The page references are those of the printed pages of the 1905 edition; each is a link to the corresponding paragraph of the translation.
Proemium: Page III.
Disputation I
On Religion Generally
Article First - The Genuine Notion of Religion Is Handed Down.
The etymon of religion: from rereading, Tullius; from re-choosing, St. Augustine; more correctly from binding again, Lactantius. Religion as to the thing, in the strict sense, says a bond joining man to God: declaration. Religion has two kinds of acts: immediate, as adoration; mediate, as works of mercy. Religion considered theoretically comprises the sum of truths; practically, the sum of duties. It is considered subjectively, in man himself, or objectively, in itself. It is defined: “The virtue by which due honor and worship are rendered to the true God.” St. Thomas. To this return the definitions handed down by St. Augustine, Taparelli, etc. Religion is divided into true and false; into natural and supernatural; into primeval, Jewish, and Christian: what each is. False opinions: Pseudomystics place religion in the bare practice of external works; Sentimentalists, in a certain spiritual feeling; materialists, in a religious instinct; Pantheists, in the feeling of the infinite, etc. These are briefly refuted. Pages 1-7.
Article Second - Whether It Is Necessary to Admit Some Religion.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Declared.
The questions usually treated, namely whether some religion exists; whether it is, as it were, physically necessary; whether it is useful to man; remain solved from the arguments by which the obligation of professing some religion is established. Here properly the question is not about revealed religion, but about some religion in general. The thesis fights against Atheists,
Pantheists, Materialists, and Fatalists; more directly it attacks absolute indifferentists. The opinion of the Eudaemonists and of Machiavelli is overthrown by the same arguments. Pages 8-10.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition I. 1. From principles known by the natural light it is evidently shown that there is in man a moral necessity of professing religion; 2. nor without religion can moral obligation exist or be conceived. Therefore those depart from the truth who establish the autonomy of human reason in such a way that they teach it to be the sole arbiter of good and evil, and a law to itself. Pages 10-17.
Part 1: pages 10-14; Part 2: pages 14-17.
Article Third - Whether Religion Is Necessary to Society.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
Who teach that society can stand without religion and be safely governed. Bayle. R. Owen. The origin of the error in the philosophical atheism of the last century. What evils flow from neglect of religion. Pius IX, encyclical Quanta cura. Pages 17-18.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition II. Religion, which is the only foundation of right and justice, is so necessary to civil society that this society cannot stand safe without it. Therefore those who try to introduce political atheism substitute material force for true justice and legitimate right; and under the appearance of progress, they truly attempt the ruin of civil society. Pages 19-23.
Scholion. Something is touched upon concerning Worship. Worship is the exercise of Religion. It comprises all the acts of this virtue. The worship of God is of an altogether different and superior order from the cult of the Saints and of the Blessed Virgin Mary; hence it is properly called Latria. It comprises three kinds of acts: of the mind, of the heart, and of the body. Hence the division into internal and external worship, which is private or public. The necessity of worship, internal, external, and public, is briefly demonstrated. The quibbles of Tomasius and Kant are answered. Pages 23-28.
Article Fourth - Whether It Is Indifferent to Profess Any Religion Whatever.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
Indifferentism is twofold: absolute, already exploded; and relative, to be weighed here. But this is particular or universal. Universal indifferentism contends that all religions are equally good. Particular indifferentism indeed teaches that there is one true religion, but judges that there is no essential difference between this
religion and its sects. Pius IX denounces both, in the encyclical Qui pluribus and in the Syllabus. In the thesis the question is chiefly about universal relative indifferentism. The same error under the form of Religious tolerance, which is twofold, dogmatic and civil; or under the form of liberty of conscience, liberty of cults, etc. The notion of liberty is briefly declared. What Liberals contend; what the Church says about Liberalism. Can political tolerance be admitted? Absolutely, never; hypothetically, or in certain circumstances, it can be; but this must be left to the judgment of the Roman Pontiff. Declaration of the matter from Becanus, Tarquini, and St. Thomas. Pages 29-35.
Section II. Dogmatic Tolerance Is Rejected.
Proposition III. There is one true religion, which all men are bound to embrace and profess; and therefore the system concerning dogmatic tolerance is impious and absurd, by which to each person a right is attributed of freely thinking and speaking about religion, and of offering to God that worship which, according to the variety of regions and peoples, or according to each one’s pleasure, he judges better. Pages 36-41.
Section III. The True Doctrine Concerning Civil Tolerance Is Established.
Proposition IV. 1. Unity in the true religion of itself conduces very greatly to the true good of civil society; 2. and the supreme authority has the right and office of preserving and promoting it; 3. nevertheless, if at times graver evils are feared from that unity, plurality of cults can be tolerated to avoid them. Therefore civil or political tolerance can be admitted not absolutely, but only hypothetically. Pages 42-47.
Part 1: pages 42-45; Part 2: pages 46-47.
Section IV. The Difficulties Are Satisfied.
They say that political tolerance must be admitted absolutely: 1. because civil authority has no right to promote or preserve the unity of religion, since it lacks infallibility; 2. civil society can do nothing in those things which regard religion, for it has a diverse end and, from the end, diverse rights; 3. otherwise the same right would belong to heterodox persons with regard to false religion; 4. nor should any danger be feared, since truth is stronger than error; 5. because we enjoy liberty; peace would be disturbed; minds would be alienated from the Church. To all these things answer is made. Pages 47-54.
Article Fifth - Whether Divine Revelation Is Possible.
Section I. Certain Things Concerning the Nature of Revelation Are Established Beforehand.
Religion is necessary from what has been said. One can be true.
Which one? Whether revealed? Method of treatment. The constitution Dei Filius. Revelation in the most universal sense means the manifestation of truth. It is human if it is made by man; divine if by God. The question concerns this latter. This is either natural or supernatural, which is properly called Revelation. It is “the manifestation of truths made by God through a medium placed beyond the powers of nature.” Considered with respect to the revealing subject, it is mediate or immediate; considered with respect to the medium, it is sensory, imaginary, or intellectual. It can be considered subjectively and objectively. The object of Revelation is twofold. It also comprises mysteries, namely truths which absolutely and of themselves exceed the grasp of reason: declaration. The adversaries in this matter are Naturalists and Rationalists. The former simply deny revelation; the latter seem to admit it, but only in name. Both exclude all mysteries. Some attack only the possibility of mediate revelation. Pages 55-62.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition V. Divine revelation, or the manifestation of truth through a medium not owed to nature, whether 1. immediate or 2. mediate, must be said to be possible. 3. Indeed it is evidently shown that not only truths to which natural reason can attain, but also mysteries, or truths which absolutely and of themselves exceed the grasp of reason, can be contained within the scope of supernatural revelation. Pages 62-70.
Part 1: pages 62-65; Part 2: pages 65-66; Part 3: pages 66-70.
At the end of the thesis certain objections are met.
Article Sixth - Whether Divine Supernatural Revelation Is Necessary.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
Documents of the Church. The object of Revelation is twofold: truths which of themselves are not impassable to human reason, and others which absolutely surpass human reason. Revelation is absolutely necessary, once elevation is supposed. It is necessary also with regard to truths of the natural order. The question in this thesis concerns those truths of the natural order which pertain to religion, insofar as they must be known by all men, by the whole human race. We prescind from the supernatural mode of knowing them, which mode would absolutely require revelation. The question turns on the very substance of cognition; and indeed, in the present order, revelation of these truths is necessary. Against the Rationalists. Moreover this necessity is not physical and absolute, against the Traditionalists, but moral, on account of the moral impotence in which the human race finds itself for knowing them: what this is; in what it differs from physical impotence. Pages 71-77.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition VI. So far is it from being the case that all truths of religion derive from the native force of human reason, that, even if the question concerns truths pertaining to natural religion, reason is morally impotent for attaining them. For in the present condition of the human race, they cannot be known by all, readily, with firm certainty, and with no admixture of error,
without revelation. Pages 77-86.
Article Seventh - Whether All Cognition of Religious Truth Can Be Attributed to the Continual Progress of Reason, with Revelation Excluded.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
Documents of the Church: the encyclical Qui pluribus; the Syllabus; the constitution Dei Filius. A twofold error: 1. of those subjecting Revelation to reason, rejected in the treatise On the Virtues; 2. of the Progressists. What progress is. Its nature is briefly declared: it is a change for the better. St. Thomas, St. Augustine. Progress of reason must be admitted, not only negative, namely by repudiating errors which were mixed with truths previously known, but also positive, which is a fuller attainment of truth; but not necessarily continuous, especially in Religion. Rationalists and Naturalists teach otherwise. Their system is set forth. They consider all religions, even those altogether opposed, as relatively true and legitimate in their own age. For this reason they suppose the theory of relative and mutable truth, which theory the Eclectics of France and the Pantheists expressly assert. Pages 86-92.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition VII. 1. With divine revelation rejected, the human race cannot be recalled from ignorance of truths concerning the natural law and religion by the help of philosophy or philosophers. Nor will humanitarian progress, invented by the Rationalists, help for this: 2. if it is asserted as continuous, it contradicts history and experience; 3. if it is also transferred to religion, insofar as all religions are said to be successively more perfect diverse forms of one primitive religion, it is impious and absurd; 4. finally, if it is asserted under this name, that every truth is relative and mutable, it is not only absurd and impious, but also overturns all certainty of human cognition. Pages 92-102.
Part 1: pages 92-95; Part 2: pages 95-98; Part 3: pages 98-99; Part 4: pages 99-102.
Article Eighth - The Character and Necessity of the Notes of Revelation Are Sketched.
The means of knowing revelation are called notes, criteria, motives of credibility. The necessity of knowing, and indeed with certainty, the fact of revelation is easily understood by all. Proof was expressly given in the treatise On the Virtues; here it is only suggested. From this it is inferred that there can be some means of certainly knowing revelation; indeed that they exist, once the hypothesis of revelation is made. What are they? Rationalists who admit revelation in name only judge that the only means is “the conformity of doctrine with the principles of reason”; but wrongly, for this would show that the doctrine is true, but in no way that it is revealed. Once this criterion is received, any doctrine containing mysteries would have to be excluded. Several Protestants assert that the criterion of revelation is revelation itself, insofar as either through the testimony of the spirit or through a certain instinct, revelation becomes immediately known to each person. This error was rejected in the treatise On the Virtues. The true doctrine concerning the criteria of revelation: 1. some are negative; the chief of these is the conformity of the doctrine which is exhibited as revealed with the principles of reason, with morals, and with the other heads of revealed doctrine. This criterion is not of itself necessarily to be applied and can rarely be applied with fruit. 2. Others are positive, of which some are intrinsic: the perfection, sublimity, and beauty of the doctrine; some, and the principal ones, are extrinsic: miracles and prophecies. The question is chiefly about the last. Pages 103-109.
Article Ninth - Whether Miracles Are Possible.
Section I. The Genuine Concept of Miracle Is Declared.
The importance of the question. The possibility of miracle defined in the Vatican Council. Miracle from wondering. In order that wonder be moved, it is required that the cause be hidden, both in itself and with respect to us, and that there be a contrary disposition in the thing. Declaration of these matters. 1. The first condition for a miracle is that it be beyond the order of nature. By defect of this, creation and the justification of the impious, although they are done by God alone, are not miracles. The order of nature is threefold: particular, universal, and most universal, according as either one being only, or all created things together, or the divine ordering itself is considered. Some effect is not therefore a miracle because it is beyond a particular order of nature; it must be beyond the universal order, although it is not beyond the most universal, since nothing happens outside the divine ordering. It surpasses every created nature. What nature is; what the order and course of nature are. Possible modes of working miracles. They are not simply against nature, but only in a certain respect, on account of obediential potency. They are against the physical order, not the moral.
- The second condition: a hidden cause. God - or also an Angel? Here the question concerns the principal cause efficiently acting by its own natural power. The truth of the work must be distinguished from the truth of the miracle. As to the truth of the work, angels can do certain things through local motion, or by applying active things to passive things; yet dependently on God. Not as to the truth of miracle. Reason. Divisions of miracles from St. Thomas. Pages 109-122.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition VIII. Having regard both to the order existing in things and to the divine attributes, miracles, or “events exceeding the faculty and customary order of all created nature,” must be said to involve no repugnance. Indeed the perfection of divine power, even as it becomes known by natural light, altogether vindicates to itself the power of performing them. Pages 122-128.
Article Tenth - Whether Miracles Have the Force of Proving That in Confirmation of Which They Are Done.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
The force of proving in itself is clear from what has been said; with respect to us it is weighed. It is necessary that we be certain about the objective truth of miracles, which is threefold: historical, philosophical, and relative; what each is; they can be known with certainty. The adversaries deny the first, because human testimony begets probability only and because witnesses are fallible: Hume. They deny the second, because the powers of nature are unknown, and because diabolical power is potent; consequently, they say, it is not lawful for man to know who is the author of those works. What we contend: it is enough to show that it can be certain for us that God alone is the author of certain effects. They deny the third, because the grace of miracles is a grace gratuitously given, and a man could use that power to strengthen falsity; nor, they say, would God in that case concur toward a lie. Pages 129-134.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition IX. If miracles are employed in confirmation of divine revelation, there is in them an unconquered force for proving it, 1. not only in itself, but also with respect to us; for although it may not be certain for us concerning all and singular miracles, nevertheless it can be certain concerning many: 2. both that they truly existed as they are narrated; 3. that they truly are miracles; 4. and finally that the same were performed to confirm revealed doctrine. Pages 134-146.
Part 1: pages 134-136; Part 2: pages 136-139; Part 3: pages 139-144; Part 4: pages 145-146.
Article Eleventh - Whether Prophecy Is Possible, and What Its Force of Proving Is.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
The nominal definition of prophecy. In the broadest sense a prophet is an interpreter, composer of sacred hymns, doctor, indeed sometimes a singer. In the proper and less strict sense, prophecy is prediction of a hidden thing, past, present, or future. In the strictest sense it is “sure foreknowledge and prediction of a freely future event.” To this returns the definition of Cassiodorus, which is declared. Questions to be treated: 1. the possibility of prophecy, which comprises two things:
a) whether God can foreknow those things which are freely future; b) whether he can manifest the same to others. This second is certain from the things said concerning the possibility of revelation. The first is attacked chiefly by a twofold reason: either because those future things do not have objective truth, Voltaire; or because cognition of future acts would destroy liberty. An ancient objection solved by the Scholastics and renewed by the Rationalists: Kant, Wegscheider. 2. The force of proving of prophecy, or its knowability. Prophecy is compared with miracle: in what they agree, in what they differ. What must be proved. Pages 146-154.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition X. 1. Right reason evidently shows that God knows future free things and can communicate that knowledge to others; therefore prophecy, which is the certain prediction of a freely future event, must be said to be possible. 2. But since certain cognition of future free things belongs to God alone, prophecy brought forward in confirmation of revealed doctrine supplies an inescapable argument of its divine origin. Pages 154-164.
Part 1: pages 154-159; Part 2: pages 159-164.
Disputation II
On Christian Revelation
Revealed religion, from what has been said, is possible, fitting, and necessary; it can be known with certainty through miracles and prophecies. We take a step toward investigating its existence. The investigation is restricted to Christian revelation. Reason. Pages 165-166.
Article First - Whether the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles Are Authentic Books.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
Miracles and prophecies are chiefly gathered from the books which among us have the authority of Sacred Scripture. These are to be considered here as a historical monument. In the thesis the question concerns the historical authenticity of the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, also their genuineness and integrity. An authentic book is not the same as a genuine one. The integrity of a book means immunity from corruption, which can occur in three ways: by interpolation, mutilation, and deformation of sense. When these three are not present, integrity is substantial. If immunity from even accidental corruptions is added to this, integrity is called absolute. In this thesis it will be enough to prove the substantial integrity of these books. Certain things are noted concerning the four Evangelists. Pages 166-171.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XI. That the four Gospels of Jesus Christ are 1. genuine,
- substantially integral, and 3. truthful, is demonstrated by such force of arguments that no one can deny or even call into doubt their historical authenticity, unless he rejects all historical faith and obstinately contradicts the evident principles of reason. Pages 171-187.
Part 1: pages 171-178; Part 2: pages 178-183; Part 3: pages 183-187.
Scholion. It rejects certain things which are usually brought against the genuineness, integrity, and truthfulness of the Gospels. Pages 187-190.
Article Second - Whether the Truth of Christian Revelation Is Proved by Miracles.
Proposition XII. The miracles issued in confirmation of Christian revelation are so many and so splendid that any mind, unless it is willingly blind, is most easily convinced that an altogether divine origin must be ascribed to the religion of Christ. Pages 190-204.
Scholion. It treats the mythical explanation of Strauss and Renan. Pages 204-205.
Article Third - Whether the Truth of the Christian Religion Is Demonstrated by the Resurrection of Christ.
Proposition XII. 1. Just as it is certain that Christ predicted more than once that he would rise again, so 2. it can in no way be doubted that the matter happened as it had been predicted by him. 3. But since this resurrection from the dead is a divine work and the principal foundation of our faith, the same, whether considered as a prophecy or as a miracle, stands as an unconquered argument of the truth of the Christian religion. Pages 206-218.
Part 1: pages 206-208; Part 2: pages 208-215; Part 3: pages 215-218.
Scholion. Certain difficulties are satisfied. Pages 218-222.
Article Fourth - Whether the Divine Origin of the Christian Religion Is Rightly Proved from Its Propagation and Conservation.
Section I. Certain Things Are Noted Beforehand.
The propagation and conservation of Christianity has a twofold force of proving: 1. as a miracle, not in the physical order, but in the moral order, a work surpassing all human industry and power, without however excluding human means; 2. as a prophecy. In what way. The Religion of Christ, although it can be distinguished mentally, nevertheless cannot be separated from the Church of Christ; for he instituted Religion in such a way that
there would be a Church. What follows from this. Pages 223-225.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XIV. The most rapid and universal propagation of the Christian religion, and its wonderful perpetual conservation, 1. were clearly predicted by Christ more than once; 2. are a fact placed before the eyes of all; 3. and cannot be explained by any human industry or created power, but require the special protection of God. Therefore, both as prophecy and as miracle, they render constant and infallible testimony to the divine origin of the same religion. Pages 225-246.
Part 1: pages 225-227; Part 2: pages 227-233; Part 3: pages 233-246.
Scholion. What Wegscheider and Gibbon oppose to the given arguments. Pages 246-249.
Article Fifth - Whether Christian Revelation Is Contained Only in Written Books, or Also in Unwritten Traditions.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
Limits of the question. It is asked whether, besides the written word of God, oral traditions must be admitted. 1. Concept of Tradition. In the broadest sense, tradition imports any doctrine or institution transmitted to posterity in whatever way. This tradition can be considered objectively, actively, or comprehensively. In a less broad sense, tradition is restricted to that which is transmitted without writing. In the strict and theological sense, it comprises only that which regards faith and morals, transmitted to us by living voice. Concerning this we here treat. 2. Divisions of Tradition: a) by reason of object, tradition is divided into dogmatic and moral; b) by reason of subject, into universal and particular; c) by reason of duration, into perpetual and temporary; d) by reason of obligation, into necessary and free; e) by reason of author, into divine, apostolic, and ecclesiastical. Apostolic tradition is subdivided into simply apostolic and apostolic-divine. What each is. The same force of proving is not in these. Hence Catholics ask for the criterion by which simply apostolic tradition may be distinguished from divine tradition. For this, the matter itself of tradition must be inspected, and by whom and how some doctrine or institution is proposed. The supreme rule is the judgment of the Church. 3. What the innovators contend concerning traditions and their force of proving. What the Catholic Church teaches. The Council of Trent. Pages 249-256.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XV. Christian revelation is contained not only in written books, 1. but also in unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or handed down as it were from hand to hand by the Apostles themselves at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have come down even to us. 2. Indeed, so great is the breadth of Christian tradition that it both exhibits dogmas contained in the Scriptures
and stands as the sole source of several others. Therefore Tradition, considered in the order of comprehension, extends more broadly than Scripture. Pages 256-268.
Part 1: pages 256-263; Part 2: pages 264-268.
Section III. The Principal Objections Are Satisfied.
Some objections are from certain testimonies of Sacred Scripture. These testimonies can be reduced to three classes, insofar as they either teach that nothing is to be added to the word of God, or expressly teach that the Scriptures are sufficient, or openly condemn traditions. The true sense of these testimonies is indicated, and it is shown that they do nothing against the thesis. Other objections are from sayings of the Fathers; but the Fathers unanimously and clearly, both theoretically and practically, admit divine traditions. Certain rules are established for rightly understanding sayings of the Fathers which, as to appearance, are repugnant. Pages 269-276.
Article Sixth - Whether the Writings of the Holy Fathers Are Means of Preserving and Knowing Divine Traditions.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
The monuments in which traditions are found are of manifold kinds. Here we treat only of the Holy Fathers, insofar as they are doctors and witnesses of tradition. What a Father of the Church is. Fathers of the Church are called men who excel in doctrine, flourish in sanctity, are vigorous by antiquity, and enjoy the express or tacit designation of the Church. To have this designation, the Church requires the three qualities named. When one or another of these is lacking, while the rest remain, Doctors or Ecclesiastical Writers are had. In these, eminence of sanctity is lacking; in doctors, antiquity is lacking. The title of doctor requires more ample doctrine than the name of Father. In the writings of the Fathers there is a twofold kind of doctrine, profane and sacred. With regard to the former, their authority is worth as much as the reasons which they bring forward. The question concerns sacred doctrine. Concerning this it is asked what the authority of the Fathers is. A twofold excess: the Innovators make little of the authority of the Fathers; but to the Jansenists the authority even of one Father seemed to be preferred to the authority of the Church. True doctrine. Pages 276-286.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XVI. 1. The morally unanimous consensus of the Fathers in matters of faith and morals exhibits an irrefragable testimony of divine tradition. Nor is it necessary that that consensus always be demonstrated directly and immediately; rather it is excellently inferred: 2. from the established suffrage of all Western Fathers; 3. from the testimony of several men distinguished in doctrine and reputation, who flourished in diverse ages, while the rest do not protest; 4. indeed even from the testimony of a few,
if it is brought forward in such circumstances that it is evident that it reports the common faith of the Church. Pages 286-295.
Part 1: pages 286-290; Part 2: pages 290-292; Part 3: pages 292-293; Part 4: pages 294-295.
Article Seventh - Whether the Consensus of Theologians and the Sense of the Faithful Exhibit a Certain Testimony of Divine Tradition.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
The institution of the Schools was had in the twelfth century. Its office is to propose and teach, by a new and more exact method, the doctrine received from the Fathers. The Scholastics accomplished this. The defects of certain men ought not to be transferred to the School itself. The functions of Scholastic Theology from Cano. How great its authority is. The question is not about merely human doctrine, but about sacred doctrine; nor is the question what one or another thinks while the rest contradict. The question concerns the authority of Theologians when by unanimous consensus they teach something as a certain sentence, either of faith or theologically certain. With regard to the common sense and consensus of the faithful, two things are noted: that it is manifested both by explicit theoretical sentences and implicitly by usages, rites, prayers, etc. With regard to certain heads of doctrine, the sentence only of the learned and wise is to be sought; the common people profess these implicitly, insofar as in these matters they profess to believe and think what the Church believes and thinks. Pages 296-299.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XVII. 1. The concordant doctrine of Theologians concerning a matter pertaining to faith or morals is a legitimate and certain criterion of divine tradition. 2. And the same thing must be attributed to the Catholic sense and consensus of the whole Christian people, whether it is declared by explicit profession or is contained implicitly in facts and practice. Pages 300-305.
Part 1: pages 300-303; Part 2: pages 303-305.
Scholion. What is to be thought about certain opinions which are said once to have been commonly received and afterward either were found false, or at least were called back into doubt. It is proved that those opinions were never truly common. Pages 305-308.
Article Eighth - What the Use of Scripture and Tradition Is in Theology.
What properly comes under the name of supernatural theology. What the functions of theology are. Theology has sources from which it draws its arguments; these are called theological places. These are properly contained in divine revelation. Nevertheless the help of human sciences is not rejected. An argument rightly taken even from one place of Scripture is irrefragable. The place must be from canonical Scriptures,
from the authentic edition. The sense must be retained which either the Church or the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers has declared. The sense of Scripture is one thing literal, another spiritual. The literal sense is either proper or figurative. The spiritual or mystical sense is one thing allegorical, another tropological, another anagogical; to these can be added the accommodative sense. From the literal sense an argument can always be taken as certain; from the mystical sometimes; from the accommodative never. The words of Scripture must be taken in the proper sense unless something absurd would follow from it. Rules concerning the use of tradition are handed down. Tradition has a twofold authority, human and divine; hence there is diverse force for proving. The monuments of tradition are chiefly definitions of the Church, then writings of the Fathers. Certain things are added concerning the authority of Theologians and concerning the common sense of the faithful. Pages 308-316.
Series of Roman Pontiffs. Pages 317-323.
Ecumenical Councils. Page 324.
List of Ecclesiastical Writers. Pages 325-329.
Disputation III
On the Institution and Constitution of the Church
We have thus far considered the Christian religion as it were in the abstract. Now the question is set in the concrete: what is the Christian religion? Importance of the question. Division and method of treatment. Pages 331-332.
Article First - Preliminary Notions Are Handed Down.
By force of the name, Church is an assembly of those called; it is transferred to mean the place in which assemblies are held. In the broadest sense it comprises all the faithful: wayfarers, those being purified, those comprehending, and even Angels. In a less broad sense it means all wayfarers from the beginning to the end of the world. According to this signification a threefold state of the Church can be distinguished: of the law of nature, of the written law, and of the law of grace. In the first state it had no determined form; in the second, the form of the Church was determined for a time with regard to the Hebrew people; in the third, the Church received a new and perfect form. In the strict sense, the Church comprises wayfarers in the New Testament; we retain this sense. The teaching Church is the assembly of Pastors. The learning Church, as distinguished from those placed over it, is the faithful people. The assembly coalescing from both is called simply the Church. Taken thus, one Church is particular, another universal. The latter is treated here. Why the true
real definition of the Catholic Church is here handed down. Certain things are noted concerning definitions handed down by doctors before and after the Council of Trent. The true definition is declared, but not yet asserted or defended. Chiefly the definitions of heretics are indicated. Pages 332-339.
Article Second - General Concept Concerning the Constitution of the Church.
In the Church a twofold element is contained: something of itself invisible, but also something visible. The reason of each. The former is customarily called the soul, the latter the body of the Church. Its foundation in the Scriptures. In the Church there is something like a continuation of the Incarnation; in what sense. This is confirmed from the Scriptures and Fathers. What constitutes the soul, what the body of the Church, is developed more fully. From what has been said it is gathered: a) that the Church of the promises is the visible Church; reason. b) That the Church is an essentially supernatural society. c) That it is deservedly called the dwelling-place of God, the spouse of the Holy Spirit; indeed that the Holy Spirit is the heart of the Church. d) That there is a perpetual union between Christ, the head of the Church, and the Church, the body of Christ. e) That graces gratuitously given are not given to all members of the Church, and therefore that the Church itself is an unequal society. f) That the gifts themselves which are ordered to all are not possessed by all in the same measure, nor always, nor with the same perfection, and therefore that not all are members of the Church in the same manner. Pages 340-350.
Article Third - Whether Christ Is the Immediate Author of the Church and Gave It the Form of a True Society.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
A twofold truth to be defended here. The mythical Rationalists deny that the Church was instituted by Christ; they teach that it began in the second century. In what way. From diverse principles the Socinians arrived at the same conclusion. Three things must be vindicated. 1. Christ himself immediately instituted the Church. What conditions are required that Christ may be said to be and may be the founder of the Church, and indeed immediate founder. The Church was conceived before the death of Christ, born in the death of Christ, promulgated on the day of Pentecost. 2. Christ instituted the Church in the form of a true society. Arguments to be brought forward. The definition of society is handed down and declared. 3. This society is distinct from the synagogue. The Church of Christ in some way existed from the very beginning of the world; but as to generic reason it began from Adam, not from Abel, as some would wish. Their reasons are briefly solved. The primitive Church is the more express the nearer the coming of Christ is. Nevertheless the Church founded by Christ differs from the synagogue in state and form, namely as to faith, efficacy of sanctifying, government, privileges, and prerogatives. Pages 350-358.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XVIII. Although in some true sense the Christian Church existed from the beginning of the world, nevertheless 1. having regard to its present state and form, it must be said to have had Christ as its immediate Author. 2. But since Christ, who is God, founded and instituted it in the form of a true society, it openly follows that the Church, considered in its immediate origin, is a divine society. Pages 358-364.
Part 1: pages 358-360; Part 2: pages 360-364.
Scholion. The principal objections are satisfied. Pages 364-367.
Article Fourth - Whether from Christ’s Institution the Church Is Essentially Visible.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
The Innovators have attacked and do attack the visibility of the Church in diverse ways, in order to elude the mark of novelty in their sects. These can be reduced to several classes: some deny it altogether; others say that the Church is visible from divine ordination, but not essentially and indefectibly; others fabricate a double Church, visible and invisible, and call only this latter the Church of the promises; others profess visibility in words but deny it in fact. True doctrine: the Church is visible not only materially, which is evident, but also formally, as the true Church of Christ. In it can be distinguished soul, body, and properties. As to the body, it is visible through itself; as to the soul, through another; as to the properties, partly through themselves and partly through another. Declaration. Moreover the Church is essentially visible, and indeed as a truly divine fact. Nevertheless we believe that the Church exists; but the motive on account of which it is believed is different from that by which the Church is seen. How some Theologians solved this question. Pages 367-374.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XIX. The Christian Church is so formally visible, or visible as the true Church, as the Church which they call of the divine promises, that, from Christ’s institution, visibility pertains to its very essence. Therefore the Church, considered in its nature, must be called not merely a divine or human society, but indivisibly a divine-human society. Pages 374-380.
Scholion. Difficulties are satisfied. Pages 380-383.
Article Fifth - What End Christ Set Before Himself in the Institution of the Church.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Declared.
The essence of a society must be determined from its end. The end of the Church is to make perpetual Christ’s mission on earth. Christ’s mission: the glory of God to be procured through the salvation of men. This is proved from the Scriptures. Hence the Church is a spiritual and supernatural society; nevertheless this does not prevent it from having a right to means that are also material, since it is composed of men. It is a religious Society; indeed it is the Christian religion itself. Hence, as there is no Church of Christ not imbued with Christianity, so there is no true Christianity outside the Church of Christ. Pages 384-387.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XX. The end which Christ set before himself in instituting the Church was this: that in the Church and through the Church he might make perpetual his visible mission on earth; and therefore that through it, by procuring the eternal salvation of men, he might promote the glory of God. Therefore the Church, considered especially in its end, is a religious, spiritual, and supernatural society; namely it is the Christian religion itself in the concrete, plainly diverse from every other society. Pages 387-391.
Article Sixth - Whether the Church of Christ Is a Legal Society and Ethically Necessary.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
A twofold question. 1. Whether the Church is a legal society. A legal society is called one which exists according to law. Law is threefold: natural, positive-divine, and positive-human. No Christian denies that the Church was instituted by positive-divine right; therefore it is legal in relation to divine right. Whether it also has force from natural right. Absolute natural right must be distinguished from hypothetical natural right. The Church is of positive institution and beyond every exigency of natural right; therefore from absolute right there is no positive determination and prescription, at least none that touches ecclesiastical society. One must speak otherwise if hypothetical natural right is considered. Here legality properly concerns positive-human right. The question is whether the Church has the right of establishing and propagating itself in some kingdom without the rights of government being violated. 2. Whether the Church is ethically necessary. Necessity, moreover, is twofold: of means and of precept; what each is. To belong to the soul of the Church is necessary by necessity of means; to belong in fact to the body is necessary by necessity of precept. Hence inability and invincible ignorance excuse from entering it. Hence it is clear how that saying must be understood: “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” Pages 391-397.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XXI. 1. Just as the Church, having regard either to the constitution of the Jewish people or to the state of Gentile societies, was legitimately instituted, so 2. it now has the right of propagating itself among all nations; 3. indeed, from Christ’s institution, the necessity of adhering to it so lies upon all that for those knowingly dwelling outside it there is no hope of salvation. Therefore the Church is a society both legal and also ethically necessary. Pages 397-406.
Part 1: pages 397-399; Part 2: pages 399-401; Part 3: pages 401-406.
Article Seventh - Whether from Christ’s Institution the Church Is an Unequal Society.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
An unequal society is one in which both the exercise of rights and the rights themselves are diverse among diverse persons. 1. The true doctrine is established. From the documents of the Church which are brought forward, it is clear: a) that the body of the Church is distinguished into clerics and laymen; b) that in the clerical order there is a true hierarchy of order. The concept is unfolded; c) that both the distinction between clerics and laymen and the hierarchy are of divine right. Hence the democratic form is removed from the Church. Therefore the people have no right of choosing pastors. It is one thing to choose pastors, another to petition; one thing to choose, another to render testimony concerning them. The election of Bishops belongs of itself to the Roman Pontiff; this right can rightly be transferred by him to others. Hierarchy is defined and declared. 2. Errors. a) Marsilius of Padua, in the book Defender of Peace, taught that the supreme power of the Church resides in the assembly of the faithful, from which it was transmitted to secular Princes, and that it is destitute of coercive force. b) The Innovators deny every distinction between clerics and laymen; they teach that the fullness of power is among the people; hence the necessity of popular suffrage in the election of ministers. c) The error of Edmund Richer: the keys were delivered to the whole Church; power is exercised ministerially through one. Van Espen, Febronius, and more or less the Jansenists adopted this system. Pages 407-413.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XXII. 1. From Christ’s institution an essential distinction flourishes between Clerics and Laymen; 2. and in the clerical order a hierarchy properly so called, or sacred principate, was instituted, to which Christ attributed not only the faculty of directing, but the power of ruling. Therefore the Church by divine right is an unequal society, and entirely alien from a democratic form of government. Pages 414-423.
Part 1: pages 414-416; Part 2: pages 416-423.
At the end of the thesis objections are met.
Article Eighth - What Form of Government Christ Instituted in the Church.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
The simple forms of government are three: Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy.
From these there are four mixed forms. From what has been said, the government of the Church is not democratic. It is established among Catholics that a true monarchy was instituted by Christ in the Church. This monarchy, however, is new and singular, because the Supreme Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ, and the other Bishops are truly princes. But the monarchy of the Church, according to many, is altogether simple; the Gallicans say it is tempered by aristocracy; others also by democracy. Bellarmine. The difference between Theologians of the first opinion and Bellarmine is not of the thing, but of the name; this is clear from the way in which each side explains its opinion. Monarchy is defined by Aristotle: “supreme command in one, without partnership of a superior or equal, whether people or another prince.” Hence three things are required: 1. unity of command in the head; 2. universality of subjection in the members; 3. indivision of supreme power residing in one head. Hence diverse opinions are easily composed. Zallinger, Devoti. Pages 424-430.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XXIII. Although the form of government in the Church is new and singular in more than one respect, nevertheless, if monarchical government is reduced to that concept which philosophers commonly handed down, namely that it is “supreme command in one, without partnership of a superior or equal, whether people or another prince,” no one can doubt that in the Church of Christ, from the institution of its Author, a true and simple monarchy flourishes. Pages 430-437.
Article Ninth - Whether from Christ’s Institution the Church Is a Perfect Society.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
Those subject the Church to civil society: 1. who assert that right in sacred matters is the patrimony of the people; 2. the Regalists, who think of the Church as almost a certain college existing within civil Society. Pius IX assigned the source, cause, and consequences of these errors in several allocutions. A perfect society is one which is complete in itself, and therefore has sufficient means for obtaining its end. It does not necessarily have those means really, but virtually, insofar as it can by right demand them from another society. Pages 437-440.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XXIV. The Church founded by Christ, having regard both to the end proposed to it and to the positive will of its divine institutor, must be judged to obtain the form of a perfect society. Therefore, powerful in its own and constant rights, it vindicates for itself that liberty by which, in fulfilling its office, it is subject to no civil power. Pages 440-446.
Objections are satisfied after the proof of the thesis.
Article Tenth - What the Relation of the Church Is to the Remaining Societies.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
A wonderful analogy between errors concerning Christ the Redeemer and errors concerning the Church. Every Society is ecclesiastical or civil.
Of the latter there are three species. 1. Of infidels: what the Church can do with regard to them, and what it cannot. 2. Of heretics: these are subjects of the Church, although they are not members; the Church of itself could punish them; when it ought to use this right is left to the judgment of the Church itself. 3. Of Catholics: what the relation of this society is to the Church. It is not a relation of equality, nor of superiority; this is proved. Therefore it is a relation of inferiority, not indeed directly, but indirectly. What indirect subordination requires: both that civil society do nothing to the harm of the Church, and that it furnish the helps necessary to the Church for its proper end. Declaration. The constitution Unam Sanctam is weighed; it is proved to be dogmatic. In it Boniface VIII expressly teaches the subjection of civil power to the spiritual power of the Church. Therefore that doctrine is not a mere opinion; at least it certainly belongs to the deposit of Catholic doctrine. Pages 446-454.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XXV. If the question concerns the relation between the Church and the civil society of Catholics, this relation 1. consists neither in separation, by which civil society would hold itself indifferently in those things which pertain to religion, 2. nor in such subjection that, in temporal matters and under the aspect of the temporal end, civil society is subject to the Church, 3. but in that subjection by which, in matters even temporal, when the reason or necessity of the spiritual end concurs, civil society ought to yield to the Church. Therefore the Church is deservedly said to be superior to civil society. Pages 455-464.
Part 1: pages 455-458; Part 2: page 458; Part 3: pages 459-464.
Difficulties are answered toward the end of the thesis.
Article Eleventh - Who Are the Members of the Church.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
Among those who are of the Church, not all pertain to it with the same perfection. Here the question is not about living and perfect members, but about those who are members of the body of the Church. A member of the Church is one who has by no means broken the external bonds. These bonds are faith received through baptism, communion of the sacraments, and subjection to legitimate authority. Hence: 1. Catechumens pertain perfectly or imperfectly to the soul, but by no means to the body of the Church. This is drawn from Councils and Fathers. The reason is that the bonds, especially baptism, are lacking. 2. Public heretics are not members of the Church. The reason is that subjection to authority and profession of the same faith are lacking; nor is it an obstacle that they are punished by the Church, or that they retain the character of the Sacraments, or that they have true sacraments. Reason. 3. Concerning hidden heretics there are various opinions: the negative opinion of Suarez, the affirmative of Bellarmine.
We assent to the latter opinion, which is common among the Fathers, more common among Theologians, conformable to the established principles, and sometimes employed by the Church itself. What about the difficulty which seems to arise from the bull Ineffabilis Deus? 4. That schismatics are not members of the Church is clear from the doctrine of the Fathers and is demonstrated by reason. 5. Those excommunicated by major excommunication are some tolerated, others to be avoided. That the former are members of the Church is an almost common opinion. That the latter are members Suarez affirms with others; Bellarmine denies. His opinion, to which we adhere, is proved from the very practice of the Church, from the Scriptures, and from the Fathers. What is to be proved in the thesis. Pages 465-475.
Section II. The Catholic Doctrine Concerning the Members of the Church Is Established.
Proposition XXVI. Once the genuine nature of the Church of Christ has been grasped, it ought to be evident to all that it coalesces as members 1. neither from all and only the predestined, 2. nor from the perfect alone, 3. nor from the just alone. For with the idea of a visible society, which all are bound to enter lest they perish, all those things can in no way be composed. Pages 476-482.
Part 1: pages 476-477; Part 2: pages 477-478; Part 3: pages 478-482.
Scholion. Difficulties are met. Pages 482-485.
Disputation IV
On the Properties and Endowments of the Church
The properties of the Church are four from the Constantinopolitan Symbol: Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, Apostolicity. They can be considered in the abstract, as properties; in the concrete, as notes. The endowments are three: Indefectibility, Authority, Infallibility. Pages 487-488.
Article First - Whether the Church of Christ Ought to Be One.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
The unity of the Church is manifold. Some unity is admitted by all. Which unity must be defended. The concept of unity is unfolded. One unity of the Church is successive, to be treated later; another is simultaneous: the unique Church, to be discussed here. Unity of faith and government; in these unity of communion and rite is included. Internal or external; the latter is chiefly treated. 1. Catholic doctrine. a) Unity of faith is essential in this, that all believe all and the same articles which the Church proposes to the faithful as to be believed; not all necessarily explicitly. Declaration. b) Unity of government is not of likeness, namely the same form of government, but of identity, by which all are subjected to the same supreme government. It is essential. Therefore heresy and schism separate from unity. What heresy is, what schism is. 2. Errors. a) Unity of faith is placed 1. either as none or in faith in Christ alone;
- in admitting the truths contained in Scripture; 3. in consensus concerning fundamental articles: Jurieu. b) Universal unity of government is none; particular Churches are of their own right; arbitrary confederation. c) For the Oxford men: 1. essential unity of faith must be established by the assembled Church, which consists of the Roman-Catholic, Greek, and Anglican; 2. unity of government is at most from precept, but not essential to the Church. Pages 488-496.
Section II. The Unity of the Church in Faith Is Established.
Proposition XXVII. 1. The true Church of Christ is unique; 2. and first it vindicates to itself that unity of faith by which the faithful, spread through the world, believe all and the same articles which the Church proposes to them as to be believed. Therefore any heresy separates from unity; 3. nor in any way can the distinction introduced by the Innovators between fundamental articles be admitted, which, instead of establishing the unity of the Church, rather overturns it. Pages 496-507.
Part 1: pages 496-497; Part 2: pages 497-503; Part 3: pages 503-507.
Section III. Unity of Government Is Established in the Church.
Proposition XXVIII. 1. The Church is one also by unity of government, by force of which all the faithful who are in the world are subjected to one supreme authority. Therefore any schism, as the very name indicates, separates from true unity; 2. nor for any reason whatever is it ever lawful to introduce it or remain in it. Pages 508-517.
Part 1: pages 508-513; Part 2: pages 513-517.
Section IV. Certain Difficulties Are Satisfied.
A certain general principle. Heretical and schismatical separations do not touch the matter. St. Victor and the Asian Churches; St. Cyprian and St. Stephen; the Councils of Nicaea and Florence, whether rejected by the Gallicans; the Western Schism. Pages 517-525.
Article Second - Whether the Church of Christ Ought to Be Holy.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
The sanctity of the Church is manifold. In what sense it is admitted by the Innovators; in what sense it is denied. Sanctity generally is cleanness from sin. It is acquired through infusion of sanctifying grace. A holy society is one whose end is to procure sanctifying grace, and which has within it the means for procuring it,
and which has holy members. The sanctity of the Church can be considered actively: the continuous action and efficacy of the Church. This should rather be called sanctification. It can be considered passively: internal grace flourishing in the members. Whether necessarily in all. Otherwise. The principal reason: the reluctance of the members. Nevertheless it is called holy and is holy, by denomination from the more powerful part and from that which exists of itself in holy members. Three grades of sanctity; in each, diverse grades also. Deeper investigation of sanctity. Moehler. Its manifestation also through heavenly charisms. The errors of Protestants are indicated. Pages 526-532.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XXIX. To the Church of Christ, which in sacred letters is proclaimed holy in a manifold way, sanctity must chiefly be attributed, both 1. active sanctity, by which it continually labors for the sanctification of men by most efficacious means, and 2. passive sanctity, by which holy members are never lacking in its bosom. 3. Moreover each is so excellent that not only by profession of faith and exercise of good works, but also by their wonderful fecundity, miracles, and the other heavenly charisms, it renders itself conspicuous to all as a body living by supernatural life. Pages 532-539.
Part 1: pages 532-533; Part 2: pages 533-536; Part 3: pages 536-539.
Article Third - Whether the True Church of Christ Ought to Be Catholic.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
Catholicity is an ancient and known name. St. Ignatius Martyr; St. Polycarp. Catholicity by reason of place, persons, doctrine, and time. Here the question concerns the first two. They are generally described. One catholicity is material, another formal; the latter is treated. It is “wide diffusion through the world with a great and conspicuous multitude of members, while identity of faith, communion, and government is preserved.” Another is of right; concerning this there is no controversy. Another is of fact: actual wide diffusion. This is physical or moral; each is simultaneous or successive. Which must be vindicated for the Church. Not physical-simultaneous. Declaration. Moral catholicity proper to the Church. Whether successive or simultaneous. Successive, if the beginning of the Church is considered; simultaneous, if the continuation of the life of the Church is considered. The Church certainly had this at least in the fifth century. It has been constant to our times, indeed increased. Absolute moral catholicity of fact certainly belongs to the Church. Whether also relative. It must be affirmed with regard to heretical sects taken distributively; with regard to the same taken collectively it is not necessary, although in fact it exists. It must be denied with regard to sects of infidels. Suarez. Pages 540-546.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XXX. The Church, having received from its Divine Author the mission and power of propagating itself everywhere, 1. also had to be actually diffused, and has been widely diffused through the whole world, not indeed by physical universality, but by moral universality, 2. which nevertheless is not only successive, but also simultaneous. Therefore the Church is a society Catholic by right and by fact. Pages 547-553.
Part 1: pages 547-551; Part 2: pages 551-553.
Scholion. Some difficulties have already been solved; others are to be solved elsewhere. The Church is sometimes a little flock. The Church was not Catholic at some time, especially in the time of the Arian heresy. Nor will it always be Catholic. Answer is made. Pages 553-556.
Article Fourth - Whether the True Church of Christ Ought to Be Apostolic.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
Some apostolicity is admitted by all. Which must be defended. Under a general acceptance, an apostolic Church is one that preserves identity with the Church of the Apostles. In the primitive Church three kinds of institutions must be distinguished: divine, apostolic-divine, and simply apostolic. Identity with regard to the first two is altogether necessary for apostolicity. Thus understood, apostolicity is not something distinct from the constitutives and properties of the Church taken together. Properly, the Church is called apostolic 1. in origin, insofar as founded by the Apostles; 2. in doctrine, insofar as it retains the faith preached by the Apostles; 3. in succession or mission, insofar as it comprises within its bosom those who in the hierarchical order legitimately descend from the Apostles. Once this third is established, the first two are rightly inferred. Therefore this must be declared: “the public, legitimate, never interrupted substitution of persons into the place of the Apostles for ruling and feeding the Church.” The definition is set forth. Therefore it contains consecration and mission, to which a twofold power corresponds. Consecration is supposed if mission is certain. Mission itself is supposed or supplied through adherence to the center of unity. The question is reduced to this adherence. It is confirmed by the authority of Tertullian. The errors of the innovators are indicated. The error proper to this place is extraordinary mission. Pages 556-563.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XXXI. 1. The Church of Christ, founded upon the Apostles, must always persevere Apostolic, both in origin and doctrine, and in public and perpetual succession, by which it is always joined with the same Apostles through a never-interrupted series of pastors proceeding from the Apostles. 2. Nor can the hypothesis of extraordinary mission introduced by the Innovators be admitted in any way, according to Christ’s institution and promises. 3. But just as Apostolic succession alone sufficiently shows apostolicity of origin and doctrine, 4. so the legitimate succession of the center of unity alone manifests the true Apostolic Church. Pages 563-571.
Part 1: pages 563-565; Parts 2 and 3: pages 565-567; Part 4: pages 567-571.
Article Fifth - Whether the True Church of Christ Is Indefectible.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
In what the indefectibility of the Church agrees with perpetuity, and in what it differs from it. Taken adequately, it regards both the essential constitutives, the essential properties, and the remaining endowments, and all times of the existence of the Church until the end of the world. Hence it differs from apostolicity taken in its general acceptance. It is “the perpetual permanence of the Church in the same essence and state, namely properties and endowments, which Christ conferred upon it.” It is proper to the universal Church. Any particular Church, except the center of unity, can defect; nor nevertheless does catholicity cease, for the defection of some is compensated by the aggregation of others. All the Innovators err against the true indefectibility of the Church, yet in diverse degree: some deny it absolutely; others say it is by no means essential; others restrict it to visibility; others restrict it to the invisible Church, etc. Certain things are noted concerning the arguments to be brought forward. Pages 572-575.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XXXII. Christ instituted the Church in such a way that it would be the final economy of salvation, destined to endure ceaselessly and perpetually not only as to essentials, but also as to state, as they say. Therefore it enjoys true indefectibility, by force of which it perseveres, until the end of the world, in the internal and external constitution, in the same properties and endowments, with which it began to exist. Pages 576-580.
Scholion. Why certain difficulties are to be abstained from here. Several difficulties which are sought from the Synagogue are first set forth and then solved here. Pages 581-583.
Article Sixth - Whether and What Sort of Authority Must Be Attributed to the Church of Christ.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
Spiritual power is adequately divided into power of order and power of jurisdiction. Why we do not admit the division of some into power of ministry, magisterium, and command. St. Thomas, Tarquini. The power of jurisdiction has a twofold office, namely of teaching and of ruling. The latter is to be treated. The power of jurisdiction is divided into legislative, judicial, and coercive. Heterodox persons either deny legislative power altogether, or say that it is received from civil power. Consequently the same deny judicial power. Some deny coercive power to the Church; others restrict it to spiritual penalties; others indeed extend it to temporal penalties, but say that it must necessarily be exercised through civil magistrates. The true doctrine is set forth in the words of Suarez. Whether the coercive power of the Church extends even to the right of the sword. Answer is made from Tarquini. Pages 583-588.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XXXIII. 1. To the Church, as being, from Christ’s institution, a perfect society, there belongs by native right, and not by the concession of princes, a supreme and independent legislative as well as judicial power. 2. Moreover it can so sanction its laws that it restrains their violators by penalties not only spiritual, but also temporal. Pages 589-596.
Part 1: pages 589-591; Part 2: pages 592-596.
Scholion. Which difficulties are to be recalled here: liberty preached by Christ through the Apostle; liberty of faith, and liberty in the pursuit of the end of the Church; sayings of the Fathers which seem contrary. Answer is made. Pages 596-598.
Article Seventh - Whether the True Church of Christ Ought to Be Infallible.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
Infallibility properly excludes the very possibility of erring. One infallibility is essential, proper to God; another is participated. This latter is natural and supernatural. The infallibility of the Church is participated and supernatural. It is twofold: 1. passive, or infallibility in believing; 2. active, or in teaching. The subject of the former is the universal Church itself, namely teaching and learning; the faith of the faithful can never be diverse from the faith of the teaching Church. The existence of passive infallibility does not need to be proved directly; it is gathered from what has been said; the adversaries seem to concede it. It is the effect of active infallibility. Therefore the question concerns this latter. Three things must be weighed: its existence, object, and subject. Concerning these last two, later; nevertheless certain things are indicated. The subject of active infallibility is twofold, although not adequately distinct: the Supreme Pontiff, and the body of Pastors together with him. No one says that individual Pastors, except the Supreme Pontiff, are infallible. The body of Pastors apart from the head is not infallible; joined with him, whether assembled in Council or dispersed through the world outside a Council, it enjoys infallibility. Declaration. The nature of active infallibility is declared. 1. It is a supernatural assistance of the Holy Spirit, because no new revelation is required, and because human industry is not excluded. Industry is necessary not so that the Church may define at all, but so that it may define licitly. If industry is supposed necessary for defining infallibly, then, when something is defined, that it has been employed must be believed by the same faith. 2. It is in defining doctrine of faith and morals without error. It is explained when the Church is said to define something. The Church is not infallible except in the definition itself. Things said in passing or incidentally are not judged defined, though they have grave authority. Pages 599-606.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XXXIV. Christ constituted in the Church a visible, authentic, and perpetual Magisterium, to which he promised and conferred the special charism of infallibility, by which, through the assistance of the Holy Spirit, in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals, it can never turn aside from truth. Therefore, just as it itself has the right of teaching the doctrine of Christ with authority, so on the part of all the faithful there is owed to it the consent and obedience of faith. Pages 606-612.
Scholion. Several objections have been anticipated; to others satisfaction has been given elsewhere. “One is your teacher.” The individual Apostles are infallible. “The consummation of the ages” denotes the destruction of Jerusalem. The promises are conditioned. Answer is made. Pages 612-614.
Article Eighth - What the Object of Infallibility Is.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
The object of active infallibility from the Vatican Council is “doctrine concerning faith or morals.” This must be declared. The deposit of Christian faith is twofold. 1. Taken strictly, it comprises truths which are certainly divinely revealed. That these are the object of infallibility, direct, as they say, is clear from what has been said. 2. Taken broadly, the indirect object of infallibility comprises all those truths without which the object of faith strictly taken cannot be integrally guarded, explained, and defended. Concerning these there is a twofold question. a) Are those truths the object of the Church’s infallibility? This must be affirmed; several call the contrary opinion heretical. b) Granted that they are and are defined by the Church, must they be believed by divine faith or by ecclesiastical faith, or mediately divine faith? Each opinion has its patrons. Their arguments are indicated by reference. Here we inquire only whether those truths are the object of infallibility. Concerning these, taken generally, there is no controversy among Theologians; all affirm it. Some dissent concerning this or that particular object, such as the canonization of Saints and the approval of Religious orders: what is to be thought about each. Omitting particular questions here, we ask whether the Church is infallible in other objects besides things certainly revealed, especially a) in condemning propositions with a note inferior to heresy, who deny this; and b) in dogmatic facts, whether, for example, the Church is infallible in declaring the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of some proposition in the author’s sense, not indeed subjective, but objective. Declaration. The system of the Jansenists is briefly indicated. Pages 615-622.
Proposition XXXV. 1. The object of the Church’s infallibility must not be restricted to those truths which are certainly divinely revealed, but is also extended to those which are so connected with certainly revealed truths
that without them the deposit of Christian faith cannot be integrally guarded, explained, and defended. Therefore those err who think that the judgment of the Church is fallible, whether when it proscribes falsely named science or condemns doctrines with a note below heresy, 2. or when it declares the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of propositions in the objective sense of the Author. Pages 622-632.
Part 1: pages 622-629; Part 2: pages 629-632.
Article Ninth - What Is the True Church of Christ.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
Here it is asked which, in concrete, is the true Church of Christ. It can certainly be known; hence there must be notes by which it is known. Description of notes and exposition of it. The proper function of notes: the question here concerns distinguishing the true Church from false Churches. Which communions are to be compared. In what sense the Church is here called Roman and true. The probative force of the notes is negative and positive. The notes assigned by Protestants are rejected, together with their difficulties. Which are the true notes. The true consensus of Catholics, notwithstanding apparent disagreement. Pages 633-638.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XXXVI. 1. Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity are true notes of the Church. 2. When these are rightly applied, just as it is certain that the Roman Church is the one true Church of Christ, so all the remaining assemblies which, outside its communion, vindicate the Christian name for themselves are shown by proof to by no means constitute the true Church of Christ. Pages 639-648.
Disputation V
On the Visible Head of the Church
How great the importance of this investigation is, from Bellarmine, the Vatican Council, and the Protestants themselves. Division of the treatment. Pages 649-650.
Article First - Whether Christ Instituted in Blessed Peter the Primacy over the Universal Church.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
The Vatican Council proposes the doctrine, indicates the arguments for proving the primacy, sets forth the errors, and expressly defines this truth. Primacy is twofold: one of honor, preeminence without authority; another of jurisdiction, importing true power over those subject to it. They deny the primacy of jurisdiction, in which the primacy of honor is contained, 1. who either acknowledge no distinction between clerics and laymen, or deny that a hierarchy properly so called was instituted in the clerical order; 2. certain Jansenists asserting Paul to be altogether equal to Peter; 3. not a few pseudo-Catholics, who, with Richer as leader, hold that it was immediately conferred on the Church, from which it was transferred, as it were, to Peter. Richer’s system is briefly
set forth. It was often condemned by the Church. The true doctrine is established. Pages 650-653.
Proposition XXXVII. 1. Just as from the words of Christ, Matthew 16, it is certain that the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church was promised to blessed Peter, 2. so from the words of the same Christ, John 21, it is drawn out that it was immediately and directly conferred on Peter. Therefore those openly oppose the manifest doctrine of the Scriptures 3. who deny that Peter alone before the other Apostles, whether each singly or all together, was furnished by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; 4. or who affirm that the same Primacy was delivered not immediately and directly to blessed Peter himself, but to the Church, and through the Church to him as minister of the Church itself. Page 654.
Section II. The Primacy of Peter Is Demonstrated from the Words of Matthew 16.
The words of the promise are recited. A general argument is made. Christ said: “Thou art Kepha and upon this Kepha,” etc. The person of Peter is directly and most clearly designated everywhere. The question concerning that phrase “upon this rock,” etc. 1. The promise regards Peter immediately and directly. 2. It contains the primacy of jurisdiction. The first is proved. This whole discourse is directed to Peter; therefore also the words “this rock” placed in the middle of the discourse. Christ used the same word “Kepha” in each phrase. The pronoun “this” cannot be referred to anything other than the rock just named, which is Peter. The same is drawn from the preceding words: “Blessed art thou,” etc. Those words reveal the reason why the name Cephas had previously been imposed on Peter. Those words are directed to him to whom it is said, “To thee I will give the keys,” who certainly is Peter. Those words express the reward promised to Peter because of the profession of faith made. Finally, almost all Protestant interpreters concede this; the ridiculous exception of certain men. The second is proved. 1. Peter is in the Church what the foundation is in a building. It is proper to the foundation that in it and through it the firmness and unity of the building be constituted and preserved. Peter cannot provide this in the Church without primacy of jurisdiction. 2. To Peter is committed the office of invincibly protecting the Church against all dangers and all enemies; but this requires primacy of jurisdiction. 3. To Peter are given the keys of the kingdom of heaven; this contains supreme power. It is confirmed from the words “whatever thou shalt bind,” etc., which import power contracted by no limits. The interpretation of the whole text that has been exhibited is confirmed by the consensus of the Fathers. Pages 654-664.
Section III. Difficulties against the Argument Brought Forward Are Satisfied.
Paul, 1 Corinthians 3, teaches that Christ is the one foundation of the Church. Among the Fathers there are various interpretations of that rock.
Especially the authority of St. Augustine is brought forward. The power of binding and loosing promised to Peter is to be restricted to the power of remitting sins. The Apostles themselves did not understand the words of Christ concerning Peter’s Primacy, since they disputed who was greater. To bind and loose means to declare the licit and the illicit. Answer is made. Pages 665-670.
Section IV. The Primacy of Peter Is Demonstrated from John 21.
The Evangelical words are reported. A general argument from them. Two things to be proved. 1. The office of feeding regards Peter alone, for the word “Feed” is directed to him who is called Simon of John, from whom the threefold profession of love is exacted, who is saddened when questioned the third time, to whom crucifixion is predicted, etc. All these things belong to Peter alone. 2. This office of feeding is a) the primacy of jurisdiction. This is clear from the word “feed.” He feeds who procures and provides food for another, etc. To feed is the same as to rule, both from common usage of speech and from the usage of speech in Scripture. Examples are cited. It is established from the very word poimaine, which signifies to rule with command. b) It is over the universal Church. This is drawn from the words “my lambs,” “my sheep,” which indicate the whole fold of Christ. The same is clear from the word “my,” etc. The exegetical interpretation of the text is confirmed by the tradition of the Fathers. Pages 671-677.
Section V. It Is Expressly Shown That Peter Obtained Primacy over the Apostles Themselves.
This is certain: 1. from what has been said, for Peter was instituted as the foundation of the whole Church. To Peter the whole fold of Christ is committed to be ruled, and to it the Apostles themselves belong. 2. In the four lists of the names of the Apostles, Peter is always named in the first place. This order is by no means preserved with regard to the other Apostles. Indeed Peter in Matthew 10.2 is increased with the title of Primacy. That in four places Peter is not named first by no means weakens the force of the argument. After the Ascension of Our Lord, Peter at once conducted himself as Primate. 3. The Fathers unanimously affirm Peter’s preeminence before the other Apostles, which they say was instituted by Our Lord for the good of unity. Moreover they give various reasons why that Primacy was conferred on Peter rather than on another. These same arguments establish that Paul was not equal to Peter, which is confirmed by express testimonies of the Fathers and other reasons. Pages 677-683.
Section VI. Certain Difficulties against the Things Just Established Are Satisfied.
It is altogether false that the other Apostles received from Christ all that Peter received. Three things are weighed: a) what the Apostles had in common with Peter, and what he had before them; b) what the successors of the Apostles received from the Apostles, and what Peter’s successors received from Peter; c) what exercise of the power of Peter and his successors there is with regard to the Apostles and their successors.
In what way Peter is said to have rendered an account of a certain journey, or to have been sent to carry out some work. Why Paul, 1 Corinthians 12.28, lists Apostles in the first place; why the same one is called Apostle by antonomasia; why he equates himself with Peter or says that he is inferior to no one. Special difficulties from the letter to the Galatians. In what way the Supreme Pontiffs define “in the authority of blessed Peter and Paul,” and in seals the image of each is expressed. Pages 684-695.
Section VII. The Primacy Was Promised and Conferred on Peter Immediately and Not through the Mediation of the Church.
In the testimonies of Scripture already brought forward there is nothing which favors Richer. For each phrase regards Peter taken in his own person. Indeed all things openly stand against the Richerian interpretation. If the rock signified the Church and not Peter, the Church would have to be founded upon itself; the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church insofar as it would stand built and founded upon itself; the Lord’s flock, the Church, would be ordered to be fed by the Lord’s flock itself, that is, by the Church. Nothing is more absurd than these things. Moreover there would have been no reason why Our Lord, after he had named the Church, should at once have said to Peter: “To thee I will give the keys,” etc. Testimonies of the Fathers for confirming the thesis. In what sense the Fathers say that the power of binding and loosing was handed to the Church itself, or that Peter bore the person of the Church, or that the Church itself forgives sins, etc. Pages 695-701.
Article Second - Whether the Primacy of Peter, from Christ’s Institution, Ought to Be Perpetual, and in Whom It Resides.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
Catholic doctrine from the Vatican Council. The adversaries. Three questions to be distinguished: 1. whether Peter’s Primacy ought to be perpetual; 2. whether it perseveres in the Roman Pontiffs, successors of Peter; 3. whether the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, has the primacy by divine right. This third needs declaration. It can be taken in three ways. 1. The Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, has the primacy which is of divine right, or the perpetuity of the primacy is of divine right: a proposition of faith from the Vatican Council. 2. The Roman Pontiff has by divine right the primacy which is of divine right, and he has it by divine right insofar as he is successor of Peter: a proposition of faith. Nor is it an obstacle that election is a human fact; that election is not an institution, but a mere condition. Other answers from Bellarmine. 3. The Roman Pontiff has by divine right the primacy which Christ instituted, and he has it by divine right also insofar as he is Bishop of Rome; namely, the connection of the Primacy with the Roman See is from Christ’s institution. This has not been defined. The historical thesis concerning Peter’s coming to Rome and his sitting there, although most certain, is not necessary for showing the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Certain older authors thought that the annexation of the Primacy to the Roman See was constituted by the authority of Peter alone,
so that, if he had fixed his See somewhere other than Rome, someone other than the Bishop of Rome would succeed him. Nevertheless the most common opinion, which we make our own, holds the contrary. The state of the question is declared. See, residence, title. Several dignities in the Roman Pontiff. He who is elected Roman Bishop, by that very fact obtains the Primacy. Pages 702-709.
Proposition XXXVIII. 1. The Primacy which Christ instituted in blessed Peter for the perennial good of the Church must, by the same author, endure continually in Peter’s successors. 2. But since it is certain that the Roman Bishops are Peter’s successors, they hold the Primacy over the whole world by divine right. 3. Indeed the very connection of the Primacy with the Roman See seems to be of divine right; and therefore, just as by no human authority can it happen that Peter’s successor is not Primate of the whole Church, so by no authority, not even the supreme authority of the Church, can the Primacy be transferred from the Roman Bishop and city to another Bishop and another city. Page 709.
Section II. The Perpetuity of the Primacy According to Christ’s Institution Is Asserted.
- The Primacy of Peter was instituted by Christ and ordered solely to the good of the whole Church. Therefore it ought to be perpetual, as the Church itself is. The antecedent is declared and proved: because supreme power, such as the Primacy is, in every society is instituted and ordered to the good of that society; because the Church must always remain the same in the same state and form, therefore always with the same power instituted by Christ; because otherwise the primacy would have been instituted for that time in which it existed as less necessary, and would be extinguished when it was altogether necessary; because the perpetuity of the primacy is evidently drawn from Matthew 16 and John 21. 2. The Primacy of Peter was instituted by Our Lord for constructing and preserving the unity of the Church. Therefore, as unity is essential and perpetual, so also is the Primacy. The antecedent is established from the fact that this is the office of supreme authority in every society. Christ willed that through Peter and in Peter the building of the Church would not only be formed, but also sustained. A building is sustained by preventing its dissolution; unity is opposed to dissolution; therefore the Church is sustained by preserving unity. The same thing is clear from the word “feed.” It is confirmed from the Fathers and from the very haters of Pontifical power, etc. Pages 710-715.
Section III. It Is Shown That the Roman Pontiffs Are Peter’s Successors, and, as Such, Obtain the Primacy by Divine Right.
Two things are to be proved here. 1. The successor of Peter, whoever he is, obtains the Primacy by divine right. This is briefly gathered from what has been said and is confirmed. 2. The successor of Peter is the Roman Pontiff. This is proved: 1. from constant tradition, which ascribes to the Roman Pontiff the very dignity of primacy,
the succession and inheritance of Peter, the action and authority of Peter, care of the universal Church, the ordination of higher magistrates, and the judgment of greater causes, whether by reason of object or by reason of persons. 2. Christ willed that the Primacy conferred on Peter should be perpetual in his successors. But the successor of Peter at any time can be only one person; for the primacy must be preserved in the way in which it was instituted, namely in one. But none except the Roman Pontiff is had, or can be had, as successor of Peter. 3. From the things said in the first argument, in the fifth century all believed that the Roman Pontiff succeeded Peter by divine right. If the same had not been the faith from the beginning, there would have been a change, and indeed one of the greatest moment. But there is no trace of this change, indeed no trace of any protest. Pages 715-722.
Section IV. Certain Difficulties Are Satisfied.
Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon is objected; but this is of no authority. It was drawn up while the pontifical legates were absent; it was rejected by St. Leo the Great. Moreover, in it the question concerns patriarchal right. Nor was canon 6 of the Council of Constantinople approved by the Supreme Pontiff; besides, it can be rightly explained. In canon 4 of the Council of Nicaea the question concerns the Roman Pontiff as Metropolitan of the Bishops of Italy, or as Patriarch of the whole West. Rufinus’s paraphrase has no authority. The preeminence of the Roman See cannot be ascribed to the Synod of Sardica, since it was earlier than that synod, which was held by the work and command of the Roman Pontiff and openly supposes the Primacy. In what sense certain Fathers say that the care of the universal Church, the power of laws, and the institution of magistrates belong to Bishops. Palmer wrongly refers the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff to merely human causes. Succession in the Primacy by divine right does not entail the defectibility or invisibility of the Church. Pages 723-731.
Section V. The Opinion Affirming That the Primacy Is Annexed to the Roman See by Divine Right Is Asserted.
Certain things are noted concerning the arguments to be brought forward. The assertion is proved: 1. In fact it is certain that Peter raised the Roman Episcopate itself to the Supreme Pontificate. From this, the right of Primacy, which previously was a personal privilege, became local, and therefore fixed and immutable. A manifold explanation of the matter. 2. It seems consonant with reason that Christ designated the manner of succession itself. The manner of succession in the supreme pontificate had been defined in the Old Testament. The end for which the Primacy was instituted, namely to prevent dissensions and schisms, seems to require this. If the manner of succession is determined, election of the Pontiff is more easily had; tradition is more securely preserved; the practice of governing is more easily learned. 3. Many causes existed why the See might be transferred to another city; yet there was not even one who hoped that it could be transferred elsewhere. This establishes the most certain persuasion in which they were, namely that the connection of the Primacy with the Roman See is from divine institution. 4. Both the Fathers and Councils speak no otherwise of the Roman See than of the Primacy itself. Testimonies are cited. Pages 731-737.
Scholion. 1. What would happen if the city of Rome were utterly destroyed? 2. Can the Roman Church, insofar as it is a particular Church, err in faith? Answer is made. Pages 738-739.
Article Third - What the Force and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff Is.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
Certain things concerning the endowments of the primacy are noted. Here only the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is to be treated. Catholic doctrine declared and defined in the Vatican Council. The adversaries. The Vatican Council declares: 1. that the Primacy is a power of jurisdiction which is truly episcopal. Therefore the Roman Pontiff is not a mere inspector or director, as Tamburini and others wished, but a true superior. 2. That this power is immediate over all and each of the Pastors and faithful. By this, episcopal government, which is of divine right, is not removed; but the error of Bailly and others is excluded, who wished that the Pope could not, against the will of Bishops, exercise in dioceses the offices customary to Bishops. 3. That this power is ordinary, namely insofar as it is opposed not only to delegated power, which was defined in chapter 1 of the same Constitution, but also to extraordinary power, against those who acknowledged this supreme power only in certain special circumstances. 4. That it is a power by which the Roman Pontiff is superior to the council itself; not indeed to a Council over which the Supreme Pontiff presides either by himself or through legates, for to ask and define this would be superfluous, but to a Council apart from the Pope, not indeed doubtful but certain. What if the Pope became contumacious? Answer is made. Pages 740-748.
Proposition XXXIX. The nature of the Primacy, which the Roman Pontiffs as successors of Peter obtain by divine right, properly consists in an episcopal power of jurisdiction that is full and supreme, indeed immediate and ordinary over all and each of both the faithful and the Pastors, whether these are considered singly and apart, or all together. Therefore the Roman Pontiff is superior to the very assembly of Bishops, or to all Bishops gathered in an ecumenical synod. Page 748.
Section II. It Is Shown That the Nature of the Primacy Consists in This: That It Is a Supreme Episcopal Power of Jurisdiction, Immediate and Ordinary.
- The nature of the Primacy consists in Episcopal jurisdiction. The Primacy is the principle of unity and firmness of the Church, for it is exhibited under the metaphor of foundation, Matthew 16; therefore it is the supreme power of ruling; therefore episcopal, for God placed bishops to rule his Church. This is confirmed from the words “to thee I will give the keys,” likewise from the words “whatever thou shalt bind,” etc. The same is established from the testimony of John 21: “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.” By these words the primacy is expressed, and they import power of jurisdiction over the universal Church. But this power is episcopal power. This is confirmed by biblical and ecclesiastical usage, according to which episcopal power
is expressed by the word “Feed.” The same is drawn from Councils and Fathers. 2. The power of primacy is immediate and ordinary. For the power of Bishops over their own particular Churches is immediate and ordinary; therefore such must be the power of primacy, which is episcopal over the universal Church. 3. The power of primacy is full and supreme. This is established from what has been said and confirmed by a special argument. Pages 748-753.
Section III. Certain Difficulties against the Things Just Established Are Satisfied.
The words of St. Cyprian, “The episcopate is one,” etc., do not attack the thesis; nor does his way of acting toward St. Stephen, if the genuineness of the documents themselves must be admitted; nor the words which he brought forward in the Eighth Council of Carthage; nor the judgment given by the same in the cause of Bishop Basilides prove the contrary. In what sense St. Gregory the Great rejected the name of universal Bishop. In what sense St. Jerome said that Bishops are of the same merit and the same priesthood. What is to be said to that assertion that two immediate pastors cannot be over one and the same flock. Pages 753-761.
Section IV. It Is Shown That the Roman Pontiff Is Superior to Bishops Taken Collectively.
- From Scripture. The Primacy is exhibited under the metaphor of foundation; it is proper to this to sustain the various parts of the building as they are gathered together. Peter is superior to that Church against which the gates of hell will not prevail, which Christ simply called his, which is called the kingdom of heaven. But this is the whole Church, or the Church taken collectively. Other arguments from Scripture. 2. From Tradition, which teaches that the Pontiff is judged by no one; that causes of the Pontiff are reserved to the judgment of God alone; that the Pontiff can amend and has amended the decrees of Councils. All these things are confirmed from the reasons which are brought forward by the Fathers and Councils. The distinction between the Church taken collectively and distributively was unknown to all antiquity. 3. The assumption is confirmed by theological reasons. Pages 761-769.
Scholion. From the established true character of the Primacy, the Vatican Council infers certain corollaries. Why these must be treated briefly. 1. The Supreme Pontiff has the right of freely communicating with Pastors and each of the flock. 2. This free communication can be impeded by no one. 3. Appeal to the Supreme Pontiff. 4. No appeal from his sentence. 5. According to the Gallicans, the power of the Roman Pontiff is bound by canons. Of which canons there can be discussion. The question concerns the coercive force of canons. The truth is established against the Gallicans. Pages 769-772.
Section V. Satisfaction Is Given to the Difficulties of the Gallicans.
The decrees of the Council of Constance, sessions 4 and 5, which are objected, have no authority. They were not approved by the Supreme Pontiff. The approval of Martin V regards only decrees in matters of faith, and the present question was not had as such by those decrees,
and those decrees which were made conciliariter. Eugenius IV by no means approved the Basel declarations, which the Synod of Florence declared impious. Moreover, the objected decrees regard the case of a doubtful Pontiff. This is established from witnesses, from the words themselves, from the purpose, etc. The words of Matthew 18.15 are wrongly objected. Whether and in what sense the Roman Pontiffs confessed that they were subject to the canons of general Councils. Why the Supreme Pontiffs committed the causes of Bonosus, St. Chrysostom, and Philip Augustus to Councils. The genuine sense of the words of St. Augustine concerning the judgment given by Pontiff Melchiades against the Donatists. In what way the Supreme Pontiff is a member of the Church. Pages 772-782.
Article Fourth - Whether the Jurisdiction of Bishops Proceeds from God Immediately, or through the Mediation of the Roman Pontiff.
Section I. The State of the Question Is Set Forth.
The creation or institution of Bishops belongs to the Supreme Pontiff; this is proved. Here the question concerns the power itself. This is twofold: of order and of jurisdiction. One is separable from the other. The power of order in Bishops is immediately from God. Whether also the power of jurisdiction. This can be considered in abstract and in concrete. In the former sense it is immediately from God. The question concerns the power of jurisdiction considered in concrete, namely insofar as it resides in this or that particular individual. Taken thus it can be considered in three ways: a) as to exigency, it is immediately from God; b) as to exercise, it is entirely certain that it depends on the Supreme Pontiff; c) as to actuality, the greatest Theologians teach that Bishops have it immediately from the Supreme Pontiff and mediately from God. Who thought the contrary. The distinction between the origin of jurisdiction in the Supreme Pontiff and in Bishops. Pages 782-787.
Section II. The Proposed Question Is Solved.
Proposition XL. By force of episcopal consecration there indeed arises in Bishops a certain exigency of ruling the Church; nevertheless the actual power itself required for this is not conferred. For this, although by divine right it must be in the Episcopal assembly, nevertheless, otherwise than the power of order, is communicated to individual Bishops only through the mediation of the Roman Pontiff. Pages 787-792.
Scholion. Difficulties can be recalled to a few heads: Bishops have been placed by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church; the Apostles received mission immediately from Christ; the Fathers teach that Bishops are constituted by divine ordination to rule the Church; jurisdiction pertains to the essence of the Episcopate; ecumenical Councils would be human congregations. Answer is made. Pages 792-794.
Article Fifth - The Principal Heads of Doctrine concerning Councils Are Touched Upon.
Why Councils are treated here. The definition of Councils and its exposition. General and particular Councils; the latter are national or provincial. A Diocesan Synod is not properly called a Council.
What an ecumenical council is; its description is set forth. Here one must deal only with an ecumenical council, concerning which four questions are asked:
-
What convocation is. It belongs by proper right to the Roman Pontiff alone. This is proved. In what sense others, besides the Roman Pontiff, are said to have summoned a council. Why, in the first councils, more was attributed to the emperors. Who are to be called to a council with the right of definitive suffrage. The error of the innovators. By what right bishops are to be called. Whether bishops merely elected, and not consecrated, are to be called. Whether titular bishops are to be called. Whether it is necessary that all be present. By what right cardinals are to be called; the generals of religious orders; abbots having quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. Whether exempt abbots are to be called who are not generals and do not have jurisdiction over outsiders.
-
The celebration of a council. To the Roman Pontiff belongs the right of presiding with authority. This is proved. How emperors are sometimes said to have presided in a council. Bishops are true judges in definitions; nevertheless, moral unanimity is not required, nor indeed is the pope bound to accede to the greater part.
-
The decrees of an ecumenical council are infallible, as was stated by reference; but the approval of the Roman Pontiff is required. This is proved. In how many ways this approval can be given.
-
The necessity of councils. Councils are of divine right as to their substance. Councils are by no means necessary by reason of intrinsic authority; accidentally they are necessary by reason of solemnity and extrinsic authority. They are never absolutely necessary. Whether they are necessary by a divine precept. Pages 795-812.
Article Sixth - Whether an infallible magisterium must be attributed to the Roman Pontiff.
I. The state of the question is set forth.
Certain things are noted concerning the qualities of the primacy. Here one must deal solely with the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. The Catholic doctrine declared and defined in the Vatican Council. The adversaries. Infallibility is not to be confused with impeccability. The Supreme Pontiff, speaking ex cathedra, cannot teach heresy: this is of faith from the Vatican Council. Whether, as a private person, he could become a heretic. A twofold opinion. Some deny it; Bellarmine says that this opinion is the more probable. Others affirm it. In this latter opinion it is asked whether the Roman Pontiff, having fallen into heresy, falls from the pontificate by the law itself, or whether he is to be removed from it by a judicial sentence. The theologians are divided into two parties.
Certain observations concerning the definition ex cathedra. Four conditions are required from the Vatican Council: a) that the Pontiff speak as supreme teacher and pastor; b) that he teach in matters of faith or morals; c) that he pronounce a definitive sentence with a manifested intention of obliging; d) that he oblige the universal Church to assent. What if the Supreme Pontiff teaches a particular bishop or a particular church? The Vatican Council teaches that definitions ex cathedra are irreformable “of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.” Certain forms of speaking are explained.
Whether the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is personal, independent, and absolute. Whether the Roman Pontiff is infallible apart from the bishops. Note, pages 822-823: the Syllabus must be held as a definition ex cathedra. Pages 813-825.
Proposition XLI. When the Roman Pontiff speaks from the chair, that is, when, exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, according to his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter he possesses that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed 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 consent of the Church. Page 826.
II. The infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is demonstrated from the Scriptures.
The Vatican Council indicates three testimonies of the Scriptures on which the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff rests. Here the two former are examined: Matthew 16 and John 21. Peter cannot be the foundation of the Church, or guard and preserve the unity of faith, unless he is endowed with infallibility. The argument is developed. If, moreover, the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church, much less can they prevail against the foundation of the Church. Hence it is clear that the definitions of the Pontiffs are irreformable of themselves; otherwise the Church would sustain Peter, and not Peter the Church. This very interpretation is handed down both by the Latin and Greek Fathers, and by the liturgies. The same truth is proved from John 21. Pages 826-832.
III. The testimony of Luke 22:32 is set forth individually.
Certain things are set down beforehand. It is established that the prayer of Christ that the faith of Peter might not fail was efficacious. To weaken the argument, the adversaries contend that the object of Christ’s prayer was something else. Some assign it to Peter’s perseverance after his fall; others to the infallibility of the Church; others to Peter’s infallibility, but insofar as this was a personal privilege, not at all to be transmitted to Peter’s successors. They confirm this from the word “converted.” This evasion is shut off. The genuine sense of that word is set forth. From Luke’s testimony three things are proved: 1. that the object of Christ’s prayer is indefectibility in faith; 2. that this directly regards Peter, not the Church; 3. and indeed Peter as the designated head of the Church, whose prerogative must be transmitted to his successors. The hermeneutical interpretation of the text is confirmed by the ancient and constant tradition of the Fathers. Pages 832-841.
Scholion. The objections against this argument have nearly all been anticipated. It would seem to follow from it that the Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, cannot fall into heresy. From the argument there seems to follow infallibility in things decided, but not in things to be decided. Response is made. Pages 841-843.
IV. The infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is demonstrated from tradition.
The principal monuments of tradition for the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff are briefly touched upon. 1. Councils: certain direct testimonies are cited. Dollinger attempts in vain to weaken the force of the decree of the Council of Florence; see the note on pages 844-845. The manner of acting of the Roman Pontiff toward councils. 2. The Fathers: their testimonies are reduced to certain classes. 3. Ancient and perpetual usage: for many centuries heresies were condemned by the Roman Pontiff without councils, and indeed irreformably. The Roman Pontiffs always claimed this right as proper to themselves. The celebrated statement of St. Augustine is examined. Pages 843-850.
V. The same truth is confirmed by the agreement of theologians.
Before the Council of Constance, the opinion concerning the fallibility of the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra was entirely unheard of. This is established by the explicit testimonies of Ruard Tapper, A. Duval, Cardinal de Aguirre, and Gerson himself; likewise from the words of St. Thomas and others, and also from the doctrine of the University of Paris. At the time of the Council of Constance certain men denied the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff; but they were few, and they also taught other manifest errors. Immediately after the Council of Constance, the opinion denying the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff was rejected. St. John Capistran, the Louvain Faculty, the assembly of the Gallican clergy in the year 1579, Mauclerus, St. Antoninus, and others are cited. The authority of Bellarmine, Suarez, and St. Francis de Sales is brought forward. This opinion indeed revived in the assemblies of the Gallican clergy in the year 1682, but it had few patrons; it was introduced by force and fraud, without ever truly having been the opinion of the Church of France. Pages 850-856.
VI. The principal difficulties are answered.
Many difficulties have already been solved from what has been said. The distinction between the See and the occupant of the See, as proposed by the Gallicans, is futile and must be utterly rejected. The infallibility of councils cannot be called useless once the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff has been posited; there is a manifold reason. Those two infallibilities are not adequately distinct. Councils are not necessary in order to give force to pontifical definitions. The documents that are opposed do not prove the contrary. In what manner bishops are called the judges born for controversies of faith: they are not supreme, but subordinate; nor must they always, or always in the same manner, exercise judgment. A threefold case is declared. Pages 856-866.
VII. The remaining objections of the Gallicans are solved.
The fall of St. Peter is not to the point. That the fall of Liberius is fictitious is now established among critics; this is confirmed by the words of Bossuet himself and by Bailly. What is to be said concerning the fall of Honorius? There is a manifold way of solving the question. Passing over the rest, we say: 1. Honorius did not teach the error of the Monothelites; 2. he issued no definition ex cathedra. How, therefore, could he be condemned by the Sixth Synod? Response is made. What is to be said concerning the collection of canons that is attributed to Isidore Mercator? Pages 866-875.