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

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.