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

1. Explanation. a) By the name of general discipline come the ecclesiastical laws properly so called, i. e. those established by the Church herself and for the universal Church. By the Church herself. Hence we are dealing with human laws, not with divine laws. For the divinely revealed laws pertain to the direct object of infallibility. For the universal Church, not for some particular region only. For we know that the magisterium of the Church is not infallible unless it teaches the whole Church of Christ.

b) Ecclesiastical laws, however, are not infallible in themselves, but because they are connected with faith and morals. They are not infallible in themselves, because they are not revealed. Hence we do not maintain that these laws are always the most prudent of all ordinances or the most suitable for all times, since supreme prudence has nowhere been promised to ecclesiastical superiors, and since popes and councils give, abrogate and change laws "with consideration for the ages or times or grave necessities".¹ They are, however, infallible because of their connection with faith and morals in this sense, that they never contain or prescribe anything that is contrary to faith and good morals.

2. Proof. a) From the end of infallibility. If the Church were to establish a disciplinary law opposed to faith or to good morals, it would by that very fact lead all the faithful into error in practice. But practical error either presupposes or includes or induces theoretical error. Therefore a Church erring in laying down disciplinary laws would by that very fact err in matters of faith and morals, which is plainly opposed to the end of infallibility.

b) From the practice of the Church. Already the apostles themselves, in laying down the first ecclesiastical law, appeal to the assisting Holy Spirit: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no further burden than these necessary things."² The Council of Constance, concerning the custom of receiving the Eucharist under one species only, says against the Hussites: "To say that to observe this custom or law is sacrilegious or illicit must be judged erroneous, and those who pertinaciously assert the opposite of the foregoing are to be kept away as heretics and severely punished."³ The Council of Trent defines concerning the rites of the sacraments and the ceremonies of the Mass: "If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be employed in the solemn administration of the sacraments, can be contemned or omitted without sin by the ministers at their pleasure, or can be changed by any pastor of the churches whatsoever into new and other ones: let him be anathema."

If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of the Mass, are incentives to impiety rather than offices of piety: let him be anathema."⁴ Finally, Pius VI in general proscribed the opinion of the Pistoians, "as if the Church, which is ruled by the Spirit of God, could establish a discipline not only useless and more burdensome than Christian liberty tolerates, but also dangerous, harmful, leading into superstition and materialism: — false, rash, scandalous, pernicious, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God, by whom it is ruled, at least erroneous".⁵

Scholion. That saying brings out the infallibility of the Church in disciplinary matters which pertain to divine worship: "The law of praying is the law of believing." Its force is: that the prayer formulas employed in the public liturgy of the universal Church contain no error against faith and good morals. But one would wrongly conclude from this that all the lessons of the Breviary agree with historical truth, and all the homilies with sound exegesis. For the Church cannot judge infallibly concerning the merely human facts of the second nocturn, and it does not will to judge infallibly concerning the passages of sacred Scripture of the third nocturn. Hence emendations of the Breviary raise no dogmatic difficulty. Indeed, many bishops of the Vatican Council demanded an opportune revision of the Breviary in those things "which seem not altogether to agree with certain history and sound exegesis of sacred Scripture".⁶ Until this revision, already begun, has reached a happy outcome, it would be wrong to treat lightly the erroneous lessons and homilies.⁷

To general discipline are referred: