Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus II (Pars Altera): Demonstratio Catholica

^[1. Ballerini, Controvers. lib. 3. et 4., Lutetiae 1620; Magnus, De infallibilitate romani pontificis, Viennae 1643; Pichler, Papatus numquam errans in proponendis fidei articulis, August. Vindel. 1709; Orsi, De irreformabili romani pontificis judicio, Romae 1739; Petr. Ballerini, De vi et ratione primatus romani pontificis, Venet. 1766; id., De potestate ecclesiastica summorum pontificum et conciliorum generalium, Venet. 1768; Veith, De primatu et infallibilitate romani pontificis, 2. ed., Mechliniae 1824; Passaglia, De praerogativis beati Petri, Ratisbonae 1850; Murray, De ecclesia Christi, Dublinii 1860-1866, vol. III.; Scheeben, Dogmatik I, Freiburg 1873, 177-268; Palmieri, De romano pontifice, Romae 1877, 509-676; Mazzella, De religione et ecclesia, ed. 2., Romae 1880, 813-875; Hettinger, Die kirchliche Vollgewalt des apostolischen Stuhles, 2. Aufl., Freiburg 1887; Wilmers, De Christi ecclesia, Ratisbonae 1897, 375-477; Schanz, Apologie des Christenthums III, 2. Aufl., Freiburg 1898, 478-512; Billot, De ecclesia Christi, 2. ed., Romae 1903, 652-707; De San, De ecclesia et romano pontifice, Brugis 1906, 117-200; Batiffol, L'église naissante et le catholicisme, 3. éd., Paris 1909, 47-113. 247-253, et passim; Ottiger, Theol. fundam. II, 8-49; Straub, De ecclesia Christi II, 187-483; Besson, L'infaillibilité pontificale, Lausanne 1919. Very many writings which appeared on the occasion of the Vatican Council for infallibility and against the same are reviewed by Granderath-Kirch, Geschichte des vatikanischen Konzils III, Freiburg 1906, 633-721..

The authentic magisterium must be carefully distinguished from the infallible magisterium. For a certain teacher can possess authenticity, that is, the authority of the doctrinal office, without possessing infallibility in teaching. Indeed, all teachers of the Church teach authentically, but infallibly only those teachers who can propose the faith peremptorily and actually intend to propose it peremptorily.

Before we prove this, however, a few things must first be said about the notion and existence of ecclesiastical infallibility.

1. Notion of ecclesiastical infallibility. Ecclesiastical infallibility is a supernatural prerogative by which the teaching Church, by virtue of divine assistance, enjoys inerrancy in proposing revelation. It is called:

A supernatural prerogative. For the infallibility of the Church is a grace gratis data, a supernatural charism of truth, since the teachers of the Church are by their nature fallible men.

By which the teaching Church ... For a twofold infallibility of the Church is commonly distinguished: the infallibility of the learning Church, which does not err in believing, and the infallibility of the teaching Church, which does not err in proposing. The former is called passive infallibility, because the faithful merely undergo it by adhering to the teaching Church. The latter is called active infallibility, because by its proposition it renders the faithful infallible. In our treatise only active infallibility is considered.

By virtue of divine assistance ... For the efficient cause of infallibility is divine assistance, and it alone. Wherefore, on the one hand, ecclesiastical infallibility does not depend on the number, virtue, or learning of the men to whom it is entrusted; on the other hand, it does not exclude human means (study, prayer, etc.), by the use of which the truths are drawn out from the sources of revelation.

It enjoys inerrancy properly so called, that is, immunity from error, of the kind by which both actual error (infallibility of fact) and the possibility of error (infallibility of right) are excluded from the magisterium of the Church, and indeed:

In proposing revelation. By these words it is indicated that ecclesiastical infallibility is restricted to the explanation and presentation of the Christian revelation made once for all. Hence the teachers of the Church neither receive new revelations nor can they infallibly teach truths that are not revealed.

2. The existence of ecclesiastical infallibility is already implicitly evident both from the indefectibility of the Church and from the authenticity of the ecclesiastical magisterium.

From the indefectibility of the Church. We have shown that the Church cannot fail in its essence and therefore in faith.¹ But if the ecclesiastical magisterium did not enjoy inerrancy in teaching, the Church could fail in faith. Therefore the ecclesiastical magisterium enjoys inerrancy in teaching.

From the authenticity of the ecclesiastical magisterium. The magisterium of the Church is furnished with that divine authority by which it can propose the faith to men peremptorily, i. e. under penalty of eternal damnation.² But it is altogether repugnant that God should oblige men, under penalty of eternal damnation, to believe that which is false. Therefore the authentic magisterium of the Church is infallible at least then, when it proposes the faith peremptorily.

Hence the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium is already implicitly established. Nevertheless, the arguments for the existence of an infallible magisterium must be developed more fully, and indeed in such a way that at the same time it is shown what the subject of the infallible magisterium is, that is, which teachers are able to propose the faith infallibly.

Since the power of the magisterium is contained under the power of command (government, jurisdiction) and flows from this power,³ those alone, and all those, are able to propose revelation infallibly who are able to rule the whole Church peremptorily, namely, the universal episcopate and the Roman pontiff. Hence we must treat first of the infallibility of the universal episcopate, afterward of the infallibility of the Roman pontiff.

That individual bishops are not infallible is manifest. For since each one can govern only his own particular church, he cannot establish dogmas of faith by which the whole Church would be peremptorily bound. Indeed, neither the apostles¹ nor Christian antiquity ever attributed personal infallibility to bishops; nay rather, as history bears witness, from the first centuries not a few bishops were found who fell into heresy or schism and were excluded from the Church, such as Paulus samosatenus, Nestorius, and the Arian bishops. The bishops, however, taken together as the apostolic college, are by that very fact infallible, since on the one hand they comprise the whole magisterium of the Church, and on the other hand the magisterium of the Church, as we have said, cannot err in teaching the faith. Sacred Scripture and Christian history expressly testify to the infallibility of the universal episcopate.

1. Christ promises infallibility to the episcopate in Io 14, 15-18. 26 and Mt 28, 18-20.

a) Io 14, 15-18. 26: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive ... he will abide with you and will be in you ... But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will suggest to you all things, whatsoever I shall have said to you."

With these words, at the Last Supper, Christ promises to the apostolic college the assistance of the Holy Spirit: 1° perpetual assistance, 2° in teaching.

1°. Perpetual assistance of the Holy Spirit is promised to the apostolic college. That the assistance of the Holy Spirit is promised to the apostles without explanation is clear from the plain words: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you, the Spirit of truth ... he will abide with you and will be in you ..." That perpetual assistance of the Holy Spirit is promised to them, i. e. one that is to endure even after the death of the apostles in their successors, the bishops, is declared in explicit words: "That he may abide with you forever", or more correctly, according to the Greek text: "That he may be with you forever: ἵνα ᾖ μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα." The expression εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is rendered excellently by the Vulgate as "in aeternum". For according to the constant usage of the Scripture of the New Testament, ὁ αἰών simply signifies the whole time during which the earthly world endures. Ὁ αἰών begins at the beginning of the world¹ and ends at the last time of the world.² Therefore the Holy Spirit will be with the apostolic college as long as the world lasts. This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that the Holy Spirit is promised with the use of the "present of eternity": "That he may be with you" simply, without any limit of time. He will be with the apostles not only as long as they themselves survive individually, but as long as they live in their successors, the bishops. And indeed:

2°. The assistance of the Holy Spirit in teaching is promised to the apostolic college. For Christ here speaks only of teaching. To the apostles, saddened by the imminent death of their Master and anxious about his doctrine, the Father will send "another Paraclete", i. e. an advocate, who will speak for them and in them and will help them as they speak and teach. This advocate, indeed, is the "Spirit of truth: τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας", the absolute Spirit of absolute truth. The clear force of the promise, therefore, is this: the Holy Spirit, as essential truth and as Paraclete, i. e. advocate, will defend and preserve infallible truth for the disciples as they teach. Since the disciples did not yet sufficiently understand this meaning of the promise, Christ explains it still more explicitly: "But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit ... he will teach you all things, and will suggest to you all things, whatsoever I shall have said to you", i. e. the whole revelation. And afterwards he repeats the same: "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now; but when that Spirit of truth comes, he will teach you all truth ... he will receive of mine and will announce it to you."³

Therefore the apostles and their successors enjoy the perpetual assistance of the Holy Spirit in teaching. They will always be led and directed by the Holy Spirit in the exercise of the apostolic magisterium. This is surely the same as saying: the apostles, inasmuch as they bore the person of the perennial episcopate, are rendered infallible by the Holy Spirit in the exercise of the ecclesiastical magisterium.

To weaken the force of this text, some unjustly object that the Holy Spirit was promised to all the faithful, without however all being rendered infallible. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the faithful for one end, and to the apostles and their successors for another. He was promised to all the faithful for sanctification; but to the apostles and their successors he was promised over and above for teaching, and consequently for communicating infallibility to them.

b) Mt 28, 18-20: "All power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Going therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold, I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world."

With these words, about to ascend into heaven, Christ promises to the apostolic college 1° his perpetual assistance, 2° in teaching.

1°. Christ promises to the apostolic college his perpetual assistance. For he says in explicit words: "And behold, I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world." In speaking thus he not only clearly affirms that he will remain with the apostles through their whole life, but also that he will be with their successors until the end of the world. For that expression: "even to the consummation of the world: ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος" is read only five times in the New Testament, and indeed only in Matthew. But in the four earlier places, according to all, it indicates the end of the world.⁴ Therefore also in this fifth place it must be taken with the same meaning, unless the context is opposed. But the context, far from obstructing this interpretation, altogether requires it. For if you consider the context, Christ speaks of preaching the Gospel to all nations and to every creature; but certainly the apostles could not accomplish so great a work by themselves; therefore the discourse is about a work to be accomplished through their successors, the bishops. From which it is already also evident, that:

2°. Christ promises his assistance in teaching to the apostolic college. For in the earlier words of the text the Lord openly instituted an authentic magisterium, by handing over to the apostles his divine power, by which they are commanded to teach and to make disciples of all nations and of every creature: "All power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Going therefore, teach all nations ... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." These authentic teachers he even now confirms and supports by promising them his assistance in teaching: "And behold, I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world."

But it is certain that by this assistance of Christ the apostles and their successors are rendered infallible. For it is evident of itself that the episcopate, with which in teaching Christ will be until the end of the world, cannot be deceived or deceive in proposing the Christian truth. The same is evident from many parallel texts. As often as God is said in Sacred Scripture to be with someone, this signifies that he will grant a special help for most certainly attaining some proposed end.⁵ Since therefore Christ is with the apostles and their successors in teaching, he renders the whole episcopate infallible until the end of the world.

The adversaries indeed object: "If the infallibility promised to the apostles by the force of Christ's words passed to the successors of the apostles, the bishops, the individual bishops would have to be called infallible, just as the individual apostles were endowed with infallibility. But, as Catholics admit, the individual bishops are not infallible; therefore the infallibility of the apostles does not pass to their successors." We answer: The apostles enjoyed a twofold office, the office, scil. personal and extraordinary, of the apostleship, and the office, collegial and ordinary, of the episcopate. The former died with the death of the apostles; the latter passed to the successors of the apostles, as we have already proved in its place. Now the infallibility of the individual apostles, which only Tradition testifies to, was joined to the apostleship; but the collegial infallibility of the apostles, which Scripture also testifies to, was joined to the episcopate or pastoral office of the apostles. Whence the latter indeed passed to their successors, but the former did not pass.

2. Paul testifies that infallibility was conferred on the episcopate in Eph 4, 11. 13. 14 and 1 Tim 3, 15.

a) Eph 4, 11. 13. 14: "And he himself [Christ] gave some indeed apostles, some moreover prophets, others indeed evangelists, others moreover pastors and doctors ... until we all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, into a perfect man ..., that we may no longer be little children tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine in the wickedness of men, in craftiness for the circumvention of error."

In this text Paul first says that Christ, before his ascension into heaven, provided the Church with teachers of the faith by giving her "some indeed apostles", instructed privately by himself and sent to teach; "some moreover prophets, others indeed evangelists", i. e. teachers both charismatic and ordinary of the first age; "others moreover pastors and doctors", i. e. bishops of all times, whose office it would be both to feed and to teach, or rather to teach by feeding and to feed by teaching the faithful.

Then he assigns a twofold end, which Christ proposed to this magisterium of the Church, scil. a positive end, that all the faithful might readily obtain one perfect faith: "until we all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, into a perfect man"; and also a negative end, that the faithful might not have an inconstant and uncertain faith, exposed to the errors and deceits of heretical teachers: "that we may no longer be little children tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine in the wickedness of men, in craftiness for the circumvention of error".⁶

But the magisterium of the apostles and of the bishops, if it were fallible, could not attain this end. A fallible magisterium could neither propose a faith everywhere and always one and perfect, nor lead the faithful to embrace one and perfect faith. Indeed, it would teach the faithful an imperfect, inconstant and uncertain faith, much less would it preserve them from the wickedness and errors of heretics. So that this might not happen, the magisterium of the Church, instituted by Christ, was also fortified by Christ with the prerogative of infallibility.

b) 1 Tim 3, 15: "These things I write to you ... that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth."

Through almost the whole epistle Paul urges Timothy to discharge duly the episcopal duties, above all to avoid with great zeal the heresies and errors of the Judaizers and of other heretics, and so to be a worthy minister "in the house of God, ... which is the Church of the living God". That house of God or Church of the living God, which all the faithful inhabit, and over which a hierarchically constituted episcopate presides, is the "pillar and ground of truth: στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας".

A pillar raises the building upward, lest it fall and crush its inhabitants. A foundation or ground stabilizes the building from below, lest it collapse and bury its inhabitants. But the Church is both pillar and foundation of truth, i. e. upholding and sustaining the house of revealed truth, affording unshaken firmness and stability not to one or another truth, but to the whole truth simply (τῆς ἀληθείας).

But the Church could not do this, if her episcopal magisterium were not infallible. For it would be absurd to call the Church the pillar, by which truth is raised up, and the foundation, by which truth is supported, if her magisterium could fail from the truth and, by teaching falsehoods, lead the faithful into error. This outstanding designation: "pillar and ground of truth" only the infallible Church deserves. Therefore in every respect the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium is established from Sacred Scripture.

1. The Fathers proclaim the infallibility of the whole episcopate both directly and indirectly.

a) Directly and expressly, with almost innumerable testimonies, they teach that the order of bishops is the organ of infallible truth. Thus Ignatius the martyr admonishes the faithful to join themselves to the bishops, because the bishops taken as a whole are in the mind of Jesus Christ: "I have been beforehand in admonishing you, that you be united in the mind of God. For Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the mind of the Father, as also the bishops, appointed throughout the regions of the earth, are in the mind of Jesus Christ."¹ Irenaeus: "Those who are in the Church ought to obey the presbyters [i. e. bishops], those who have their succession from the apostles, as we have shown; who with the succession of the episcopate have received the sure charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father ... Where therefore the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there one ought to learn the truth, with those in whom is the succession which is from the apostles, and what is sound and irreproachable in conduct, and unadulterated and incorruptible in speech is established. For these ... guard our faith."² Vincent of Lérins established the consensus of the episcopate, whether gathered in council or spread throughout the world, as the infallible norm of faith: "What therefore will the catholic Christian then do, if some small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? ... Then he will take every care to prefer the decrees of the universal Church, received universally from antiquity, to the rashness or ignorance of the few, if any such there be."³ Theodoret: "Mountains and seas separate them [the bishops] by the greatest interval indeed, but distance was no obstacle to their agreement; for all were inspired by the same spiritual grace."⁴

b) Indirectly, the Fathers teach the infallibility of the episcopate as often as they teach the infallibility of the Church without qualification. For no one is unaware that by the Church they understand the whole episcopate, to which alone the magisterium of faith is entrusted. And yet the Fathers, as it were with one voice, extol the infallibility of the Church. Thus Irenaeus: "Where the Church is, there also is the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church ... but the Spirit is truth."⁵ Lactantius: "The catholic Church alone is that which retains the true worship: this is the fountain of truth, this is the dwelling place of faith."⁶ Epiphanius: "There is a certain royal way, namely the Church of God, and the path of truth."⁷ Augustine: "Many tongues contradict, diverse heresies, diverse schisms resound; many tongues contradict the true doctrine; do you run to the tabernacle of God, hold the catholic Church, do not depart from the rule of truth, and you will be sheltered in the tabernacle from the contradiction of tongues."⁸ These and six hundred sayings of the Fathers abundantly testify to the infallibility of the universal Church, and consequently also of the whole episcopate.

2. The practice of the whole Church, both teaching and learning, confirms the infallibility of the episcopal college.

a) Of the teaching Church. For as often as it was a question of defining a dogma or of settling a controversy of faith, the decision was always made either by the authority of the apostolic see (of which we shall speak presently) or by the authority of the whole episcopate, which manifested its judgment now through conciliar decrees, now through formatae letters, now through the daily exercise of the magisterium. And a unanimous judgment of this kind on the part of the bishops was prescribed to all Christians as a certain and irrefragable norm of faith. All were bound to submit themselves to it. As many as obstinately refused to obey were struck with anathema, cut off from communion, pronounced heretics, and declared excluded from salvation. Thus the teaching Church could not have acted in this way, unless trusting in the surest consciousness of the infallible authority entrusted to her.

b) Of the learning Church. From the very cradle of the Christian Church this was the common and immovable principle of the faithful: "That is to be believed and done which the Church believes and proposes as divine faith", i. e. the ecclesiastical magisterium under the Roman pontiff. Without previous examination and with all doubt excluded, the faithful believed the doctrine proposed by the Church and rejected the error rejected by the Church. The peremptory criterion, against which no exception could avail, for demonstrating the revealed truth and for convicting the opposing error was always this: "Thus teaches the catholic Church." Therefore St. Athanasius: "It suffices to declare to the adversaries: 'this is not the doctrine of the catholic Church'."⁹ And St. Jerome: "I could dry up all the little streams of [false] propositions with the one sun of the Church."¹⁰ On the other hand, those who defended opinions false in whatever way, which had not yet been proscribed by the Church, were excused from formal heresy, as is evident from very many examples of ecclesiastical history. It was therefore the firm conviction of all the faithful that the teaching Church, and it alone, infallibly defines dogmas.

Nay, by so constant a practice was the infallibility of the universal magisterium acknowledged that there was no need to define it expressly. Only at last did the Vatican Council enunciate it inclusively, by establishing that the Roman pontiff "is endowed with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church [i. e. the whole episcopate of the Church] ... to be furnished".¹¹

The whole episcopate is infallible only together with the Roman pontiff and under him, since the Roman pontiff is the bishop of bishops, namely the primate of the whole Church. On the other hand, the Roman pontiff is infallible even without the assent of the whole episcopate in proposing the faith. Indeed, the Vatican Council solemnly pronounced this as follows: "We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma: that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, discharging the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possesses that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be instructed in defining doctrine of faith or morals; and therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are irreformable of themselves, not by reason of the consent of the Church. But if anyone, which God forbid, should presume to contradict this our definition: let him be anathema."¹

This definition is directed not only against all non-Catholics, who expressly deny the infallibility of the pope, but also against the Gallicans, who concede it only in appearance, maintaining that pontifical definitions are not irreformable or infallible unless the consent of the Church is added.² These errors against the jurisdiction and infallibility of the pope were indeed reprobated at once by Alexander VIII (in 1690); nevertheless, they gradually pervaded not only almost all of France, but were also championed by the bishops of the pseudo-synod of Pistoia in Italy, by the Josephists in Austria, by the Febronians in Germany. Finally, "fallibilism," definitively condemned by the Vatican Council, gave birth to that lamentable "Old Catholic" schism.

The truth of the Vatican definition opposed to these errors already shines forth from the primacy. For by force of the primacy, every power that is in any way present in the Church belongs to the supreme pontiff in a full and supreme sense.³ But in the Church there is present a power of teaching infallibly. Therefore the power of teaching infallibly belongs to the supreme pontiff in a full and supreme sense. Hence the arguments by which we explicitly proved the primacy also have implicit bearing here. Nevertheless, on account of the gravity of the matter, we add biblical and historical arguments by which pontifical infallibility is proximately established.

In three classic passages of the Gospels Christ proclaims the infallibility of Peter and his successors, namely Mt 16, 18-19, Lc 22, 31-32 and Io 21, 15-17.

1. Mt 16, 18-19: Christ promised primatial infallibility in these words uttered in the region of Caesarea Philippi: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you bind upon earth will be bound in heaven: and whatever you loose upon earth will be loosed in heaven."

We have already shown at length that in this passage a primatial rule over the whole Church is promised to Peter and his successors.¹ But no one who considers the context fails to see that the same passage likewise concerns the primatial magisterium of faith. Christ had sought faith: "He was questioning his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? ... But you, whom do you say that I am?" Peter had solemnly professed faith in Christ: "You are Christ, the Son of the living God." Christ had praised the faith of Peter and for that faith had pronounced him blessed: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven." Finally, in rewarding this faith, Christ said: "And I say to you, that you are Peter, etc." Therefore the whole discourse of the context is principally concerned with faith, and consequently the primacy promised to Peter and his successors on that occasion must be understood as a primacy not only of rule but also of magisterium. Moreover, Christ illustrates the infallible magisterium of the primacy by the twofold metaphor of the foundation of the Church and of the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

a) The metaphor of the foundation of the Church: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." By this metaphor Peter is set as the rocky foundation of the whole Church, and indeed so firm and immovable that the Church can be shaken by no hostile force, not even by the utmost power of the demons. But Peter could neither himself be a firm foundation nor, much less, confer invincible firmness upon the Church, if he were fallible in teaching the faith. For if he erred in teaching the faith, both the Petrine foundation itself and the Church built upon the Petrine foundation would fall. But according to the very words of Christ they cannot fall. Therefore Peter and his successors are infallible in teaching the faith.

From this it is also clear that the infallibility of the pope and of papal definitions does not depend on the consent of the Church. For just as a house does not give firmness to the foundation, but the foundation to the house, so the Church does not give infallibility to the pope, but the pope to the Church.

b) The metaphor of the keys of the kingdom of heaven with the added power of binding and loosing: "And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you bind upon earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose upon earth will be loosed in heaven."

The keys of the kingdom of heaven signify the supreme and absolute spiritual power granted to Peter in the Church. And indeed not only the power of rule (the key of jurisdiction), but also the power of magisterium (the key of knowledge) is to be understood, since the power of "binding and loosing", i. e. of proposing the Christian religion, is expressly granted to Peter.² Therefore the primate, in the place of Christ and with no consent of the Church intervening, is able to propose the faith in such a way that his very proposal enjoys divine sanction of itself: "Whatever you bind upon earth will be bound in heaven ..."

But God cannot permit that by his absolute authority an error be proposed to the faithful as definitively to be believed. Therefore the primate is infallible in teaching the faith.

2. Lc 22, 31-32: Christ obtained primatial infallibility by prayer, according to the words addressed to Peter immediately before the passion: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has asked for you, that he might sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, once converted, confirm your brothers."

It is clear that by these words Christ obtained for Peter by prayer the indefectibility, that is, the infallibility, of faith. It is asked, however: a) whether he obtained infallibility for Peter only as a private person, or also as a public, that is, primatial, person; b) whether he obtained infallibility for Peter only for the time of the passion, or perpetually. We answer:

a) Christ obtained infallibility for Peter as primate. This is clear from each member of the cited text. "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has asked for you, that he might sift you like wheat." Satan demanded that by a violent assault he might disturb the souls of the disciples and by this disturbance take faith away from them. Christ manifests this danger of all the disciples to Peter with singular weight and thereby intimates that it is Peter's role, as primate of the apostolic college and of the Church, to protect the brothers. But that he might be equal to this primatial office of guarding the faith of others, Peter himself is strengthened in faith by the prayer of the Lord: "But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail." All are in danger of losing faith; for one Peter alone Christ prays that his faith may not fail. For since this one is the prince and primate whom all others are bound to follow and to hear, in the infallibility of the one the faith of all is saved. Indeed, Peter — failing, to be sure, in confessing faith at the time of the denial, but never in teaching faith — is commanded to confirm the others in faith: "And you, once converted³ confirm⁴ your brothers." By the teaching of Peter the brothers will be rendered firm and stable in faith. Therefore by the force of Christ's prayer Peter as primate is infallible. And indeed:

b) Christ obtained for Peter infallibility that would endure perpetually. The adversaries contend that Christ asked only that Peter should not lose faith at the time of the passion and should strengthen the others in faith. Against this, however, it must be said that by Christ's prayer Peter was rendered infallible for as long as he would live, whether himself or in his successors. This is established from the nature of the matter, from the end of Christ's prayer, and from tradition. From the nature of the matter. For, as has been said, Christ obtained infallibility for Peter as primate of the Church. But primatial prerogatives last only as long as the primacy itself, i. e. until the end of the world. Therefore infallibility without limit of time belongs to the prince of the apostles himself and to his successors on the Roman see. And indeed the end of Christ's prayer requires this altogether. Christ obtained infallibility of faith for Peter in order to provide for the "brothers". But not only the brothers of the apostolic college and times, but the brothers of all times suffer the temptation of the devil attempting to overthrow the faith of the Church. Therefore as long as the Church exists, so long must there also be an infallible primate, whose office it is to guard the faith of the Church and to confirm the Church in faith. Otherwise Christ would have provided for the Church at that time when it was not yet formally instituted, but would have neglected it once instituted and supremely in need of the help of an infallible primate. That would surely be absurd. Hence also the unanimous Tradition interprets the text Lc 22, 31-32 of the perennial infallibility of the primate of the Church.⁵ Comprehending this Tradition, the Vatican council says that "all the venerable Fathers and the holy orthodox Doctors have most fully known that this holy see of Peter always remains untouched by every error, according to the divine promise of the Lord our Savior made to the prince of his disciples: 'I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, once converted, confirm your brothers'."⁶

Note also that by this text the Gallicans who prate that the definitions of the Roman pontiff are irreformable not of themselves but only by the consent of the Church are invincibly confounded. For the Lord did not obtain indefectibility of faith by prayer for all the apostles, so that they might confirm Peter; but he obtained indefectibility of faith for Peter, so that he himself might confirm the other apostles and the whole Church.

3. Io 21, 15-17: Christ conferred primatial infallibility in the conversation entered into with Peter after the resurrection: "When therefore they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He says to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He says to him: Feed my lambs (βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου). He says to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He says to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He says to him: Feed my lambs (ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου). He says to him a third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved, because he said to him a third time: Do you love me? and he said to him: Lord, you know all things: you know that I love you. He says to him: Feed my sheep (βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου)."

By these words Christ conferred infallibility upon Peter and his successors both tacitly and expressly.

a) He conferred primatial infallibility tacitly by conferring the primacy of jurisdiction, that is, the supreme pastorship over the whole flock of the faithful. And indeed in Io 21, 15-17 Peter and his successors are constituted supreme pastors of the Church, so that the whole flock of Christ is bound to obey them⁷ whether they propose precepts of life or precepts of faith. But if the supreme pastors erred in proposing precepts of faith, it would not be lawful to obey them. Therefore Peter and his successors, while they propose the faith to the whole Church, cannot err, but are infallible.

b) Christ expressly conferred this primatial infallibility by the metaphorical words with which he describes the office of the supreme pastor. While the Latin Vulgate, unequal to rendering the primitive text, uses the verb "pasce" three times, in the Greek Gospel are read: βόσκε, ποίμαινε, βόσκε. By the word ποιμαίνειν = to rule, to lead, to go before the flock, the primate is generally charged not to allow the flock to go astray, not to expose it to the wolf, and finally, a fortiori, not to seduce it himself. But by teaching false faith the supreme pastor would allow the flock of the faithful to go astray, would expose it to the wolf, indeed would himself seduce it. Therefore the very word ποίμαινε already intimates primatial infallibility. Yet the word βόσκε is more telling. Βόσκειν = to provide fodder, to nourish the flock, to feed it in the strict sense, signifies especially the office of teaching the rational flock of the faithful, since the first and essential fodder of the faithful flock is faith. But the primate of the Church would not be fit for this office if he were fallible in teaching. For the primate, if he administered error to the flock of Christ, would administer not fodder but poison. Therefore as often as the supreme pontiff feeds the whole Church by word, that is, as often as he proposes a doctrine to be professed by the whole flock of Christ, so often he is infallible.

Finally, by this text too the Gallicans are evidently refuted. For Peter, respectively his successor, is set in Io 21, 15-17 as pastor, and indeed as an infallible pastor, without depending on the flock, i. e. on the bishops and the faithful or on the whole Church. While, on the contrary, the Gallicans, by saying that pontifical decrees become irreformable only by the consent of the Church, in reality declare the pastor subject to the sheep. According to the Gallicans, the pastor would not lead and feed the sheep, but the sheep would lead and feed the pastor! And by this absurdity they deny not only pontifical infallibility, but the very primacy of the Roman pontiff.

Thus Sacred Scripture undoubtedly testifies, from the mouth of Christ himself, to the infallibility of Peter and his successors. Jesus Christ, when at the end of his preaching in Galilee he first spoke of the primacy, together with the primacy also promised pontifical infallibility. Then, with his passion imminent, he affirmed that he had obtained infallibility by prayer for the future prince of the Church. Finally, after the resurrection, effectively conferring the primacy, he also conferred primatial infallibility. To this biblical argument is joined the historical argument, equally clear.

Although infallibility was defined only in quite recent times, nevertheless the Roman pontiffs held it at all times, the Fathers and theologians taught it, and the councils likewise declared it.

1. The Roman pontiffs always held papal infallibility with the consent of the universal Church. This appears abundantly from the following acts of the pontiffs:

a) The Roman pontiffs often prescribed formulas of faith, as Pope Damasus did for the heretics and schismatics of the East returning to the Church,¹ Hormisdas for the Acacian bishops,² Leo IX for Peter, bishop of Antioch,³ Paschal II for the Western metropolitans.⁴ These formulas were regarded by the universal Church as tokens of orthodoxy. E.g., the formula of Hormisdas had to be subscribed not only by the bishops who had lapsed into the Acacian schism, but was in fact subscribed by 2500 bishops,⁵ by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Epiphanius, John and Menas, by the emperor Justinian,⁶ finally by the Greek and Latin Fathers of the Eighth Ecumenical Synod.⁷

b) The Roman pontiffs peremptorily condemned heretics and all who erred in faith in any way. Thus Victor I condemned the Quartodecimans (c. 196) and Theodotus the tanner,⁸ Zephyrinus (c. 202-219) the Montanists,⁹ Stephen († 257) the rebaptizers,¹⁰ Damasus (a. 380) the Apollinarists,¹¹ Innocent I (401-417) and Zosimus (a. 418) the Pelagians,¹² Celestine (a. 431) the Nestorians,¹³ Leo I (a. 449) the Eutychians,¹⁴ and other popes peremptorily condemned other heretics and definitively overcame them. For although the heretics rejected the sentences pronounced and drew many to their side, the universal Church always acknowledged and observed the judgment of the Roman pontiffs. Indeed even the ecumenical councils simply acceded to judgments of this kind. E.g., the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus praise Pope Celestine without any discussion, "who", they say, "before our sentence condemned the heretical dogmas of Nestorius, and before us pronounced sentence upon him, providing for the security of the churches and of the pious and holy faith ... Compelled by the sacred canons and the letter of our holy father and fellow-minister Celestine ... we have necessarily come to this mournful sentence against him."¹⁵

c) The Roman pontiffs judged the decrees of faith issued by themselves to be irreformable. Thus Zosimus (418) admonishes the African bishops that "the tradition of the Fathers has given so great authority to the apostolic see that no one would dare to dispute its judgment ... so that no one may call our sentence into question".¹⁶ Boniface I (422) writes: "Let all the brethren understand ... that our judgment is not to be called into question ... For it has never been lawful to treat again of that which has once been settled by the apostolic see".¹⁷ Celestine I (422-432): "The sanctions of the most blessed and apostolic see are inviolable".¹⁸ Leo the Great (451) forbids the Council of Chalcedon all disputation against those things which he himself had already defined, "since ... it has been most fully and most clearly declared through the letters which we sent to Flavian, bishop of blessed memory, what is the pious and sincere confession concerning the sacrament of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ".¹⁹ Simplicius (476) to Acacius, bishop of Constantinople: "Since, with the doctrine of our predecessors of holy memory standing, against which it is impious to dispute ... all things are plain and perfect by which one deceived by heretics can be instructed, or one to be planted in the vineyard of the Lord can be formed".²⁰ Clement VI (1351) prescribed to the Armenian Church what must be believed: "That the Roman pontiff, when doubts arise concerning the catholic faith, can put an end to them through an authentic determination, to which one must adhere inviolably, and that whatever he himself determines to be true by the authority of the keys entrusted to him by Christ is true and catholic: and what he determines to be false and heretical is to be so regarded".²¹

d) The Roman pontiffs condemned those who denied the infallibility of the apostolic see. Sixtus IV (1478) condemned the proposition of Peter of Osma: "The Church of the city of Rome can err".²² Leo X condemned the error of Luther: "If the pope with a great part of the Church thought thus or thus, and even did not err, still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary ... until the one has been rejected and the other approved by a universal council".²³ Alexander VIII (1690) condemned the proposition: "Futile and so often refuted is the assertion of the Roman pontiff's authority above the ecumenical council and of his infallibility in deciding questions of faith",²⁴ and likewise the Gallican proposition: "In questions of faith also the principal role belongs to the supreme pontiff, and his decrees pertain to all and each of the churches, and yet his judgment is not irreformable unless the consent of the Church has been added".²⁵

It is established, therefore, that the Roman pontiffs were always conscious of their infallibility and asserted it both in words and exercised it in deeds in the face and sight of the whole Church.

2. The Fathers and theologians always taught papal infallibility, if not literally, certainly nevertheless really.

a) From the second century onward the Fathers with one voice, as it were, proclaim the apostolic see to be the chair of incorrupt faith. Thus:

St. Irenaeus holds that the Roman Church is the norm of faith of all the churches, because in virtue of its primacy it has always preserved the apostolic tradition unharmed: "For to this Church, on account of its more powerful principality, it is necessary that every church, that is, the faithful who are everywhere, resort, in which always, by those who are from everywhere, has been preserved the tradition which is from the apostles".²⁶ This manifestly presupposes the infallibility of the Roman Church or of the Roman bishop, since in the mind of Irenaeus and of all antiquity doctrinal authority resides in the bishop alone.

St. Cyprian affirms that "the chair of Peter" is "the principal Church, from which sacerdotal unity has arisen" and to which "perfidy [i. e. heresy] cannot have access".²⁷ In other words: the Roman see, since it enjoys the primacy, is the principle of unity for all bishops, because in faith it neither deceives nor is deceived. This testimony is not weakened by the fact that Cyprian resisted Pope Stephen, who decreed that heretics returning to the catholic Church should not be rebaptized.²⁸ For Cyprian thought (although falsely) that this decree pertained not to faith, but to discipline, and indeed to a disciplinary matter varying in different places and therefore free for each bishop.²⁹ If therefore he resisted Stephen's decree, he certainly resisted papal authority, yet not infallibility; and he moreover purged his very resistance against papal authority shortly after by martyrdom.³⁰

St. Jerome, when the Easterners sharply disagreed on the question whether one or three "hypostases" were to be admitted in the holy Trinity, sought a peremptory answer from Pope Damasus: "Therefore I have judged that the chair of Peter and the faith praised by apostolic lips should be consulted ... With you alone is preserved the incorrupt heritage of the Fathers ... You are the light of the world".³¹

St. Augustine says concerning the case of Pelagius: "From there [Rome] the rescripts came; the case is finished; would that the error may at length be finished".³²

"By the letters of Pope Innocent of blessed memory all doubt concerning this matter has been removed".³³

St. Prosper: "Therefore we must not fight a new battle with these [Semipelagians] ... Then their machines were broken, then they fell upon the allies and leaders of their pride, when Innocent of blessed memory struck the heads of the abominable error with the apostolic sword".³⁴

St. Peter Chrysologus wrote to Eutyches at Constantinople: "In all things, however, we exhort you, honorable brother, to attend obediently to those things which have been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who both lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, out of zeal for peace and faith, cannot hear causes of faith apart from the consent of the bishop of the city of Rome".³⁵

It is therefore an open lie of the fallibilists: that the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Roman pontiff in faith was unknown to the Fathers and was only gradually invented by the theologians of the middle ages. The truth, however, is:

b) That the theologians, with the same unanimity, enunciated this doctrine ever more clearly. From the almost innumerable [theologians] who, beginning with Bede the Venerable († 735) up to the recent age, defended pontifical infallibility,³⁶ let the following be mentioned:

The princes of scholastic theology. St. Thomas, after having established that the fullness of power over the universal Church was handed to the supreme pontiff by Christ, and that in this fullness of power there was also given to him the fullness of doctrinal power, adds: "To the authority of him to whom it pertains finally to determine those things which are of faith, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith, pertains the publication of the creed. This, however, pertains to the authority of the supreme pontiff".³⁷ St. Bonaventure in explicit words enunciates the fullness of magisterial authority committed to the pontiff, whoever does not acquiesce in whose definition is to be regarded as a heretic: "Because the Roman curia determines this, it is heresy pertinaciously to affirm otherwise".³⁸

The theologians of later times entirely agree with the angelic and seraphic doctors, as Bellarmine, Suarez and many others testify.³⁹ Bellarmine affirms that the proposition is "the most common opinion of almost all catholics": "The supreme pontiff, when he teaches the whole Church, in those things which pertain to faith, can in no case err".⁴⁰ Suarez likewise: "It is catholic truth that the pontiff defining ex cathedra is the rule of faith, which cannot err ... Thus all catholic doctors teach at this time, and I judge it to be a matter certain by faith".⁴¹ Only the Gallicans, from the time of the Council of Constance, began to disseminate the contrary opinion. Nevertheless:

The Gallicans themselves and their partisans confessed that they were defending a new opinion contrary to the common tradition. Thus Gerson, the father of the older Gallicanism: "Before the Synod of Constance this tradition [concerning papal infallibility] had so occupied the minds of most men that the dogmatizer of the contrary would have been either marked or condemned for heretical depravity".⁴² Tournely, however, resenting that the more recent Gallicanism "ad usum delphini", i. e. of the secular power, was invented by court theologians and imposed by the king, groans: "It must not be dissembled that it is difficult, in so great a mass of testimonies [for papal infallibility] ... not to recognize the certain and infallible authority of the apostolic see or of the Roman Church; but it is far more difficult to reconcile it with the Declaration of the Gallican clergy, from which we are not permitted to depart".⁴³ Therefore even the adversaries cannot deny that the consent of the theologians concerning pontifical infallibility is universal and constant.

3. The ecumenical councils declared papal infallibility, and indeed those also in which the whole East came together with the West, whether before the Eastern schism or with the schism temporarily removed.

a) The ecumenical councils held before the Eastern schism enunciated the infallibility of the Roman pontiff, if not formally, at least virtually and equivalently. The Council of Ephesus (431) not only writes that it "necessarily" adheres to the dogmatic sentence of Pope Celestine,⁴⁴ but proclaims: "No one doubts, indeed it is known to all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles and pillar of the faith ... up to this time and always lives and exercises judgment in his successors".⁴⁵ In the Council of Chalcedon (451), when the dogmatic letter of Pope Leo had been read, the Fathers said: "All of us so believe; the orthodox so believe; anathema to him who does not so believe. Peter has spoken through Leo".⁴⁶ The Fourth Council of Constantinople (869), acceding to the formula of Hormisdas, solemnly pronounced: "The first salvation is to keep the rule of the right faith and in no way to deviate from the tradition of the Fathers, because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ, saying: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church', cannot be passed over. These things which have been said are proved by the effects of things, because in the apostolic see the catholic religion is always kept inviolable ... Wherefore, following the apostolic see in all things, we also preach all things which have been decreed by it ... in which [apostolic see] is the entire and perfect solidity of the christian religion".⁴⁷ With these words the earlier councils declare that in matters of faith the apostolic see is to be strenuously followed, since it has neither ever erred de facto nor can err de iure, because the inerrancy promised to blessed Peter belongs to it.

b) The ecumenical councils held with the schism temporarily removed professed papal infallibility still more clearly. The Second Council of Lyons (1274) approved the confession of faith of the Greeks, in which we read: "The same holy Roman Church also holds the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic Church, which it truly and humbly recognizes that it received from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, with the fullness of power. And just as it is bound before others to defend the truth of the faith, so also, if any questions about faith should arise, they must be defined by its judgment."⁴⁸

In the Council of Florence (1439) the Greeks with the Latins defined: "The holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff ... to be the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, and to be the true vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all christians; and that to him in blessed Peter was handed by our Lord Jesus Christ full power of feeding, ruling and governing the universal Church."⁴⁹ But if the Roman pontiff has the same fullness of power as the apostle Peter; if it is his, before others, to defend and define the faith; if finally he himself is the supreme teacher of all christians, it is clear that he is infallible.

Hence pontifical infallibility "the holy see has always held, the perpetual use of the Church proves, and the ecumenical councils themselves, especially those in which the East came together with the West in the union of faith and charity, have declared."⁵⁰

"But since in this very age, in which the salutary efficacy of the apostolic office is especially required, not a few are found who disparage its authority", the Vatican Council judged "that it is altogether necessary solemnly to assert the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God deigned to join with the supreme pastoral office".⁵¹

The Vatican Council, therefore, only solemnly asserted or proposed pontifical infallibility, which the pontiffs, Fathers, theologians and councils had drawn out and unfolded from sacred Scripture and christian Tradition. In this alone entirely consists the "novelty" of this dogma: that from then on the denial of pontifical infallibility is formal heresy, whereas up to the Vatican Council it had been only an error proximate to heresy.

We have cut away the principal objections against the infallible magisterium of the Roman pontiff in the exposition of the arguments. There nevertheless remain certain difficulties drawn partly from a false interpretation of the Vatican dogma, partly from a false interpretation of papal history.

I° From a false interpretation of the Vatican dogma the fallibilists infer that, once pontifical infallibility is admitted, the pope becomes impeccable and omniscient; that the pope can define whatever pleases him; that all and each of the things, whatever some pope has written or spoken, must be believed with divine faith, etc. But these and similar witticisms are refuted by the clearest words of the Vatican definition: "We define: that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, discharging the office of pastor and teacher of all christians, he defines by his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance ... enjoys infallibility." With these words both the condition, under which, and the cause, from which the pope is infallible are so described that the cited absurdities are confounded.

The condition of papal infallibility is this, that he speak ex cathedra, namely, that he "discharging the office of pastor and teacher of all christians, define by his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church". Hence the pope, as often as he does not speak ex cathedra in this strictest sense, can err. He can therefore err both in acting and in believing and in teaching. In acting indeed, since the infallible magisterium of the pope, as is evident of itself, by no means claims his impeccability or his immunity from sin. In believing too nothing prevents the pope from being able to err, nay from becoming a formal heretic and an apostate from the faith, although very many theologians think that God will never permit this.⁵² Finally, in teaching the pope can err, that is, if he teaches as a private teacher, or as bishop of the Roman Church, or as metropolitan and patriarch of the West, or even as pope, insofar as he does not strictly speak ex cathedra in the sense explained above.

The cause of papal infallibility by force of the Vatican definition is "divine assistance". Hence the pope is rendered infallible by the supernatural cooperation of the Holy Spirit, who preserves the pontiff actually defining from error. Wherefore the adversaries ridiculously assert that we attribute to the pope omniscience or at least a personal habit of inerrancy.⁵³ Yet the infallibility of the pope, since it rests not on inspiration nor on revelation, but only on divine assistance, presupposes a natural operation by which the pontiff employs human means and especially study, before he defines. But that these means have been sufficiently employed is never to be doubted, since the Holy Spirit, who wills the end, namely the infallible definition, must also provide the means necessary for the end.⁵⁴ Wherefore the fallibilists foolishly fear that the pope will define lightly and ignorantly.

II° From a false interpretation of papal history the fallibilists contend that certain pontiffs, namely Liberius, Vigilius and Honorius, in fact erred in defining. But since these facts pertain to the history of the Church and have already been so often examined, we only touch upon them briefly.

Liberius (352-366) subscribed to the third Sirmian formula, in which the word "consubstantial" (ὁμοούσιος), the token of the Nicene faith against the Arians, was passed over in silence; Vigilius (538-555), approving again in the "Constitutum" those "three chapters" which he had earlier condemned in the "Iudicatum",⁵⁵ Honorius (625-638) gave to Sergius, the author of Monothelitism, two letters, in which he agreed that one should speak neither of one nor of two wills in Christ.

But these facts have absolutely nothing to do with the infallible magisterium of the pope, since in them there is no ex cathedra definition at all. For the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra only then, "when, discharging the office of pastor and teacher of all christians, he defines by his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church". But this neither Liberius, nor Vigilius, nor Honorius did, as is evident. If therefore they erred, certainly they did not err in defining the faith ex cathedra. That they did not err at all, however, historians and apologists have long since proved. Liberius, driven by violence and the hardships of exile, subscribed to the third Sirmian formula, which, although it could be twisted in a semi-Arian sense, in itself contains no error. Vigilius, although he was inconstant in judging those three chapters, wishing in the earlier document to placate the Easterners, in the later the Westerners, nevertheless touched no doctrine of faith in any way. Honorius, craftily circumvented by Sergius, indeed imprudently dissuaded from preaching the twofold will in Christ and thus unknowingly fostered the nascent heresy of Monothelitism; but he undoubtedly admitted the orthodox doctrine of the two wills and physical operations in Christ.⁵⁶

The Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter, that by his revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might holily keep and faithfully expound the revelation handed down through the apostles, or the deposit of faith." Denz. n. 1836.

And so all the difficulties vanish which the adversaries have heaped up against the infallibility of the Roman pontiff. Or if any still remain, they are clarified from those things which are presently to be said concerning the exercise of the ecclesiastical magisterium.