De Ecclesia Christi

« Although the solemn division between the power of order and the power of jurisdiction is most true and most necessary; nevertheless the power of jurisdiction, which in that two-membered partition is taken generically, can, and for greater clarity and because of its mutually diverse properties ought, to be distinguished in sacred Theology into the power of governance or of jurisdiction specifically so called, and into the power of the authentic magisterium, infallible in its fullness; so that the threefold distinction of priesthood or sacred ministry, ecclesiastical rule, and authentic magisterium is to be regarded as theologically true. »

We confess that this thesis is not placed in its proper position if the internal order of things is considered in itself. But since in the preceding theses we have already presupposed the threefold power instituted by God in the Church, and much more because we think that this distinction — not a division, but a distinction of ecclesiastical rule or jurisdiction specifically so called and of the infallible magisterium, according to formal reasons very different from one another — is to be retained by us above all in what follows, for the Church of Jesus Christ, and is of great use in sacred theology: for these external reasons it has pleased us to explain and vindicate this distinction in these prolegomena, as far as is needed, so that false interpretations and attacks may be guarded against or removed.

I. The division of ecclesiastical power into the power of order and the other of jurisdiction generally considered is usually stated so that the former is referred to the real body of Christ, namely to the sacrifice and the Eucharistic sacrament, and the latter to the mystical body of Christ or to the members of the Church. Since this manner of speaking, to comprehend the full division, seems to need many explanations, we shall declare the same thing from theological principles a little differently. We shall say nothing that ought not to be accepted by all Catholics; yet there are several things whose theological demonstration we shall not give here, but suppose to be drawn from other places.

The Church, the kingdom of truth and holiness (John XVII. 17 ff.; XVIII. 37), Christ the Redeemer acquired with his blood, through satisfaction and merits consummated by the sacrifice on the cross; and he founded it by his institutions and disposed it to this end, that in it, here on earth, all men might be prepared through faith in revealed truth, through the holiness of hope and charity and of the other supernatural virtues, for the kingdom of vision and enjoyment in heaven. Now the holiness merited for us, Christ, as we know from revelation, confers in his Church first of all ex opere operato, mediately indeed through the propitiatory and perennial unbloody sacrifice of his body and blood, by which the satisfactions and merits of the bloody sacrifice once offered, and efficacious forever (Heb. X. 14), are applied for the granting of actual graces for the remission of sins and for the bestowal of holiness (cf. de Euch. sacrif. th. XII, XIII.); but immediately the opus operatum of sanctification is through the sacraments, which from their institutor Christ and from his satisfaction and merits have dignity and efficacy for conferring holiness itself, namely habitual grace, on all who put no obstacle in the way (cf. de Sacram. in genere th. VI–IX.).

Therefore, just as in the Church of Christ sacrifice and sacraments were instituted for sanctification ex opere operato, so for this sacred ministry the priesthood is consecrated; or, to speak in the concrete, priests have been instituted by Christ the supreme priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech, who by a ministerial power communicated to each of them by him offer the sacrifice of the New Testament and confer the sacraments. Now the power of the priesthood is itself communicated ex opere operato through the sacrament of Order, and is sealed with an indelible character (Tract. de Sacram. in genere th. XII, XIII.). For this reason it follows the nature of the character in its properties; and so in all who are marked with the same character it is the same and efficacious for all the acts for which it is instituted; in this its efficacy, or as to its value, it is independent not only of the merits of the minister but also of every higher power in the Church; indelible in this life; and finally communicable to no one who lacks the character corresponding to this power.¹. This power of the priesthood is what, on account of the mode of its conferral and its immutability and its independence in value, is called the power of order, so that it may be distinguished from the other, of jurisdiction.

II. The priesthood, with the sacrifice and the sacraments and with the opus operatum of grace, is indeed essential in the Church of Jesus Christ, the priest for ever, for the holiness by which he willed to sanctify it and to present it glorious to himself (Eph. V. 26, 27); yet with these things his infinite love and providence toward his Church have not been sufficiently provided for. For in those same ministers, the Apostles and their successors until the consummation of the age, to whom he gave the fullness of the priesthood, he instituted another power, which comprehends both infallibility in teaching, for the propagation and perpetual preservation of the integrity of faith, and supernatural governance in ruling, for the undefective holiness of Christian morals.

There is therefore, first of all, the power and the office, divinely enjoined, of preaching — under the protection of Christ and the assistance of the Spirit of truth who abides with them forever (John XIV. 16) — not only to the subjects in the Church but to all nations; and of explaining and preserving in its integrity the doctrine and law of God and its divine sanctions. The fullness of power, as we shall soon see from Suarez's explanation, « in this genus is nothing other than that the power is for teaching with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and with infallible certitude. » Further, so that this power of infallibly teaching in the visible kingdom of Christ — which, though not of this world, is in this world — may be more effective in guarding the very deposit of sacred doctrine, in securing the unity of faith in the kingdom of truth, and above all in ruling the kingdom of holiness, the power of governance has been joined and intimately united with it by the divine author and consummator of faith (Heb. XII. 2), which is properly the power of ecclesiastical rule (Titus II. 15), or of governance. For to Peter, as the ancient theologians spoke, together with the key of knowledge for infallibly opening the doctrine and law of God, there was committed at the same time the key of power for ruling by his laws, judgments, and sanctions; so that, according to the prayer and command of Christ, he might confirm his brothers with unfailing faith in teaching and with power in ruling (Luke XXII. 32). There were given by Christ not only teachers but, at the same time, teachers and pastors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ (Eph. IV. 11, 12; cf. de Tradit. th. XXV. n. I.); the bishops, set by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God (Acts XX. 28); and constituted leaders (ἡγούμενοι) to exact obedience and subjection, who are bound to keep watch as those who will render account for the souls of their subjects (Heb. XIII. 17).

This whole power, considered in its complex, is and is most rightly called, in the generic sense of the name, power of jurisdiction; for from both reasons, from infallibility in teaching as well as from the power of ruling, it induces, by its definitions and its laws, an obligation of obedience according to hierarchical subordination, though in a different mode. But concerning this unity and distinction, of what kind it is, we shall speak a little later. Meanwhile let it be noticed how great is not only the real distinction but the diversity between power of jurisdiction and power of order.

III. We shall set out this diversity between the power of order and of jurisdiction in a few words, although it may already be established from what has been said.

1°. The power of order is essentially bound up with the sacramental character. On the other hand, that of jurisdiction does not depend essentially on the character; whence jurisdiction, not only episcopal but also supreme and full over the whole Church, which belongs to the Roman Pontiff, can be present without the episcopal character. This indeed in fact takes place whenever a Pontiff is elected who is neither a bishop, and perhaps neither a priest nor a deacon: by divine institution, namely, through lawful election and the consent he gives, Christ immediately confers the whole power of jurisdiction on the one designated; and this is separate from the power of order, for the latter, not the former, is conferred by the sacrament of Ordination or Consecration.

2°. In those in whom the sacramental character is the same, in all of them the power of order is the same; so there are no differing degrees in them as regards this power: « wherever there is a bishop, whether at Rome or at Eugubium... he is of one and the same priesthood » (Jerome, ep. 146 ad Evang.).

But in the power of jurisdiction there exists a hierarchical subordination and a distinction of grades, partly by divine right, as is the supreme and universal power of the successor of Peter, and as under him other bishops participate in it; by ecclesiastical right there is also a subordination among the bishops inferior to the Roman Pontiff. The former subordination is essential, according to the divine constitution of the Church, and therefore unchangeable; the latter, among the bishops themselves, is indeed connected with the constitution of the Church, but is mutable according to those conditions which are governed by ecclesiastical right.

3°. Lacking the sacramental character, as is plain from what has been said, one can have no power of order; whence this cannot be delegated, nor conferred in any other way except through sacramental ordination itself. But one marked with the sacramental character always validly exercises, on his side, the power of his order, which can never be restricted or taken away. That its exercise may be forbidden, and thence rendered sacrilegiously illicit, follows from the hierarchical subordination of divine or even ecclesiastical right in the grades of jurisdiction.

From this same subordination it is manifest that the power of jurisdiction, insofar as it is considered not as supreme but as inferior in the individual bishops, is both liable to restriction, suspension, and removal by the superior, by which act the acts become not only illicit but altogether invalid; and that it can be delegated to others within the limits established by divine or ecclesiastical right. Hence, with what we said under 1° assumed, it is clear why, by delegation of the Supreme Pontiff, whether this is made by a general law or by a particular disposition and act, those who are not bishops can have jurisdiction by which they concur in ecumenical Councils not only to decide on matters of ecclesiastical discipline but also to define matters of faith; for this latter too pertains not to the power of order but to the power of jurisdiction considered generically.

4°. Finally, the efficacy of the power of order through the sacrifice and the sacraments is ex opere operato, immediately for the sanctification of souls by the gifts of inner grace; although indeed these at the same time pertain to the most noble part of the Church, insofar as it is visible.

The efficacy of jurisdiction, in itself and immediately, concerns the visible unity of the profession of faith in the kingdom of truth, and the visible governance of the kingdom of holiness; but, as to its end, it concerns faith itself and interior holiness, ex opere cooperantium.

IV. But what is chiefly in question for us is not the distinction or division of the power of jurisdiction, generically considered, from the other power of order; rather, whether and how, within that very power of jurisdiction, the two formal reasons, the power of the divine magisterium and the power of ecclesiastical rule, or of jurisdiction specifically so called, are to be judged distinct from one another?

1°. That we may forestall at the outset some suspicion of novelty somewhere thrust upon us, let us first look at the manner of thinking and speaking about this matter among the more ancient theologians. Suarez certainly speaks as if he supposed a distinction commonly received and known in itself, requiring no proof or defense. Where he demonstrates that the Constitution of Gregory XIII, Ascendente Domino, is not merely disciplinary but dogmatic, and therefore infallible « from the fullness of power », he takes the distinction of the twofold key, of doctrine and of jurisdiction, as certain and necessary. « Because the power must be fitted to the act, it is certain that here the discourse is not only about the power of jurisdiction, but chiefly about the power which is called the key of knowledge; for this was per se necessary for making this declaration (namely the declaration of doctrine, for which the power of jurisdiction alone would not have been sufficient). But the fullness of power in this genus is nothing other than that the power is for teaching with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and with infallible certitude » (Suarez, de Relig., T. IV, l. III, c. 4, n. 11). He assumes the same distinction in the defense of the Apostolic letters by which Paul V condemned the doctrine and forbade the use of the oath imposed by the King of England, James I, on Catholic subjects « to detect and repress papists »; where I would have you note the author's observation: the key of knowledge pertains to the condemnation of error considered in itself, while the key of power, or of jurisdiction, is referred to the persons to whom the command or prohibition is given. « The formula of the oath, he says, contains much that is contrary to religion and good morals; therefore the Pontiff, in reprobating it, used the lawful power of the keys: namely, by the key of knowledge declaring the injustice and malice of that oath, which is the proper office of a pastor, to whom it belongs to feed the flock of Christ; and by the key of power prohibiting the use of such an oath... To reprobate a false doctrine it is not necessary to be the competent judge of its author, nor to hear him otherwise than through his writings; but to prohibit such an oath under precept, jurisdiction over those to whom the precept is directed is indeed necessary, which Catholic Englishmen acknowledge in the Supreme Pontiff as in their own pastor; rightly, therefore, could the Pontiff impose such a prohibition on the English, especially since he did not so much make a new law as declare the divine and natural law about avoiding an illicit oath and fleeing the profession of false error (by the key of knowledge), and confirm it by his precept (by the key of power). With regard to the king, however, although it is most true that the Pontiff is his competent judge, as we have shown above (from the character of baptism), nevertheless in this act he exercised no judgment of jurisdiction over the king » (Defens. fidei cont. Reg. Angl. l. VI, c. 7). He exercised no judgment of jurisdiction over the king; but surely also for the king, as for all others, by « declaring the malice of that oath » and « reprobating the false doctrine », he exercised « the power which is called the key of knowledge », for which, considered in itself, no judgment of jurisdiction is needed, as Suarez teaches throughout the whole context.

In the same sense, but with a somewhat different division of the keys, the distinguished Louvain theologian Thomas Stapleton speaks; for on the one hand he places the key of knowledge, on the other the keys of power, both of order and of jurisdiction. « The keys of the Church, he says, can be divided into the key of knowledge and of power... To the key of knowledge belongs the opening of the Scriptures (or, more universally, of the revealed doctrine and law), which Christ exercised at Luke XXIV, and about which he said to the lawyers: you have taken away the key of knowledge (Luke XI. 52). The power of the keys is either of order or of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction itself is either in the external forum, by excommunicating, suspending from office, granting indulgences, and enacting laws (generally: legislative, judicial, coercive); or in the internal, by remitting sins. All this most ample and adequate power of the keys was promised by Christ the Saviour to Peter alone in this place (Matt. XVI) » (Stapleton, Opp., T. I, de Princip. fidei, l. VI, c. 1).

It is enough to have indicated these things in passing, so that from the very way of speaking of the ancient theologians it may appear that the magisterium and the imperium of jurisdiction in the Church were so understood by them that neither did they themselves call their distinction into doubt, nor did they think it could be called into doubt. But lest the distinction itself be taken in a perverse way, its formal reasons must be defined a little more precisely. For the sake of clarity and brevity we shall consider the supreme power in the head of the Church, from which application to the power of the lower grades can easily be made, with the limitations which follow from the subordination and dependence of the inferior on the superior being, of course, saved and retained.

2°. First let it be noted what the union is between the key of the magisterium and the key of jurisdiction. The whole material object of the sacred magisterium is also, or can be, the object of jurisdiction; and conversely, supreme jurisdiction, at least insofar as its acts refer to the governance of the whole Church, includes infallible magisterium. When the revealed doctrine of faith or of morals² is defined by the Pontiff ex cathedra or in an ecumenical Council, the definition itself includes both infallible magisterium and supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church; or rather, the definition is made, with the Holy Spirit assisting, by an act of infallible magisterium, insofar as the doctrine itself is declared divinely revealed, or at least a truth closely linked with a revealed dogma; but an act of jurisdiction is included insofar as the doctrine, by the definition itself, is intimated to all the faithful (or rather, to all the baptized) to be held under the penalty of an explicit or implicit anathema or of another censure. Besides, the Church, by the power of jurisdiction, surrounds the divine faith, the divine laws, and the divine institutions, for their safer custody and application, with its own laws too, as with a wall and a rampart; it exercises its judgments against transgressors and enacts its penalties. But in all these things, if not in time, at least by nature, there is presupposed the formal, or equivalent, declaration by the magisterium of the truth of the doctrine, of the laws, and of the divine institutions. Likewise, on the other side, the Church, in its laws which it enacts by the power of jurisdiction concerning universal governance, the sacred liturgy, and the holiness of Christian morals, at the same time, in the same act, exercises the power of magisterium concerning the honesty and holiness of its own such laws; and on this foundation of infallible magisterium rests the infallibility of the Church in governing and legislating. Insofar as an act of magisterium directly or at least indirectly regarding the whole Church is or is not included in laws and precepts, from this is taken the proper reason for the distinction which Bellarmine (de Rom. Pontif. l. IV, c. 5), with other theologians, draws between « precepts of morals », in which the Roman Pontiff cannot err, and « those in which it is not absurd that the Pontiff errs. »

3°. That this union and at the same time distinction may become clearer and be more effectively proved, let us consider « the supreme power of jurisdiction » and « the supreme power of magisterium also » in the Roman Pontiff; of which the former was defined in chapter four and the latter in chapter five of the Constitution Pastor aeternus in the Vatican Council. Chapter four is « on the force and nature of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. » The formal conciliar definition declares this force and nature to be « full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church »; and a little before, in the doctrinal exposition, it is said of the power of jurisdiction that « to it the pastors and faithful of each rite and dignity, both singly and all together », are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience. Now this power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience toward it, is taught to be valid not only, indeed, but yet above all in matters that pertain to faith and morals: full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, « not only in matters that pertain to faith and morals, but also in those that pertain to the discipline and governance of the Church spread throughout the whole world. » The power of jurisdiction, therefore, is over the Church, over pastors and faithful, who, both singly and all together, are bound toward it by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience; and this also, and especially, in matters pertaining to faith and morals; but it is not said to be a jurisdiction over the matters or the doctrine of faith and morals. Even concerning these matters, concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, the supreme power is comprised in the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, which is the power of infallibly defining the truth of those matters, namely the doctrine of faith and morals, with the Holy Spirit assisting; but of this the Council treats in the following chapter five, as of a power distinct yet not separate, since both are contained in the primacy, from the power of jurisdiction which it had declared in the preceding chapter four.

After the force and nature of the primacy has thus been defined, by which the Roman Pontiff has full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, the Council teaches that, besides this, and together with it, « the supreme power of magisterium also » is comprised in the Apostolic primacy itself. It is not sufficient, therefore, to believe the supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church also in matters pertaining to faith and morals; together with it is to be believed the supreme power of magisterium also.³ There were among Catholics, before the definition of the Vatican Council, those who indeed admitted the Roman Pontiff's supreme power of jurisdiction in matters pertaining to faith and morals, insofar as, namely, it was already established, from the consent of the Church or from the definition of an ecumenical Council, what the truth of matters of faith and morals was; but they denied, or called into doubt, or at least contended that it was not to be defined as an article of faith, the supreme and by this very fact infallible power of magisterium. The Council, however, does not in any way exclude — as is manifest in itself — that to exercise the power of jurisdiction in matters pertaining to faith and morals, the truth of the doctrine must at least in order of reason be presupposed; but it teaches that in the Pontiff himself there is not only the supreme power of jurisdiction but also of magisterium, by virtue of which, in defining a doctrine of faith or morals, he is endowed with infallibility through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, so that his definitions are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church.

From definitions of divinely revealed truth issued by the fullness of the power of magisterium — which (as Suarez rightly said) is nothing other than infallibility through the assistance of the Holy Spirit — there immediately arises, for all, not only the baptized but also the non-baptized, and therefore those not subject to the jurisdiction of the Church (considering the matter in itself and abstracting from excusing ignorance), the obligation of divine faith on account of the authority of God revealing. At the same time, however (as we have already said), in the definition itself the supreme power of jurisdiction is exercised, to which all pastors and faithful are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience; while the Pontiff, discharging the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, not only by defining the revelation of truth makes it certain for all to be believed with divine and Catholic faith (which is done by the supreme power of the infallible magisterium), but also by his supreme power of jurisdiction enjoins on all Christians subject to him the duty of true ecclesiastical obedience, and he fortifies the custody of the divine faith itself with ecclesiastical penalties, either implicitly or explicitly, as in the dogmatic canons.

The Council itself, in so far as the pastoral office is the supreme magisterium, declares two functions by which it is evidently distinguished, in its formal reason, from the power of jurisdiction specifically so called. First, in order that the Roman Pontiffs might satisfy this pastoral office of the power, namely of the magisterium, of which alone it there treats, « they always gave untiring labor that the salutary doctrine of Christ might be propagated among all the peoples of the earth; » secondly, « with equal care they watched that where it had been received it might be preserved sincere and pure. » Therefore the supreme power of magisterium extends also to the non-baptized unbelievers; for not by voluntary charity alone, which can and should belong to any Christian, but by virtue of the pastoral office, the supreme power of magisterium comprehends all the peoples of the earth to be taught by the command and institution of Christ: « Go, teach all nations. » But the supreme power of jurisdiction specifically so called is over the whole Church, i.e., over all who are bound to the Church by baptism, and not over others: « For what have I to do with judging those who are outside? For God will judge those who are outside. » The former therefore, by Christ's institution and divine right, extends more widely than the latter; and by this very fact they are understood to be distinct. But is it perhaps the case that within the Church, in order that doctrine be preserved sincere and pure, the magisterium does not act under its formal aspect, by which it is distinguished from the power of jurisdiction? Indeed, the Council describes most clearly how the Roman Pontiffs, above all and especially, preserve the sincere and pure doctrine of Christ, not now by the power of commanding or of jurisdiction, but by that which, according to the prayer and promise of Christ, « I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail », is the power, with the Holy Spirit assisting, of infallibly knowing, expounding, and defining the revelation handed down by the Apostles, and thus of guarding the deposit of faith. This description indeed says nothing other than that fullness of the power of teaching with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and infallible certitude, which the ancients called « the key of knowledge »; the Council, however, most aptly, according to the constant doctrine and manner of speaking of Scripture, calls it « the supreme power of magisterium ». In the dangers that arose in matters of faith, the Council says, the Roman Pontiffs, according to the condition of the times and of affairs, employing now one and now another aid, « defined those things to be held which they had known, with God's help, to be consonant with the Holy Scriptures and Apostolic Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter so that they might, by his revelation, make known a new doctrine, but so that, with his assistance, they might holily guard and faithfully expound the revelation handed down through the Apostles. » Moreover, all the orthodox Fathers and Doctors followed their expounded and defined doctrine as Apostolic: from what reason, I ask, first and chiefly moving them? Namely, « fully knowing that this holy See of Peter remains untouched by every error forever, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour made to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and you, when you have turned again, confirm your brethren. »

Nevertheless, as we have already declared above, in the definition and custody of the deposit the supreme power of jurisdiction is joined and subjoined to the infallibility of the magisterium. The Council itself indicates this conjunction of both powers sufficiently, not only in chapter four, as we have seen, but also in this fifth chapter « on the infallible magisterium ». It places indeed, as the matter itself requires, for knowing, expounding, defining, and guarding the revelation handed down by the Apostles (of which it had spoken in the preceding context), first and principally « this charism of truth and of faith that never fails, divinely conferred on Peter and on his successors in this chair ». The function of infallibility in teaching, or of infallible magisterium, must be first in every definition and in the custody of the deposit; for from this charism comes their irrefragable certitude and irreformable firmness. Nevertheless, the successors of Peter, instructed by this charism, discharge their lofty office not only « so that the whole flock of Christ may, through them, be turned away from the poisonous food of error and nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine », but also « so that, the occasion of schism removed, the whole Church may be preserved as one, and, resting on this foundation, may stand firm against the gates of hell ». All of which things, because and insofar as doctrine is concerned, though they require at least in order of reason the prior function of infallible magisterium, this function, however, in the present order of providence is not, and cannot be, alone in the visible militant Church; but to this very end of unity and firmness the power of jurisdiction is also joined and subjoined even in doctrine, which, after what has been said above, needs no further declaration.

4°. Now we can set forth, as it were in one view, the chief distinctions we have brought out between the power of magisterium and the power of ecclesiastical rule, or of jurisdiction specifically so called.

a) In the amplitude of its extent, from the institution of Christ the Saviour of the world, the power of magisterium reaches more widely than that of jurisdiction: to all nations, not only those already gathered into the Church but also those to be called into the Church. Hence, in its place we shall see that many things were prescribed and done in the discipline of catechumens, as they are still done now according to the condition of times and affairs, which might seem to proceed from the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; certainly, however, they had and have their foundation not in this but in the power of magisterium.

b) The object of the magisterium, formally considered (i.e., insofar as it is magisterium), is the infallible manifestation, exposition, and definition of the divine doctrine, of the law, and of the sanction in rewards and penalties by divine justice; and, through this infallibility in teaching, the custody of the whole sacred deposit.

The object of jurisdiction is not the manifestation of revealed truth and law, but its application, defense, and vindication in the Church, by the laws, precepts, judgments, and sanctions proper to ecclesiastical rule, of that truth and law as manifested through the infallible magisterium.

c) From the authentic preaching, exposition, and definition of doctrine as revealed by the infallible magisterium there immediately arises the obligation of obedience of divine faith (ὑπακοὴ πίστεως, Rom. I. 5; Gal. III. 2), i.e., obedience of faith on account of the sole formal motive of the authority of God revealing; although which truths, and in what sense, are to be believed as revealed is made known through the proposition of the infallible magisterium: we believe whatever the Church proposes to be believed, because God has revealed it. This is what Augustine said: « We therefore, who are and are called Christians, do not believe in Peter (as the formal object on account of which we believe, and as the end toward which we tend by faith), but in him in whom Peter believed, built up by the words of Peter (through the magisterium derived from Christ) about Christ... That master of Peter, Christ, in the doctrine which leads to life, he is our master » (one is your master, Christ, revealing, and by the magisterium participated in Peter and in the Church preserving the revealed doctrine) (Augustine, City of God, L. XVIII, c. 54, n. 1). And this obligation of obedience of faith, precisely because it is on account of the authority of God revealing, is equal in all; to it the defining Pontiff or Council is subject no less than any other men, whether within the Church or (considering the thing in itself and objectively) outside the Church. The power of jurisdiction indeed is also instituted by Christ the King and derived into his kingdom, the Church; but it is an ecclesiastical power proper to the Pontiff and to others to whom it is communicated in an ordinary office, by virtue of which they govern not by divine but by their own ecclesiastical laws, judgments, and sanctions; and by all these they also apply, guard, and vindicate, toward their subjects, the doctrine and the divine law handed down through the infallible magisterium, subjects who in Christ's kingdom are liable to jurisdiction according to hierarchical subordination.

Therefore the power of jurisdiction concerns, per se and immediately, not internal but external acts in the visible kingdom of Christ; the power of magisterium first and per se attains and binds the inner mind and will. Hence, whoever denies by an interior act alone a doctrine defined by the power of the infallible magisterium is, before God and in his conscience bound to God, a heretic who falls away from the unity of faith and of the Church, so long as he persists in this sin; he is condemned not by the judgment of ecclesiastical jurisdiction but by that of God and of his own conscience. But when he betrays heresy by an external act, he is subject to the power of jurisdiction and to its judgment and penalties according to the sanctions of ecclesiastical laws. This distinction, certain on other grounds theologically and juridically, we have declared more expressly in the dogmatic Constitution defining the preservation of the Mother of God from every stain of original sin. After the words of the definition, pronounced indeed from the fullness of the power of the infallible magisterium, declaring this doctrine to be revealed by God and therefore to be held firmly and constantly by all the faithful, the Pontiff concludes: « Wherefore, if anyone should presume to think in their heart otherwise than as has been defined by us, which God forbid, let them know and further understand that they are condemned by their own judgment, that they have suffered shipwreck in the faith and have fallen away from the unity of the Church; and besides, by that very act they subject themselves to the penalties established by law, if they have dared to signify what they think in their heart by word or in writing or by any other external means. »

Therefore the power of magisterium concerns not only the external forum but, proximately and directly, the internal forum. The power of jurisdiction of which we speak pertains to the external forum, because although it indeed binds conscience before God, nonetheless by its laws, judgments, and sanctions it is occupied, proximately and directly, with the objects of the external forum. For the power of jurisdiction in the internal forum is of a different kind, and sacramental, for remitting sins in conscience and before God.

d) The power of magisterium does not constitute its own object, namely the truth of doctrine and of divine law; but by infallibly declaring it as revealed by God, it adds nothing of its own and takes nothing from the divine, as the holy Fathers have so often warned (cf. Tract. de Tradit.). Hence doctrines and laws once infallibly proposed or defined by the magisterium are unchangeable, and there is no power of abrogating, changing, or dispensing from them.⁴ By the same reasoning, the interpretation of divine law by the magisterium is only inherent; if at any time divine law seems to be applied by a somewhat extensive interpretation, this is done through the legislative power of jurisdiction.

On the other hand, the power of jurisdiction constitutes its own laws, and thus new law is established, or can be established, which, both in its origin and in its force, or in its dispensation, modification, or abrogation, depends on the very power of jurisdiction.

Hence there is that difference of language in the definitions of the magisterium, declaring the truths of faith to be believed, and in the decrees of the power of jurisdiction, establishing ecclesiastical laws to be observed; which St. Athanasius explains, as the Nicene Fathers employed it excellently. « About Easter they wrote thus: the following decrees have been made (ἔδοξε τὰ ὑποτεταγμένα); for then it was decreed that all should obey. But about faith (namely about the creed and the truths defined in it) they did not at all say it has been decreed, but thus the Catholic Church believes; and at once they confessed what they believe, so as to declare that their view is not a more recent but an apostolic one; and what they wrote was not invented by them, but is the very thing the Apostles taught. » (Athanasius, de Synod. Arimin. et Seleuc. n. 5.)

There are therefore weighty reasons for sacred Theology why the power of jurisdiction, which in its diversity from the power of order is generally considered and called so, is itself distinguished in the kingdom of the truth of faith and the holiness of morals: insofar as it is the supreme power of ecclesiastical rule, or of jurisdiction specifically so called, over the whole Church; and insofar as it is the supreme power of the infallible magisterium; just as the ecumenical Council itself defined and declared each of them in distinct chapters, not confounding them as one but enumerating them as two; so that these two keys of St. Peter are to be deemed joined together and inseparably united, yet not confused into one; since both were indeed given by Christ for binding and loosing, but in a different way, with regard to the extent, to the special object, and to the efficacy or nature of the loosings and bindings.