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

All the doctrinal acts of the Church are authentic or authoritative, but not all are infallible, as we have long since explained.¹ The Church teaches authentically and infallibly whenever it proposes the faith peremptorily; the Church teaches authentically, but not infallibly, whenever it decides provisionally matters pertaining to the faith. Hence we must speak first of the infallible acts, secondly of the non-infallible acts of the ecclesiastical magisterium.

The teaching Church enjoys infallibility: 1. when the bishops, gathered in an ecumenical council and physically united with the Roman Pontiff, define the faith; 2. when the whole episcopate, spread throughout the world and associated with the Supreme Pontiff only morally, exercises the magisterium; 3. when the Supreme Pontiff alone speaks ex cathedra.

1. An ecumenical council (universal, general) is the union of the whole episcopate with the supreme pontiff for the treatment of ecclesiastical affairs. In order, therefore, that a council be truly ecumenical, both must concur, namely the primate of the whole Church as head of the council and the bishops of the universal Church as members of the council. And indeed the conditions required on both sides are these:

a) On the part of the head of the council, that α) he possess by right the threefold right of convoking, presiding over, and confirming the council. For the convocation, the presidency, and the confirmation of the council are acts of jurisdiction over the universal Church, as is evident, since the bishops of the whole world are summoned. But jurisdiction over the universal Church the Roman pontiff alone has by divine right in virtue of his primacy. Therefore he alone possesses the right of convoking, presiding over, and confirming the council. Although, however, the pontiff can in some cases renounce an explicit convocation and confirmation, it is nevertheless always and absolutely required that β) he exercise in reality at least the presidency of the council. For a pontifical convocation, if it is lacking, can be supplied by a subsequent implicit approval, in that the pope takes part in the council. Likewise an explicit confirmation is not required, provided that an implicit confirmation is present in that the pope pronounces judgment in the council himself or through his legates furnished with determinate instructions.¹ But a genuine council will never exist unless the pontiff is present and presides in reality and in act, himself or through his legates. For a council is ecumenical inasmuch as it represents the universal Church; but a council without the pope, since it is a body without a head, does not represent the universal Church.²

b) On the part of the members of the council, that α) all bishops who actually possess jurisdiction be called (whether they are already consecrated or not yet consecrated). For all bishops possessing jurisdiction belong by divine right to the apostolic college, as we have proved elsewhere.³ By the ecclesiastical law now in force⁴ there are also called to the council the cardinals, the abbots "nullius" and the generals of religious orders, because they enjoy quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, as well as the titular bishops, because they have potential (but not actual) jurisdiction.⁵ But it is not necessary that all bishops convene, since this is morally impossible; rather it suffices that β) so many bishops be present as are able, morally speaking, to represent the whole Church, i. e. to attest the doctrine of the whole ecclesiastical magisterium. For this, however, it is not required that the greater part of the bishops convene; indeed not even a third part is required, provided that at least some bishops from each region are present or that the mind of all regions is otherwise known, e. g. the legates of the supreme pontiff are able to attest the mind of the western regions. Bishops who, when called, do not come, renounce their right and tacitly consent to the decrees to be issued.⁶

2. The definitions of ecumenical councils are those solemn conclusions by which the councils, by their supreme authority, teach that something is to be held by faith. For the genuine notion of definitions three conditions are required, namely that:

a) They be issued in clear terms, i. e. in a manner of speaking by which it is signified without any doubt that something is to be believed or rejected. For: "No matter is understood as declared or dogmatically defined unless this manifestly appears."⁷ Hence things said in passing, arguments adduced, and the like, which occur in the acts of the councils, are not held to be defined. It is clear, however, that the council in issuing definitions is not bound to any formula of words. Therefore some theologians have wrongly thought that the "decrees" or "chapters" of the councils contain no definitions, but only the "canons" fortified with anathema.⁸ The chapters and canons differ in this alone, that the former positively set forth the truths to be believed, the latter enunciate the errors to be avoided.

b) They be issued by free votes, that is, with force, fear, or fraud excluded as inflicted upon the fathers to bend them to one or the other opinion. For the assent of the teaching Church would by no means be had, if the bishops' subscription were extorted by threats and weapons of the secular arm, by the terrorism of a seditious populace, or by the arrogance of violent prelates, as happened in the conciliabulum of Ephesus, that of Rimini, and in other robber assemblies. Whether any council has enjoyed the necessary freedom is a question of fact, which it belongs to the ecclesiastical authority to decide definitively.

c) They be issued in union with the supreme pontiff, i. e. that they proceed from that part of the bishops with which the supreme pontiff stands. For there is infallible magisterium where there is the apostolic college with its head Peter. Hence it is most false to regard the pontiff as the presiding officer of a senate, whose office it is to count the votes and to promulgate wherever the greater part goes. Rather he himself is the supreme judge, whose office it is to judge of the bishops' opinion and to give or deny his confirmation. Therefore a definition to which the supreme pontiff does not adhere is not a conciliar definition, even if a great or the greater part of the fathers voted for such a definition. Besides, it has never happened that a relatively great part, let alone a majority, of the bishops disagreed with the pope, although in all councils there were dissenting fathers.⁹

3. The infallibility of conciliar definitions is easily proven:

a) From the infallibility of the whole episcopate, already proven long since.¹⁰ For since the whole episcopate is infallible in teaching, it teaches infallibly then most of all, when it exercises its magisterium in the most solemn manner in issuing conciliar definitions.

b) From the fathers, who without hesitation ascribe infallible force to the definitions of the councils. Thus St. Athanasius, speaking of the decree of the Nicene council against the Arians, says: "The word of the Lord, put forth through the ecumenical Nicene synod, abides forever."¹¹ Of the same decree St. Ambrose protests: "From which neither death nor the sword will be able to separate me."¹² St. Basil adds: "The Nicene fathers spoke not without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."¹³ St. Leo equates the definitions of the councils with the authorities of Scripture and ascribes to them absolute faith: "We must therefore detest and perseveringly avoid what heretical fraud strives to obtain, nor are the things piously and fully defined to be called back into any disputation, lest we ourselves seem, at the will of the condemned, to doubt concerning those things which are manifestly in all things consonant with the prophetic, evangelical, and apostolic authorities. Whence if there are any who dissent from those things which have been constituted from heaven, let them be left to their own opinions and depart from the unity of the Church ..."¹⁴ Almost the same St. Gregory teaches: "As I profess to receive and venerate the four books of the holy Gospel, so also the four (earlier) councils."¹⁵

c) From the persuasion of the teaching and of the learning Church. The teaching Church in all councils pronounced anathema against those who would not receive its definitions. But it could not act thus, if it were not itself persuaded of the infallibility of the conciliar definitions. The learning Church has always embraced the definitions of the ecumenical councils with such veneration, that the faithful have not seldom preferred to suffer exile and death itself rather than depart from them. E. g. in Africa, while the Vandal persecution (427-484) raged, very many sustained martyrdom, because they refused to fall away from the definitions of the Nicene council.¹⁶ Therefore the Church, both learning and teaching, has always attributed infallible force to the conciliar definitions.

Nevertheless, not only those things are to be held infallibly which are defined by the solemn judgment of the councils (and of the Roman pontiffs), but also those "which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary magisterium of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world".¹⁷

1. The magisterium of the whole dispersed Church is understood as the doctrine which the entire episcopate proposes by its ordinary and daily exercise everywhere on earth. We here regard only the doctrine of the whole episcopate, because Jesus Christ, as we have shown, conferred infallibility not upon individual bishops, but upon the whole episcopate, insofar as, morally united with the supreme pontiff, it represents the apostolic college.¹ The universality, however, or consensus, of the dispersed magisterium is either moral or physical. Physical, or mathematical, consensus bends absolutely all bishops into one opinion; moral consensus is present when nearly all bishops think the same. Physical consensus is not required, but moral consensus suffices. For individual bishops lack not only infallibility of right, but also of fact, i. e., not only can individuals err, but they are proved to err by that very fact, as often as they oppose the universality of those teaching. Therefore their dissenting opinion is not to be regarded, but the agreeing doctrine of the morally universal Church is to be followed.

2. The infallibility of the magisterium of the whole dispersed Church proposing the faith is proved from the words of Christ, from the indefectibility of the Church, and from the persuasion of antiquity.

a) From the words of Christ, by which He promised His assistance in teaching to the magisterium of the Church: “Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”² Christ therefore promised His assistance, and consequently infallibility, to the ecclesiastical magisterium “all days”. But if the ecclesiastical magisterium were infallible only when gathered in councils, those words of Christ would be illusory, since councils cannot be celebrated “all days”. Therefore infallibility in teaching is by no means restricted to councils.

b) From the indefectibility of the Church. Since the faithful in believing follow, and must follow, the daily magisterium of the bishops and of their delegates, if the daily magisterium failed, the faith of the faithful would also fail, and consequently that of the Church itself. But the faith of the Church can never fail.³ Therefore the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church will always be infallible.

c) From the persuasion of antiquity. The Church at no time failed to propose the faith and peremptorily to repel heresies by the universal and daily consensus of the magisterium. Thus in the first three centuries, in which there were no ecumenical councils, it commonly, and in the later centuries frequently, condemned heretics and established and safeguarded the true faith by an extra-conciliar consensus. Thus St. Augustine refuted the Pelagians appealing to a council: “Or was there need of a gathering of a synod, that an open pestilence might be condemned? as though no heresy had ever been condemned except by a gathering of a synod: whereas rather very few are found, for the condemning of which such a necessity arose; and there are many, incomparably more, which, where they arose, there deserved to be disapproved and condemned, and from there could become known throughout the other lands as to be avoided ... But truly the pride of these men ... is understood to seek after even this glory, that on their account a synod of the East and of the West should be gathered. For since, the Lord resisting them, they cannot pervert the catholic world, they at least attempt to disturb it.”⁴

Finally, to the extraconciliar magisterium of the whole Church and to the solemn definitions of the councils there are added:

We have already proved¹ that the pope speaking ex cathedra is infallible. It remains for us to explain when the pope is to be judged to speak ex cathedra, that is, which doctrinal acts of the supreme pontiff constitute cathedral decrees in general and in particular.

1. Cathedral decrees in general. The Vatican Council indicates the conditions of cathedral decrees clearly enough when it declares the Roman Pontiff to be infallible, "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 concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church". By the force of these words four conditions are required for cathedral decrees:

a) On the part of the subject, that is, of the defining pontiff, it is required that he actually discharge the papal office. He who acts in several persons or lays claim to several offices does not always act in his supreme person and office. Therefore the pope is not infallible if he acts as a private doctor, writing a book on a religious matter, or as bishop of the Roman diocese, preaching in some church of the city, or as patriarch of the West. The pope, however, enjoys infallibility when, "discharging the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by his supreme apostolic authority," he teaches.

b) On the part of the object, that is, of the matter, it is required that he propose "a doctrine concerning faith or morals". What pertains to the doctrine of faith or morals we have distinctly set forth in the question on the object of the ecclesiastical magisterium² simply so called. For papal infallibility embraces the whole and only the object of the ecclesiastical magisterium simply so called, because the supreme pontiff enjoys "that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals".³

c) On the part of the term it is required that the decree oblige all the faithful. While the pope, therefore, judges these or those particular causes and affairs, he indeed acts as the ultimate judge, holding the supreme power; but his judgment is particular, and hence not infallible, as e.g. the decree of Paul V condemning the doctrine of Galileo concerning the motions of the heavenly bodies. It is not, however, required that the papal decision be directed to the whole Church; indeed, the pope can speak infallibly even if he writes to one region or person,⁴ provided that he prescribes the matter "to be held by the whole Church".

d) On the part of the form it is required that the pope define, i.e. peremptorily settle the controversy by a definitive sentence, by which he compels the Church to absolutely firm assent. "Any manner of proposing doctrine does not suffice, even while the pontiff discharges the office of supreme pastor and doctor, but a manifested intention of defining the doctrine, that is, of putting an end to fluctuation concerning some doctrine or matter to be defined, is required."⁵ If, therefore, the pontiff counsels or warns or exhorts that all adhere to a certain opinion; if he earnestly commends or orders that a certain doctrine be taught in all schools, without, however, fully and manifestly revealing the intention of defining the matter peremptorily, he is not considered to speak ex cathedra. Hence, as long as it seems doubtful to prudent men whether the pontiff willed to define or not, so long his decree does not carry an absolute obligation. But if it is certain that the pontiff willed to define, it matters nothing whether he used this or another formula, since cathedral decrees are not bound to a certain fixed formula of words.

2. Cathedral decrees in particular: given the conditions that are to be given, they are found chiefly in the following pontifical instruments:

a) The pope speaks ex cathedra in the most solemn manner by issuing dogmatic constitutions, that is, those bulls by which judgments of faith are promulgated in the form of ecclesiastical laws, with penalties added against gainsayers, e.g. the constitution "Unigenitus" and "Auctorem fidei" against the Jansenists, or the constitution "Ineffabilis Deus" on the Immaculate Conception. Most closely akin to the constitutions are the encyclical letters to the whole Church, insofar as they contain dogmatic matters to be communicated to all the faithful and to be strictly held by all. Sometimes even apostolic letters, although written only "in forma brevis" or not directed to the whole Church, contain cathedral definitions properly so called. Moreover, the Roman Pontiff not infrequently speaks ex cathedra when he approves in a solemn and most full manner the decrees of the Roman congregations⁶ or of particular councils⁷ in a solemn and most full manner.⁸ Finally, the two syllabi deserve special mention, by which Pius IX and Pius X comprehended and condemned the errors of the more recent age.

b) The Syllabus of Pius IX⁹ is a collection of modern errors excerpted from the various allocutions, encyclicals, and letters of Pius IX and transmitted to the bishops together with the bull "Quanta cura" (8 Dec. 1864). Now the collection itself was not excerpted by the pontiff, but only at the pontiff's command, and was transmitted to the bishops; hence it does not seem to be a cathedral decree. Nevertheless, the individual propositions (eighty) of the collection had already been "noted," i.e. condemned, at other times and earlier, in those various allocutions, encyclicals, and letters of Pius IX. And indeed they were and are condemned definitively and infallibly. This is evident both from the fact that the pontiff absolutely obliges the whole Church to reject all and each of the condemned propositions, and from the fact that the whole Church, teaching and learning, shudders with one voice at the condemned propositions. Beware, however, lest you infer that all and each of the noted propositions are heretical. For in what sense each has been noted, or what theological censure has been branded upon them, must be learned partly from the nature of the object that is noted, partly from the words of the document in which the individual propositions are noted.¹⁰

c) The Syllabus of Pius X is a collection of modernist errors, which the pope first (3 July 1907) noted by the decree "Lamentabili" of the Holy Office¹¹ and afterwards (7 Sept. 1907) systematically delineated and reprobated in the encyclical "Pascendi".¹² Now the most grave formulae which the pontiff uses either in approving the decree "Lamentabili" or in writing his own encyclical "Pascendi" abundantly sound of a cathedral definition. But since the modernists nevertheless strove to escape the peremptory force of both documents, Pius X by "motu proprio" (18 Nov. 1907) repeated and confirmed both documents, adding the penalty of excommunication against contradictors, "who should defend any of the propositions, opinions, and doctrines reprobated in either document" and, by so offending, champion "the errors of the modernists, that is, the summary of all heresies".¹³ Finally, by the "oath against the errors of modernism" (1 Sept. 1910) the same pontiff commanded that all and each of the things "that have been defined, asserted, and declared by the inerrant magisterium of the Church, especially those heads of doctrine which directly oppose the errors of this time," be embraced and received, and likewise he orders that one adhere with one's whole soul to "all the condemnations, declarations, and prescriptions that are contained in the encyclical letters 'Pascendi' and in the decree 'Lamentabili'".¹⁴ Hence the errors of the modernists comprehended in those documents are certainly condemned ex cathedra.¹⁵

The Church teaches, not indeed infallibly, but nevertheless authentically: 1. by the ordinary magisterium of the supreme pontiff; 2. by the magisterium of the Roman congregations; 3. by the magisterium of individual bishops.

1. The ordinary pontifical magisterium is exercised as often as the pope proposes a truth without the manifest intention of defining it infallibly. This he does indeed: by sending encyclical letters, in which matters of faith are set forth without the cathedral form being employed; by responding to the various questions through decretal letters; by publishing or commending catechisms and other books destined for the instruction of the faithful;¹ by prohibiting books dangerous to faith or morals; by noting propositions as rash, scandalous, offensive to pious ears, etc.; finally, by giving any doctrinal judgments whatsoever which are not definitive, but rather directive and, as it were, provisional, according as it has been necessary or opportune and sufficient for the security of doctrine.

2. The authority of the ordinary pontifical magisterium, although it is not peremptory and definitive, is nevertheless very great. For the Roman pontiff, although teaching in an ordinary manner, acts with the primatial power of feeding divinely committed to him, even if he does not use the whole intensity of this power. Whence all the sheep of Christ are bound to hear the voice of the supreme shepherd and to conform themselves to his magisterium. Indeed, the Church has always held in the highest esteem the magisterium of the supreme pontiff, both as infallibly judging the faith and heresies and as authentically condemning opinions dangerous to the faith and fostering heresy. Rightly, therefore, canonical law lays down: "It is not enough to avoid heretical depravity, but one must also diligently flee those errors which approach it more or less; wherefore all must also observe the constitutions and decrees by which depraved opinions of this kind have been proscribed and prohibited by the holy see."²

1. The Roman congregations are colleges of cardinals placed by the supreme pontiff over certain affairs of the Church to be directed, discussed, and decided. There are, moreover, the following eleven: the Congregation of the Holy Office; the Consistorial Congregation; the Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments; the Congregation of the Council; the Congregation of Religious; the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith; the Congregation of Sacred Rites; the Congregation of Ceremonies; the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs; the Congregation of Seminaries and Universities of Studies; the Congregation for the Oriental Church.¹ Each in its own order issues decrees in the name and with the approval of the Roman pontiff himself. The decrees of the Holy Office pertain especially to the doctrinal order. For since the other congregations chiefly watch over ecclesiastical discipline, "the Congregation of the Holy Office, over which the supreme pontiff himself presides, safeguards the doctrine of faith and morals... To the same congregation it belongs not only to examine diligently the books denounced to it, to prohibit them, if need be, and to grant dispensations [for reading prohibited books]; but also to inquire, of its own office, by whatever more opportune way may be permitted, after writings of any kind published among the people that are to be condemned".²

2. The authority of the Roman congregations, and above all of the Holy Office, is most weighty. For they are instituted by the pontiff himself; they borrow their jurisdiction from the pontiff; they are bound to signify to the pontiff whatever grave matters they transact; and all their resolutions stand in need of and are fortified by the pontiff's approval,³ and since the pontiff is accustomed to transact the affairs of the whole Church through them, the congregations also come under the name of the Apostolic See or the Holy See.⁴ — Although, however, the decrees of the congregations avail with so great an authority, yet of themselves they do not avail with infallibility. For the pontiff neither wills nor is able to communicate his inerrancy to the congregations. Only per accidens, as we have already said,⁵ do the decrees of the congregations become infallible, namely if the pontiff, by an approval not common but solemn, makes those decrees his own and at the same time indicates that they are peremptory and definitive.

1. We have already mentioned the ordinary magisterium of the whole episcopate, that is, the extraconciliar consensus of the bishops. Here the discourse is about the same ordinary magisterium, yet not of the episcopate of the whole dispersed Church, but of individual bishops teaching their own churches. Individual bishops exercise their magisterium both by word of mouth and in written letters. By word of mouth, when bishops, whether themselves or through presbyters, teach the people in sermons and other instructions.¹ In written letters bishops teach, when they send "mandates" or other epistles to be publicly communicated to the faithful; when they prescribe catechisms or other books destined for the instruction of the faithful; when they prohibit certain corrupt books or periodicals; when, a controversy having arisen, they decree the doctrine to be believed; when they subscribe the decrees of some provincial council. On the contrary, a bishop writing theological treatises, which he does not propose to his diocese, does not teach as a bishop, but as a private doctor. Likewise the mere episcopal approbation, by which books treating of theological matters are permitted to be printed, is not to be equated with the magisterium of the bishop himself, since the book, notwithstanding the approbation, remains the proper work of the author, and since the bishop is wont to grant the approbation trusting in the judgment of the official censors.

2. The authority of the magisterium of individual bishops is evident from what we have discussed both about the authenticity and about the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium.² From this it is established that individual bishops in their individual dioceses exercise a magisterium not indeed infallible, but nevertheless authentic. It is not theirs, accordingly, to define dogmas, but to announce, propose, conserve, urge, and defend the things defined. Every legitimate bishop, therefore, is to be presumed to hand on orthodox doctrine, as long as the contrary is not proved. Whence also the faithful who are subject to him are bound to hear and follow the teaching bishop, as long as he is not proved to err. The same holds a fortiori for the doctrines which several bishops, gathered in a particular or provincial council, establish. Wherefore canon law rightly: "Bishops also, although as individuals or even gathered in particular councils they do not enjoy infallibility in teaching, are nevertheless, under the authority of the Roman pontiff, true doctors or masters of the faithful committed to their care."³ Clerics, however, inferior to bishops, such as pastors and any preachers whatsoever, teach authentically not from themselves, but by virtue of the mission obtained from the bishops. As long as and inasmuch as, therefore, they teach according to the mandate of the bishops and joined with the bishops, of them also that saying of the Lord holds: "He who hears you hears me, and he who despises you despises me."⁴