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

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.