judge, to define judicially in faith, whose faith never fails; because concerning this holy See, in the person of Peter presiding in it, it was said: ‘Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not’ (Luke 22). On account of this Cyprian says: He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon which the Church was founded, demonstrates that he is not in the Church. And Jerome says: Upon him the Church was founded, and whoever does not gather with the Roman Pontiff scatters.” And in the year 1387, in the Consistory before the said Clement, through Master Peter d’Ailly, it professed the irreformable judgment of the Roman Pontiff in causes of faith in these words: “This is the faith, most blessed Father, which we have learned in the Catholic Church; in which, if perhaps anything has been placed less skillfully or less cautiously, we ask that it be corrected by you. But we most firmly hold, and have in no way doubted, that the holy Apostolic See is that chair of Peter, upon which, with the same Jerome as witness, the Church was founded, as is had” in the same question, in the chapter Quoniam vetus. And just as Cyprian says, distinction 93, Qui cathedram: “Concerning which See, in the person of Peter the Apostle sitting in it, it was said: ‘Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not’ (Luke 22). Therefore this is the See to which the determination of faith, and the approval of Catholic truth, and the detestation of heretical impiety, chiefly belongs.”
1079. II. But at the time of the Council of Constance there were indeed some Doctors who denied the infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff; but their authority is of no moment. For 1) they were very few in comparison with the others who taught the contrary truth. 2) Some of them were led into error chiefly by the danger of the present schism. 3) But several taught other manifest errors, so that it is no wonder that they erred also in this matter. That we may mention some example of this last assertion: a) Peter d’Ailly, Gerson’s teacher, was accused of denying transubstantiation in the Eucharist; he was most ruinously addicted to judicial astrology; he taught that, in the time of schism, the decisive vote in councils should be attributed not merely to simple priests, but also to lay princes and their legates; finally, in order to prove the superiority of a council above the Pontiff and the right of appeal from the Pontiff to a council, he did not blush to use documents manifestly fictitious. b) As to Gerson himself, Richer judges, in the Life of Gerson prefixed to the edition of the year 1606, that he needs an apology, especially on account of the book published by him On the Removability of the Pope. Moreover he taught, volume 2, in the moral rules, title On the Precepts of the Decalogue, that there can be many cases in which it is lawful for any subject to kill the Pontiff. Finally he asserted, On the Mode of Uniting and Reforming the Church in Council, Works, volume 2: “The universal Church can be saved in the smallest old woman, and for the salvation of the universal Church the convocation of a council can be made by the smallest old woman!” But soon after the Council of Constance, the opinion denying the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff was rejected. This also can be proved by manifold testimony; let us select a few. St. John of Capistrano, who died in the year 1456 and was contemporary with the events in the Council of Constance, published, after the aforesaid Synod of Constance, a treatise On the Authority of the Pope and Council, which exists in the collection entitled Treatises of Universal Law Gathered into One. In it, adhering to the common opinion of St. Thomas and of the other Fathers and Doctors, and making light of the novelties of the Synod of Constance, he stood forth as a most keen defender both of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and of his superiority over a council. The Louvain Faculty, in the year 1544, by command of Emperor Charles V, published thirty-two articles against the errors of Luther. Of these, article 22 has this: “It must be held with firm faith that there is on earth one true and Catholic Church of Christ, and that this is visible; founded by the Apostles, persevering even to this our age, it retains and receives whatever concerning faith and religion the chair of Peter, upon which it has been so built by Christ its spouse that in those things which belong to faith and religion it cannot err, has handed down, hands down, and will hand down.” And in article 25: “Those things must be held with certain faith, not only which have been expressly delivered in the Scriptures, but also which we have received as to be believed through the tradition of the Catholic Church, and which have been defined concerning affairs of faith and morals through the chair of Peter, or through general councils legitimately assembled.” Mauclerc, a Sorbonic doctor, in the celebrated work On Monarchy, volume 1, page 513 and following, Paris edition, 1622, which he published under Louis XIII, teaches thus: “We ought to bear this before us in conscience as true and Catholic, and to testify it by firmly asserting it with a constant and truly Christian mind: that the Roman Pontiff, insofar as he is the supreme doctor of the universal Church, cannot define anything in matters pertaining to faith that is stained by any error. No one of the Catholics will presume to deny this, since the summit of the scholastic theologians, St. Thomas, has said so clearly and plainly, with assertion, that the authority of defining matters of faith resides principally in the Supreme Pontiff.” St. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence, who died in the year 1459, when he proves that there must be one supreme prince by whom the whole Church is ruled, uses this reason, Summa, part 3, title 22, chapter 2, section 23: “In the whole Christian universe there ought to be conformity concerning those things which pertain to the truth of faith and good morals in matters necessary for salvation. But such conformity cannot be preserved except in order to one head or one presiding person, to whom it belongs to pronounce sentence as to what must be believed and what must not be believed. Therefore.” And below, chapter 3, section 1, he adds: “But it is certain that in the Church there cannot be any such head except the Pope alone.” Certain contrary things occur in the works of St. Antoninus, but from a manifest corruption of the works. Concerning this matter see La Civilta Cattolica, February 5, March 5, and March 19, 1870. To these let it be permitted to add three illustrious Theologians from diverse nations. Bellarmine, who died in the year 1621, says concerning the opinion denying the inerrancy of the Roman Pontiff, On the Roman Pontiff, book 4, chapter 2: “It is not properly heretical; for we still see that it is tolerated by the Church; yet it seems altogether erroneous and proximate to heresy.” But afterward he himself emended this passage in this way: “Where we say: the opinion of those who teach that infallibility of judgment is not in the Pope but in a general council is not plainly heretical, but erroneous and proximate to heresy, we will say more rightly: that we do not dare to judge that opinion plainly heretical, because those who follow that opinion have neither themselves been condemned by the Church, nor have their books ever been prohibited; nevertheless it seems to us so manifestly erroneous that it can deservedly be declared heretical by the judgment of the Church.” Suarez, who died in the year 1617, proposes the question thus, On Faith, disputation 5, section 8, no. 4: “Whether, if the Pope alone defines without a general council, he has the same infallibility and is the rule of faith, or whether he can err”; but he responds: “It is a Catholic truth that the Pontiff defining ex cathedra is a rule of faith which cannot err, when he authentically proposes something to the universal Church as to be believed with divine faith. Thus do all Catholic doctors teach at this time; and I judge it a matter certain by faith.” St. Francis de Sales, who died in the year 1642 and is now Doctor of the Church, On the Controversies of Faith, chapter 10, has these words: “The Church always has need of an infallible confirmer to whom one can have recourse, of a foundation which the gates of hell, and principally error, cannot overturn, and that its pastor cannot lead its children into error. Therefore the successors of St. Peter have all these same privileges, which do not follow the person, but the dignity and the public office.”
1080. III. The opinion denying the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, which arose at the time of the Council of Constance and was immediately rejected, did not properly revive except in the Assemblies of the Gallican Clergy held in the year 1682. Nevertheless, 1) it did not revive except among some doctors in Gaul; for as Benedict XIV testifies, in his letter to the General Inquisitor of Spain, and as is historically certain, the opinion concerning the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff “has been received everywhere outside Gaul.” 2) In Gaul itself many resisted the innovation, which, as is clear from documents very recently published, cannot be attributed even to the Paris faculty. 3) From the same documents it is evident with how much fraud and force they acted to introduce that new opinion. D. de Harlay himself, the royal procurator general, testifies that the Bishops who subscribed the declaration “would at once and gladly have declared the contrary, if this had been permitted to them by the king.” We refrain from reciting the aforesaid documents, since they are now known to all and can be seen in Bouix, On the Pope, part 2, from chapter 4. 4) Finally, always after that declaration, the Gallic Bishops acknowledged in practice the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, whether by asking his decretory judgment, or by acquiescing in it with sincere and most prompt submission of mind, before every consensus, indeed before every notice, of the other Churches. Thus it was done with regard to the constitution Cum alias of Innocent XII, Vineam Domini of Clement XI, Unigenitus of the same Clement, etc. Section VI The Principal Difficulties Are Satisfied.
1081. There is no need here to pursue all and singular difficulties of the Gallicans; for some are so futile that, once heard, each person easily solves them; but several have already been dissipated by what has been disputed thus far. Indeed: 1) the difficulties which arise from the badly understood nature either of infallibility or of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff are dissolved from the exposition already given of each concept. 2) Those which are sought from the fact of the Asian Churches with St. Victor, of St. Cyprian with St. Stephen, etc., have already been solved, nos. 668 ff. and 969 ff. 3) Likewise we have solved the difficulties sought from the Council of Constance, nos. 993 ff. Here it is pleasing only to confirm what we said there by the authority both of the most learned Bishop Hefele and of a witness by no means suspect, Dollinger. The first, History of Councils, volume 8, page 140, writes: “But the assertion of the Gallicans that even the earlier sessions, namely those which preceded the forty-first, and consequently the decrees of the fifth session, were approved by Martin V, is certainly false.” The other, Ecclesiastical History, volume 2, pages 306 ff., 325 ff., 338-340, demonstrates at length that neither the Council of Constance nor the Council of Basel was legitimate when they issued the decrees of which there is question. He denies in express words that these decrees were ever confirmed by the Holy See, indeed even that they were held as firm by the Gallican Bishops themselves who were present at the Synods.
1082. Likewise the difficulties against the arguments given, especially those drawn from Scripture, have been anticipated in the very exposition of them. Only the marvelous fiction of the Gallicans for eluding their force can be recalled. Namely, they said that one must distinguish between the See and the sitter. The sitter, they said, as distinct from the See, is the Pontiff himself actually teaching; but the See is the series of Pontiffs, or even the same Pontiff insofar as they remain for a long time in the same sentence. The sitter, they said, can err; but the See is infallible and the true rule of truth. For all the prerogatives of Primacy, and hence infallibility itself in teaching, properly affect the See and not the sitter. But if individual sitters can err in the act of teaching, how does the See remain infallible? This happens, the Gallicans replied, because the error of one Pontiff is corrected and amended by his successor, or even by himself; thus error will never take root in the very series of Pontiffs. These things indeed are from Cardinal de Luzerne, part 2, chapter 2, no. 4; Bossuet, Defense, book 10, otherwise 15, chapter 5, etc. It is answered: A manifold distinction can indeed be thought up between the See and the sitter. Thus the See, metaphorically accepted for the thing signified, imports authority; the sitter is the subject of that authority. The See, or authority, at least as to exigency, always remains; the sitter dies, and the See is said to be vacant until a successor-sitter is elected. Especially the See is distinguished from the sitter insofar as the rights of the See do not depend on the personal merits or demerits of the sitter for the time being. And in this sense are understood the words of St. Leo, letter 106, no. 5: “for the sees are one thing, those presiding another,” and other sayings of this kind. But these things being supposed, the distinction of the Gallicans is false and absurd, when they say that the prerogatives of Primacy pertain to the See, not to the sitter; and that the See indeed cannot err in faith, but the sitter, while he teaches the universal Church, can err. For 1) Primacy, and its prerogatives, can pertain only to him on whom they are conferred by Christ. They were conferred by Christ first on the person of Peter; in him they were conferred on his successors. His successors are the persons of the Roman Pontiffs; the person of the Roman Pontiff for any given time is one, just as Peter was one person. Therefore Primacy, with all its prerogatives, and therefore infallibility, must be attributed, as to its subject, to the very person of the Roman Pontiff for the time being, and not to the successive group of Pontiffs. Hence from the Councils of Florence and the Vatican it must be believed that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, and that to him in the person of Peter was delivered the supreme and full power of feeding and ruling the Church. 2) Primacy, all its prerogatives, and consequently infallibility, cannot be ascribed except to the successors of Peter. For the notion of a successor consists in this, that he himself obtains all the rights and all the prerogatives of that dignity in which he succeeds, which the predecessor possessed. But individual Roman Pontiffs are the successors of Peter. Therefore each Roman Pontiff, and not only the group of them, enjoys Primacy, all its prerogatives, and infallibility itself. 3) Certainly, when the Fathers speak of the authority and infallibility of the Roman See, they suppose the Roman Pontiff and take the See and the sitter as one and the same subject. “I,” writes St. Jerome to Damasus, “am joined in communion with your blessedness, that is, with the Chair of Peter.” And Maximus the Martyr, letter 1 to Peter the illustrious: “Let him implore,” he says, “the most blessed Pope of the most holy Roman Church, that is, the Apostolic See.” And Sergius, Bishop of Cyprus, writes to Theodore: “Christ has constituted thy Apostolic See as a divinely fixed and immovable firmament. For thou art Peter, and upon thy foundation the columns of the Church have been confirmed.” Hence the Fathers everywhere proclaim concerning the Roman See that it is the Rock which the gates of hell do not conquer, since it is certainly established from the words of Christ that that Rock is Peter and his successors. Hence also, when occasion is given, they assert concerning any Pontiff that he is Peter, and that Peter lives and speaks in him. 4) But in reality there are as many arguments for this matter as there are testimonies exhibited for the Primacy and infallibility of Peter and his successors, as is evident to one recalling them. For is the See, and not the sitter, called the foundation of the Church, pastor of the universal Church, confirmer of the Brethren? Are all and each of the Pastors and faithful bound to obey the See and not the sitter? Hence praises of infallibility sometimes attributed to the See are not attributed to the See by itself, but to the See because of the Pontiffs who sit in it and preside over all the rest. For, according to the Scriptures and the Fathers, the Primacy is not attributed to the Roman bishops because it was conferred on the Roman See; rather, they acknowledge the Primacy in the Roman See because it was conferred on Peter and his successors.
1083. Therefore, these things being dismissed, you will say I: If the Roman Pontiff alone were infallible, since an ecumenical Council, as all Catholics confess, is also infallible, it would follow that there are two supreme infallible powers in matters of faith and morals; and this certainly is repugnant. 2) Indeed, one would have to say that Councils are not only not necessary, but altogether useless. I answer to the first: I distinguish. If there were subjects of supreme infallible power adequately distinct, I deny; inadequately distinct, I concede, no. 787. But no repugnance is found in this, since there can never be any conflict between the Pontiff alone and an ecumenical Council defining something; both because each subject of infallibility is assisted by the Holy Spirit, who cannot contradict himself, and because a Council without the Pope can define nothing infallibly. To the second I distinguish: If Councils were required for conferring intrinsic force on pontifical dogmatic constitutions, I concede. If for adding extrinsic authority, when the circumstances of things so demand, I deny. Certainly, if the discussion is about intrinsic authority, the same is found in definitions of the Pontiff ex cathedra and of Councils; for in each case there is the same assistance of the Holy Spirit communicating infallibility. But it by no means follows from this that Councils are useless. For there is a manifold usefulness which redounds from the celebration of synods, as is clear from what has been said, no. 1035 ff.
1084. II. You will insist: But Councils are necessary for the intrinsic authority of definitions, for these do not seem to be irreformable without the approval of a Council. For 1) the usage of Western General Councils teaches that Pontiffs, even when presiding over them, did not issue decrees except with the sacred Council approving. 2) More than once, questions already defined by the Roman Pontiffs were treated again in ecumenical Councils. 3) And indeed these Councils confirmed definitions previously issued by Pontiffs only after an accurate examination had been instituted. 4) But St. Leo himself thought this, for, writing to Theodoret, he says: “the things which [God] had first defined through our ministry, he confirmed by the irretractable assent of the universal brotherhood”; therefore before that it was not irretractable, or irreformable. And he adds: “thus the authority of the highest is preserved, so that the liberty of the lower is thought diminished in nothing.” I answer: I deny the subsumption. To the first, moreover, I say: 1) that formula, “with the sacred Council approving,” would at most show that definitions of faith, when they are issued by Councils, require the approval both of the Pontiff and of the Bishops. But from this it would not follow that the Pontiff cannot also alone and outside a Council define questions of this kind infallibly. 2) I say that formula is more recent; for it began to be employed in Lateran III. By these words, moreover, nothing else is expressed except the consensus of the Council, or the sentence joined and subordinated to the judgment of the Pontiff. 3) Hence it is clear how diverse is the approval or confirmation which is required on the part of the Roman Pontiff. Certainly Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, in order to excuse himself concerning the Chalcedonian canon contrary to Nicaea, writes, letter to Leo: “Since even thus all force and confirmation of the acts had been reserved to the authority of your Blessedness.” Concerning the Synod of Rimini, Damasus, in the letter to the Easterners, says: “The number of Bishops who had been assembled at Rimini ought not to have the force of prejudice, since that thing was done without the consent of the Roman Bishop, whose sentence ought to have been awaited before others.” Concerning the Robber Synod of Ephesus, Gelasius pronounces, letter 13 to the Bishops of Dardania: “The Apostolic See condemned Dioscorus, prelate of the second See, by its own authority, and by not consenting removed the impious Synod.” Furthermore the confirmation of the Roman Pontiff cannot be called mere adherence, as some have dared to say; for mere adherence is not involved where the authority of the Roman See is required, as the Roman Synod under Felix III testifies concerning the Nicene Synods; where the Apostolic See consents and confirms by the authority of blessed Peter, as St. Leo writes in the letter to the Sixth Synod; where Councils are not received without letters sent by the Pontiff to the Church, as Hadrian declares in the Apology; where it is declared that Synods “need the Roman See, that they may be strengthened and preserved,” as Nicholas shows, letter 8, concerning Leo. But see what we have said, nos. 983-1032. To the second I answer: 1) indirectly: General Councils again confirmed the sentences of other General Councils. Thus, for example, the Council of Florence again treated the questions of dissension between the Greeks and Latins already treated and defined by the Second Council of Lyons. A third Council, if the Greeks wished to approach it, probably would not refuse to treat the same questions a third time. Does it follow from this that General Councils are not infallible? Similarly, Councils again confirmed definitions of Pontiffs that had already been accepted by the whole West and the greatest part of the East before the Councils. Thus, for example, the Synod of Ephesus again condemned Nestorius, already condemned by Celestine; Chalcedon condemned Eutyches, already condemned by Leo; the Third Constantinopolitan condemned the Monothelites, already condemned by Martin and Agatho. After the decrees of the Pontiffs and before those Councils, definitions of this kind had already been accepted by the Church. Therefore, if examinations of this kind take away anything of authority, they take it away not from the Pontiff alone, but from the Church joined with the Pontiff, contrary to the opinion of all Catholics. It should be kept before the eyes that we are not here acting against Gallicans who conceded that definitions of the Pontiffs accepted by the Church are irreformable. 2) Directly: Therefore the cause of this manner of acting was that the heretics, not yet acquiescing in the sentence of the Pontiff, had obtained several and powerful patrons of their obstinacy. Against their insolence, we established above, no. 1036, that Councils are useful, indeed necessary. It is more insolent to resist all than one; but to yield is less shameful. To the third I answer: 1) indirectly, as above, since also definitions of preceding Councils, and of Pontiffs already accepted by the Church, were sometimes subjected to a new examination. Directly, I distinguish: a new confirmatory examination was instituted, I concede; a doubtful examination, or one ordered to assent or dissent, I deny. To understand these things, it must be observed that scarcely had the letter of St. Leo been brought forth and read in act 2 of the Council of Chalcedon, when the Fathers universally acclaimed: “Anathema to him who does not so believe. Peter has thus spoken through Leo,” according to Harduin, volume 2, column 305. Therefore the examination of St. Leo’s letter, which was permitted near the end of that same act for the sake of the Illyrian and Palestinian Bishops, was not, nor could it be, doubtful, namely with liberty of assent or dissent; but confirmatory, “so that those who were doubting might be taught,” as is said in the same place, column 307. Compare what was said, no. 983. To the fourth I answer: 1) That irretractable assent of St. Leo certainly does not affect the pontifical definition, so that the sense would be that the definition itself was not irreformable before the adherence of the Bishops, and afterward became irreformable through their consensus. For a) although St. Leo granted to Marcian that a council should be celebrated at Chalcedon, he nevertheless warned the Emperor, letter 82, that by no cunning that was bold and shameless should he allow inquiry to be made “as if it were uncertain what ought to be thought”; nor that “what sort of faith is to be held” should be treated, but rather “whose petitions should be granted, and in what way.” And the same thing in other letters, letter 90, he urged upon the same Marcian, namely that he should not allow the faith to be treated again in the synod as though it were doubtful. b) This is confirmed from the very words which are objected; for St. Leo says: “The things which [God] first defined through our ministry.” Otherwise we would absurdly have to admit that things “defined by God” can be retracted. 2) What therefore is the sense of the following words: “He confirmed by the irretractable assent of the universal brotherhood”? These words affect the very adherence of the Fathers, and by them St. Leo signified that the assent of the Chalcedonian Fathers had become “irretractable” because of their adherence to the pontifical definition. For the whole irretractable force of the decrees of a general council, especially in those things which pertain to faith, depends on unity with the apostolic faith of the Roman See, or of the Roman Pontiff. Certainly, if the definitions of general councils were irretractable apart from the authority of the Roman Pontiff, the Chalcedonian Fathers would in vain have earnestly asked for pontifical confirmation, so that their decrees might become “irretractable,” as we have already seen that they did.
1085. III. You will say: Bishops are born judges of controversies of faith. But they would not be such if the Roman Pontiff alone, defining ex cathedra, were infallible. Therefore. I answer: I distinguish the major: they are supreme judges, I deny; subordinated judges, I subdistinguish. That they always, or always in the same way, ought to exercise judgment, I deny; that they ought sometimes to judge, without however always exercising judgment in the same manner, I concede. It is answered. That this whole difficulty may be briefly unfolded, and its solution clearly and fully proposed, let us recall: 1) that he is called a judge who, from public authority, gives sentence concerning some controversy, a sentence which must be obeyed; 2) that those also are true judges from whose sentence appeal can be made to a higher tribunal; 3) that individual Bishops in their own Church are judges of faith, for since they have truly been placed by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God, and the principal part of this rule is the magisterium in matters of faith and morals, the power of judging in these matters cannot be denied to Bishops; 4) nevertheless, since individual Bishops are not infallible and are dependent on the successor of Peter, their judgment is not irreformable, and appeal can be made from their sentence; 5) nevertheless, as long as their sentence is not proved false, juridically their doctrine must be presumed Catholic, both because each one, in those things which he does with authority, is presumed to act rightly, and because the plurality of Bishops cannot depart from the doctrine of Peter; and consequently, in order that we may judge that some particular Bishop has departed from it, this must be proved. But the objection properly proceeds concerning the office of judge which belongs to Bishops gathered together in Council; for then they seem not to be judges, precisely because the Pope, even alone, is infallible. Therefore, that the objection may be directly solved, let us first note that a definition of faith can be issued in three ways: 1) by the Pontiff alone defining ex cathedra; 2) by a Council to which, however, the Supreme Pontiff proposes for approval a definition already issued by himself; 3) by the same Council, in such a way, however, that a matter not yet defined is brought into an examination of doubt and disputation, and at last is defined by it. Now in the first case, Bishops do not exercise judgment; and therefore it is true, as we have said, that although they are judges, nevertheless they do not always judge. But in this there is no inconvenience. For although it has been given to Bishops that they can define things not yet defined, if they agree among themselves and with the Roman Pontiff, it does not follow that nothing can be defined in the Church without them. For since Christ conceded to Bishops that power in his kingdom, yet in such a way that he also delivered the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone, it follows that Bishops cannot use their power without the consent of the successors of Peter; but it does not conversely follow that these cannot bind and loose without the consent of the Bishops. Therefore from the doctrine concerning the supreme authority of the Holy See in teaching, it cannot be deduced that there is not in Bishops a true power of judging concerning faith; but only that there are two ways in which this judgment is legitimately exercised in the Church: one, more expeditious, through the sentence of the Supreme Pontiff alone; the other, more solemn, through the judgment of the universal Church. Thus, namely, it has been disposed by eternal Wisdom, that the necessity of the Church might be provided for in every way according to the variety of times. In the second case, it is true that there is not left to Bishops an examination of doubt, but only of knowledge, instruction, and confirmation, by which they can render the reason of the dogma, refute adversaries, and instruct their own. It is also true that there is not left to them a judgment indifferent to either side, by which uncertain things are made certain, but only a judgment of adherence. Yet from this it does indeed follow that Bishops exercise the power of a judge of faith sometimes more amply, sometimes less amply, and therefore, as we have said, that they do not always judge in the same manner; but it by no means follows that they do not exercise true judgment when they pronounce a judgment of adherence. In reality the assent of Bishops, in this case, is not an act of mere submission, as in the rest of the faithful, but is at the same time an act of authority. For assenting to the definition of the Pontiff, joined with him and among themselves, they form the judgment of the universal Church. In reality it has happened more than once that ecumenical Councils treated again those things which had already been defined by preceding Councils, not indeed by doubting, but by confirming, as is clear. Nevertheless, when the Fathers sanctioned the same heads of doctrine by new decrees and condemned the same errors by new anathemas, no one will deny that a true judgment with power was made by them. Nor is it an obstacle that, in the case, the judgment of the Bishops cannot be carried to either side. For this is not of the essence of judgment. The force and notion of judgment consists in this: that sentence is given with knowledge of the cause and with power; or in this, that the truth or falsity of some proposition is recognized and affirmed, and that this is done by a person whose affirmation is not common and private, but legitimate or authoritative. All these things are verified even in a judgment of adherence. “To judge,” says Fenelon, Pastoral Instruction, April 20, 1715, “after the judgment of the Pontiff, is to join one’s own judgment with the pontifical.” And he continues: “In this way the Bishops formerly subscribed to the decrees of the general Councils themselves. Their submission was judgment, and their judgment was submission. By subscribing, they at once submitted themselves and confirmed the decision of the synod.” And with all these things the acts of the Councils agree, in which these and other similar formulas of subscriptions are read: “judging, I subscribed - recognizing, I consented - obeying the sentence of the most holy and most blessed Bishops, consenting, I also subscribed - recognizing the discussion of the holy fathers, and since I must follow it, I subscribed.” See Ballerini, On Ecclesiastical Power, chapter 2, section 1, no. 3. In the third case, finally, it is evident that Bishops exercise judgment, and indeed such a judgment by which a matter becomes certain from uncertain; although even in this case their judgment does not have full firmness unless the consent of the Roman Pontiff is added. From this it is clear that they are never supreme judges, but subordinated ones; for they do not constitute that subject to which Christ promised infallibility, except joined with the Head.
1086. IV. Nevertheless you will insist: Does it not seem, even in this case, that the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and consequently infallibility, is conceded only to the Roman Pontiff? For Bishops do not seem to have assistance of this kind while they pronounce judgment, when they say, for example, “it pleases,” and before the consent of the Roman Pontiff is added; for then their judgment can be reformed. Nor do they seem to have it after they have pronounced their judgment and when the Roman Pontiff confirms it; for then the Bishops do or say nothing. Therefore. It seems that one can answer: 1) The assistance of the Holy Spirit and infallibility have also been promised to the Council; but in order that its judgment in a cause of faith be infallible, it is not necessary that the Holy Spirit immediately assist each Bishop consenting with the Pope, but it is enough that he assist in such a way that at last the sentence of the Council cannot be false. God can accomplish this in many ways, and there are not lacking those who think that he accomplishes it through the mediation of the Supreme Pontiff, insofar as the immediate subject of assistance and infallibility is the Pope alone, through whom the body of Bishops consenting with him becomes infallible. For if the Supreme Pontiff, through the assistance of the Holy Spirit, is infallible while he himself consents, since that consent is nothing other than the confirmation of the judgment of the Bishops with which he makes one sentence, the whole judgment becomes infallible. 2) It can also be said that the Bishops whose judgment afterward receives the consent of the Supreme Pontiff had the assistance of the Holy Spirit while they were pronouncing their sentence; yet this did not become known except when that consent was added, without which the necessary condition was lacking for constituting the true subject of infallibility. Section VII The Remaining Objections of the Gallicans Are Solved.
1087. I. You will say: Whatever must be thought about the matters thus far disputed, it is certain by fact that many of the Roman Pontiffs lapsed into very shameful errors, of which errors indeed a long catalogue could be exhibited. It is answered: In the beginning innumerable errors customarily were ascribed falsely to the Roman Pontiffs. In St. Peter alone the Magdeburg authors enumerated fifteen; then in the other Pontiffs, in Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, book 4, chapter 8 ff., forty are reviewed. But in the course of time that catalogue was greatly diminished by the adversaries, until it was contracted to two, or only three, errors of this kind: namely to the lapse of Peter when he denied Christ; that of Liberius; and finally that of Honorius.
1088. But truly the lapse of St. Peter must be set aside, since Peter then issued no definition of faith, nor at that time had the Church been solemnly instituted, nor had the primacy been conferred in act upon blessed Peter, but only promised. But as to the lapse of Liberius, besides the fact that there the matter is not about a definition of faith given to the universal Church, but at most about a personal lapse through a subscription extorted by force and fraud, and indeed to the Sirmian formula, which bore a Catholic sense, it is now established among critics that a lapse of this kind is fictitious. For this reason Bossuet himself confessed: “I have struck out from my treatise On Ecclesiastical Power everything which regards Pope Liberius, as not proving well what I wished to establish,” according to de Maistre, On the Pope, book 1, chapter 15. And Bailly, page 255, writes: “What does it profit them [certain Gallican authors] to heap together various errors and ascribe them to some Pontiffs? What does it matter to report various decisions of questions rendered by Pontiffs which they think fight with one another, since it neither is true nor can be proved that the Roman Pontiffs defined by apostolic authority, or ex cathedra, when they spoke such things?” Thus also Tournely, etc. But concerning Liberius, compare Stilting, Acta Sanctorum, volume 6, September 23; Zaccaria, On the Fictitious Lapse of Liberius. This dissertation is available in the Theological Thesaurus, volume 2, part 2, book 1, opusculum 6. Therefore only the case of Honorius remains.
1089. II. Now it does not belong to the present undertaking to vindicate Honorius from every fault, or to polish his case by a lengthy historical inquiry. This one thing will be enough for us: to show that the case of Honorius creates no difficulty for the dogma concerning the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. For clarity of the matter, however, it will help to recall from history that in the year 633 Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, an eminent Monothelite, gave to Honorius, the Roman Pontiff, letters full of deceit, by which he strove to persuade him that it would especially conduce to the good of the Church that neither one nor a double will and operation of Christ be spoken of. This letter exists in act 12 of the sixth Synod, Harduin, 3.1311. Therefore, not having sufficiently perceived the circumstances of things, the Supreme Pontiff yielded to the counsels and solicitations of Sergius, and judged that silence should be observed, to the grave harm of the faith, as the event afterward proved. Concerning this matter he wrote four letters: one to Sergius, which is most celebrated and is had in the same act of the Sixth Council, 1319; another to Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, a Monothelite; a third to Sophronius of Jerusalem, orthodox; and finally a fourth, of which only fragments survive, in the same place, act 12, 1315, again to Sergius. From this it is gathered that Honorius demanded from the legates whom Sophronius, the recent Bishop of Jerusalem, had sent to him with a synodical letter, a promise that the same silence be observed by Sophronius. Nevertheless Sophronius, a man most illustrious for zeal for the faith, without approving the promised things, sent Stephen, Bishop of Dora, the chief of his suffragans, to the Apostolic See, so that the Supreme Pontiff might be made more certain concerning the danger to faith and bring to it a prompt remedy. But because of the letters given to Sergius, Honorius was condemned by the Sixth Synod, in the year 681, together with Theodore, Sergius, Cyrus, and the other leaders of the Monothelites, act 13. And so the sum of the matter is this: to Honorius is attributed the error of the Monothelites, who denied in Christ a double will and operation, divine and human, and asserted one, namely the divine. They say that this error is contained in Honorius’s two letters to Sergius; and they judge that on this account he was condemned by Synod VI.
1090. Therefore, to dissolve this difficulty, Theologians have entered upon a threefold way. According to the first, it is asserted that the documents brought forth against Honorius were fabricated or interpolated, except for the condemnation pronounced by the Sixth Synod; but that this condemnation does not have the force of an ecumenical decree, since it was never received by the Roman Pontiffs. In this opinion, Honorius neither positively taught Monothelitism; nor did he offend negatively by prescribing that the word either of one or of double operation be omitted; nor finally did he contract any fault of negligence or of depraved economy. According to the second, it is established that from the documents which are brought forward, it is in no way certain that Honorius taught the error of the Monothelites; indeed the contrary is shown. According to the third, it is asserted that, whatever Honorius said in his letters to Sergius, it is certain that he did not teach the error of the Monothelites ex cathedra. Although serious reasons, both intrinsic and extrinsic, are not lacking for the first opinion, nor serious authorities, as can be seen in Baronius, Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, book 4, chapter 11, etc.; nevertheless, since it is not the more common one, we dismiss it, so that we may pursue other ways of solution.
1091. Hence I. Honorius did not teach the error of the Monothelites. For 1) Honorius expressly professes the Catholic dogma concerning a double will and operation in Christ. In reality, in the later letter to Sergius, Honorius has these words: “But we ought to confess both natures, joined in one Christ by natural unity, acting and operative with the communion of the other: and indeed the divine nature working the things which are God’s, and the human accomplishing the things which are of the flesh.” And a little afterward he proceeds thus: “It is necessary for us… to proclaim with you the two natures, that is, of divinity and of assumed flesh… acting their proper things without confusion, without division, and without conversion.” But in the earlier letter he had said: “Confessing the Lord Jesus Christ… to have worked divine things;… and the same one to have worked human things… distinctly, without confusion, and without conversion.” 2) Honorius spoke in the same way as St. Leo, who certainly taught in a Catholic manner. For St. Leo, in the letter to Flavian, had said: “For each form does what is proper to it with the communion of the other; that is, the Word working what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishing what belongs to the flesh.” When these words of Leo were recited in the Sixth General Synod, the legates of the Roman See said: “Behold, the present most holy father manifestly proclaims two natural operations, without confusion and without division, in our Lord Jesus Christ.” But the Synod assented to this statement of the legates, nor did anyone contradict except the most blinded Monothelite Macarius. Moreover, as we have seen, Honorius had said the same thing as St. Leo, except that he expressed the matter more clearly and strongly. 3) It is true that Honorius in the earlier letter said: “We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ”; but Cardinal Orsi rightly warned: “Honorius proclaims one will of Christ, but of the humanity; he keeps another will away from him, but that of the flesh.” For Sergius, in his crafty letter, in order to persuade Honorius to silence concerning one or a double will, brings forward, among other reasons, this one: that if two wills were admitted in Christ, they would be contrary to one another. But Honorius, omitting the other reasons, weighed the question whether in Christ there are, as in us, those two contrary wills remembered by the Apostle, which we call of the spirit and of the flesh; and he denies this in Christ, when he asserts one will in him. This is clear: a) from the context; for he says: “Whence also we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, because surely our nature was assumed by the divinity, not our fault; surely that nature which was created before sin, not that which was vitiated after transgression.” Moreover, the Monothelites themselves admitted the divine will in Christ. But if the things Honorius says about one will had to be understood of the divine will, his argument would be so manifestly foolish that it would reveal Honorius not so much as a heretic as as one taken in mind. For the sense would be: there is only one will of Christ, and that divine, because he assumed human nature not stained by sin, but immune from sin; as though a human will could be found only in stained human nature! b) Hence St. Maximus, a contemporary author, writing to Marinus the presbyter, according to Labbe, volume 5, column 1763, says: “I think that Honorius, the Roman Pope, does not deny the duality of wills naturally in Christ in the letter which he wrote to Sergius, because he said one will, but rather confesses it, and perhaps even establishes it. For he said this not in rejection of the human and natural will of the Savior, but because no will of the flesh or vicious thought in any way preceded his conception, which was without seed, or his incorrupt birth.” c) And John Symponus, who had written the letter of Honorius, testifies, according to Labbe in the same place: “We said one will of the Lord, not of his divinity and humanity, but of the humanity alone. For when Sergius had written that certain men said there were two contrary wills in Christ, we said that Christ did not have two contrary wills, I mean of flesh and spirit, as we have after sin, but one only, which naturally denotes his humanity.” The same thing John IV taught in his letters to Emperor Constantine. 4) Nor is it an obstacle that Honorius says: “Whether, however, on account of the works of divinity and humanity, one or two operations, energeiai, ought to be said or understood as derived, these things ought not to pertain to us; but we leave them to grammarians or to writers of arts… Your fraternity will preach these things with us… We ask you, fleeing the introduced appellation of the new word of one or two operations, to preach with us, in orthodox faith and Catholic unity, one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, true God, operating in two natures, which are of divinity and humanity.” These things, I say, are not obstacles. For a) if Honorius erred in this, the error is not of dogmatic definition, but rather of economic dispensation. For this error would consist in this: that he judged it more prudent that that controversy be left to grammarians than that Bishops should care about it. But whence did this happen? Sergius had set forth in his letters that the Severians or Acephali, and other heretics throughout Egypt, Libya, and neighboring provinces, especially those infected with the Eutychian heresy, could easily be brought to unity if speech either of one or of a double operation in Christ were omitted. Therefore Honorius in his response looked to two things: the matter, or the substance of the dogma, and this he expressly taught, as we saw a little before; and the words, or the formula expressing the dogma, and this, persuaded by the false reasons of Sergius, he thought should be pressed down in silence, lest scandals arise, and lest those recently converted fall back from Catholic unity. b) Nor should this very economy of silence be judged from present circumstances. For since the formula concerning two wills and operations in Christ has now been authentically defined by the Church against the Monothelites, one who rejected it would be judged to deny the dogma itself. But in the time of Honorius the Church had not yet confirmed that formula by her judgment; and moreover the sense of that double energeia was not one. For some by this word understood person; others, will; others, operation; others, double human operation, etc. Hence Honorius said: “It is not fitting to twist to ecclesiastical dogmas these things which neither synodal writings examining the matter nor canonical authorities seem to have explained, so that someone would presume to proclaim one or two energies of Christ the God, which neither evangelical or apostolic letters, nor synodal examination held concerning these matters, seem to have determined.”
1092. II. Honorius in his letters to Sergius issued no definition ex cathedra. For 1) he concludes the first letter with these words: “Let your fraternity preach these things with us, just as we also preach them unanimously with you: exhorting you, while fleeing the introduced term of a new word of one or double operation, to preach with us, in orthodox faith and Catholic unity, one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, most true God, working divinely and humanly in two natures.” He exhorts; he does not command nor threaten any penalty. 2) But in the later letter he has: “Therefore, removing, as we said, the scandal of a novel invention, it is not fitting for us to preach by defining one or two operations; but instead of one operation, which some speak of, it is necessary for us truthfully to confess one operator, Christ the Lord, in both natures; and instead of two operations, the term of double operation having been removed, rather to preach with us the two natures themselves, that is, of divinity and of assumed flesh, in the one person of the only-begotten of God the Father, operating their proper things without confusion, without division, and without conversion.” Therefore, since Honorius expressly says, “it is not fitting for us to preach by defining one or two operations,” by this very fact he most openly testifies that he is issuing no dogmatic definition. For he who says, “it is not fitting that the matter be defined by me,” equivalently says, “I do not wish to define it, and I do not define it.” 3) Certainly, provided that one willing and operating in two natures is believed, whether two wills or operations are also spoken of, according to Honorius, these are useless minutiae, these subtleties of words to be left to grammarians. But this certainly does not pertain to establishing or defining something concerning faith, but rather to suspending definition. 4) Hence in the letter of Pope St. Agatho to Emperor Constantine, according to Mansi, volume 11, column 234, it is read: “By the assistance of his [St. Peter’s] protection, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned aside from the way of truth in any part of error; whose authority, as that of the prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church of Christ and the universal synods have always embraced and followed in all things.” How could Agatho have affirmed these things, if a little before Honorius had issued an erroneous definition?
1093. III. But you will say: if these things are true, how could Honorius have been condemned by Synod VI? It must altogether be said that Honorius was condemned not because he taught or defined heresy, but because, as supreme Pastor, deceived by Sergius, by omitting a definition he favored heresy. This is clear: 1) from the confirmatory letter of Synod VI, in which Leo II, successor of Agatho, openly calls the others condemned by the council inventors of a new error; but concerning Honorius he speaks thus: “And also Honorius, who did not attempt to illuminate this Apostolic See by the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted the immaculate one to be stained by profane tradition.” 2) From the letter of the same Leo II to the prelates of Spain. For in it, after enumerating the others condemned by the synod, he adds these words: “Together with Honorius, who did not, as befitted apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical dogma as it was beginning, but by neglect fostered it.” 3) The same thing is confirmed from the letter of the same Leo II to Erwig, king of Spain, in which, after he has reviewed the others condemned by the synod, he adds: “And together with them Honorius the Roman, who permitted the immaculate rule of apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors, to be stained.” 4) Nor is it an obstacle that in the Acts of Synod VI Honorius is more than once called a heretic. For all know that not only those who professed and taught heresy are called heretics, but also those who favored them. But in the acts of the Council, since there is no place in which it is explicitly said that Honorius taught heresy, he is distinguished more than once by express words, as we have seen, from those who taught it. Therefore we concede that Honorius was condemned by the synod as a heretic, but in the sense that he stood forth as a supporter of heretics, and indeed negatively; not however insofar as he himself taught heresy. 5) Nor again do these words of the Synod concerning Honorius stand in the way: “In all things he followed his [Sergius’s] mind and confirmed impious dogmas.” For Honorius followed the mind of Sergius in all things which Sergius himself was asking in his letter; but not in all things which that heretic intended and thought. Sergius asked that Honorius write back that the preaching either of one or of a double operation should be omitted, and that he bring Sophronius and others to the same. And in all these things indeed Honorius followed the mind of Sergius. But that he followed him with regard to the heresy of Monothelitism, the synod does not say, and it is altogether false. Concerning the word “confirmed,” moreover, there is no difficulty; for heresy can be said to be confirmed by one who favors it and is the cause, at least negatively, why it is strengthened and propagated more widely. Whoever desires more concerning the case of Honorius, compare La Civilta Cattolica, February 19 and March 5, 1870; and Bouix, On the Roman Pontiff, part 2, section 5, where he will find gathered together all the documents which refer to that case.
1094. While the Vatican Council was being conducted, some repeatedly said that the whole doctrine concerning the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff had been derived from the Isidorian collection of canons; which, already concerning the veneration of the Primacy, Febronius and Launoy, from whom they had learned it, had affirmed. But I do not know whether in this assertion they exhibited a specimen of bad faith more than of ignorance. For from what has been disputed before, it is clear that the doctrine concerning the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff flows down from the very words of Christ and from all the sources of Tradition. Therefore it would be beside the matter to institute here a lengthy inquiry about that collection. But since very many things are usually babbled about this matter, it will not be beside the matter to explain something about it more distinctly; and for doing this, it will be enough to transcribe here a few, but clear, words of Cardinal Tarquini, Institutions of Public Ecclesiastical Law, page 105 and following.
1095. Therefore concerning a collection of this kind these things must be observed. 1) “That a collection of this kind is said, in this sense and especially for these reasons, to be filled with spurious canons: a) Because it attributes to Roman Pontiffs belonging to the first three centuries those canons which were written in later centuries, especially the fourth and fifth, or were excerpted from the sentences of the holy Fathers of that age, as the Calvinist man Blondel, and most bitter enemy of Isidore, taught; he also brought into the open those passages of the Fathers from which they seem to have been copied. b) Because in certain genuine and sincere canons, the writing of the manuscripts perhaps corrupted by antiquity, Isidore himself restored the integrity of the sentence by himself; or perhaps even, imprudently, inserted into the text certain annotations made by an ancient hand; nevertheless in such a way that interpolations of this kind in no way disagree with the doctrine of the other canons. c) Because in certain canons, always of equal doctrine and not differing from the others, error in the chronological notes is found. d) Finally, because, although the authors are said to be diverse, nevertheless the style seems to be uniform in all.” 2) “The aforesaid causes, as each one easily sees, are partly futile and of lighter moment, and partly rather overthrow the Febronian assertion. Namely: a) The Febronian assertion is overthrown because the Isidorian canons are said to have been copied from sentences of the Fathers of the fourth and fifth century. For this proves that that doctrine concerning the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, which Febronius attributes to the Isidorian collection, that is, to the ninth century, had already been handed down and approved in the Church in the fourth and fifth century. b) From the arguments which are drawn from interpolations and arbitrary restorations, it may rightly be deduced that those interpolated and added parts are adulterine; nevertheless it is perversely deduced that the doctrine of Primacy was born from them, since the doctrine contained there in no way disagrees with the doctrine of the other canons. c) The arguments which are drawn from uniformity of style and from chronological notes wrongly designated are exaggerated beyond sound criticism, since every learned man knows well that errors in chronological notes are found more than once even in genuine monuments. But as to uniformity of style, although there are said to be diverse writers of the canons, it must be observed: 1. That an argument drawn from style is of itself unreliable and uncertain; 2. That most of the ancient canons were written in Greek, and therefore, from the hand of the translator who turned them into the Latin language, could easily have put on uniformity. Moreover it is enough that a doctrine by no means contrary to the genuine canons is handed down there, so that Febronius’s calumny concerning the origin of Primacy as to be traced back to them immediately vanishes.”
1096. These are the things which this year, not without the special help of God, we have been able to hand down concerning true Religion and the Church. Would that they may avail to bring those who are outside to the one sheepfold, and to confirm those who are within in its true spirit and love! “Let us believe, brothers,” said St. Augustine, On John, tractate 32, “that as much as each one loves the Church, so much he has the Holy Spirit.” Imprimatur. Prato, 20 December 1904. Canon Archdeacon Joachim Gori, Vicar General.